The Hindu : The third thorny phase

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jul 31, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

The third thorny phase

By K. K. Katyal

The latest Powell mission to the sub-continent marks the third phase in India's relations with the U.S. and, for that matter, others in the West since September 11 which redefined international dynamics.

In the first flurry of diplomatic activity, India felt sidelined and Pakistan's relevance to Washington was re-established, mainly for geographical reasons. At the second stage, that is from the end of the last year till recently, there was deep understanding of India's concerns over cross-border terrorism, coupled with recognition that Pakistan-based jehadis and the Al-Qaeda cadres, who had sought refuge there, have to be dealt with sternly and that the Pakistan President, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, has to translate his assurances into reality. And now the third phase — of balanced Washington approach to the two countries, with reminders to Pakistan to put an end to infiltration completely, and exhortations to India to carry forward the de-escalation process and move towards dialogue with Pakistan. The sudden plain-speaking by the U.S. has not gone unnoticed.

New Delhi was visibly depressed during the first phase. Seeing Pakistan being welcomed warmly in the U.S.-led coalition. It was a case of extreme despondency. Later, after the December 13 attack on Parliament, India found great comfort from the appreciation shown of its concerns. Although the U.S. commended the January 12 anti-terrorism package of Gen. Musharraf, it recognised soon after the Indian view as regards the big gap between his words and deeds. Then there was the heart-warming spectacle of the Indian concerns becoming part of the U.S.-led struggle against terrorism.

Now, during the third phase, the U.S. shows impatience over the tardy advance towards de-escalation, and seeks to focus on the Kashmir problem and its solution. The visiting Secretary of State, Colin Powell's words that Kashmir was on the "international agenda'' and his plea for the presence of "enough outsiders to watch the Jammu and Kashmir election'' have shocked New Delhi.

Just as we went to the extremes on the first two occasions, we have over-reacted now to Gen. Powell's latest formulations. The dangers of this approach need to be realised. Yes, New Delhi is to reject — strongly and unequivocally — the "J&K on the international agenda theory''. It has to oppose the move for despatch of international observers. But should New Delhi be surprised by the U.S. move for "active interest" in the resolution of the Kashmir problem? Having sought and got U.S. intervention in the situation created by cross-border terrorism, India should have expected Washington to take the next step — of addressing (by facilitating India-Pakistan contacts and through other means) the Kashmir problem, especially when it had been talking of "continued engagement" in the sub-continent. While New Delhi is not to mince words against unacceptable formulations from Washington, there is a case for protecting the growing Indo-U.S. relations from the shadows of Kashmir-related controversies. If we had objected to the U.S. hyphenating its India policy with Pakistan, New Delhi, too, has to guard against hyphenating its attitude to the U.S. with the Washington line on Pakistan. Then there is a case for stopping what, as of now, is mentioned in whispers — that the former External Affairs Minister, Jaswant Singh, was responsible for tilting towards the U.S. and that this ``imbalance'' is sought to be righted by his successor, Yashwant Sinha. The Powell trip may not have been a resounding success but it did achieve some modest results. The U.S. was realistic in its calculations — it did not look forward to a breakthrough in the region, but counted on keeping the temperature down. It was reconciled to a delay in an advance either towards de-escalation or resumption of a dialogue till October — till after the Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir and particularly elections in Pakistan — but pinned hopes on positive processes picking up after that.

The danger of an armed conflict that loomed over the subcontinental horizon has no doubt receded, but as for a return to "normalisation'', two imponderables have to be reckoned with — one, whether or not Gen. Musharraf delivers on the assurances in regard to effective and permanent steps against export of terrorism from the areas under Pakistan's control; and, two, whether the Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir proceed reasonably well. A delicate phase is ahead.

Gen. Musharraf has taken an inflexible position, saying there is no infiltration of Pakistan-based militants and "I don't have to do anything because we have already done it''. New Delhi, on the other hand, is categorical that militants continue to cross the Line of Control from PoK. That the camps and other parts of the jehadi infrastructure were intact. The U.S. takes a middle position — yes, the infiltration has declined but not ended. At the same time, it affirms faith in Gen. Musharraf's assurance.

There is a strong case for the U.S. to pin the Pakistan President to his public statements and draw attention to the gaps between his professions and actions.

At the same time, New Delhi will do well to take steps to ensure credibility and fairness of the elections in Jammu and Kashmir. "International observers" of the type that had gone to certain parts of the world are not acceptable to India for reasons by now well known. It is one thing to oppose the presence of observers, with official status, on behalf of international organisations and agencies or governments but quite another to provide opportunity for watching the electoral process to known eminent persons.

The central point is credibility and it is in India's interest if it is ensured through conscious steps. If New Delhi succeeds in establishing the credibility of polls in Jammu and Kashmir, it would win more than half the battle against Pakistan on the Kashmir issue.

The former Prime Minister, I.K. Gujral, and 24 others have written to the Election Commission indicating their willingness to go to the State to watch the election. They do not ask for an invitation, only facilitation. How the Commission deals with the issue will be of interest.

What is needed is a nuanced approach and not parroting of cliches.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Kashmir and the international community

An indefensible move

Divide and rule

Engineers maligned

The third thorny phase

Enhance deposit limit

Disinvestment money

Repatriation of funds

Film censorship

No Nature, no tourism