The Hindu : Two addresses: a study in contrast

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Aug 16, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Two addresses: a study in contrast

By K.K. Katyal

The Independence Day addresses by the heads of India and Pakistan presented a study in contrast in many ways. But one subject — Kashmir and bilateral dealings — was common. It was, however, dealt with from their respective perspectives, there being no meeting point. Particularly conspicuous were the gaps in their positions on the coming Assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir and the views of each of the other's stances. As such there was no cause for cheer. No hopeful pointers emerged from the speeches, taken together. Two points were clear — one, Pakistan's conduct during the Assembly poll in Jammu and Kashmir will be crucial in shaping the course of bilateral relations in the near future and, two, the stage for dialogue will be reached after October — after the Assembly poll in J&K and the Parliamentary election in Pakistan, assuming, of course, that there is no major setback on account of the Assembly contests.

The Prime Minister, A.B. Vajpayee's address was brief, lasting some 25 minutes as against the Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf's oration, spread over an hour. Both of them appeared to have taken care to structure their subjects, if not the argument. Gen. Musharraf struck hawkish, even provocative, notes on Kashmir and related matters and, as was natural, this set the tone for Mr. Vajpayee's address, a day later. As on this occasion in the past, India was influenced by the quality of rhetoric from the Pakistan side. Had Gen. Musharraf been restrained, Mr. Vajpayee perhaps, would have been conciliatory. He felt compelled to give an appropriate response. But having done that, Mr. Vajpayee could have used the occasion for spelling out specifics to address the problem of Kashmir both in the internal and external contents and the India-Pakistan crisis. Those who thought he would do so were dismayed. He made one new point — that the Government would be ready for an open-ended dialogue with the elected representatives in Jammu and Kashmir.

The General spoke at considerable length because he had to do a lot of explaining to his domestic audiences on his campaign against religious extremists internally. He began with a lengthy narration of the history of the Pakistan movement, the vision of the architect of the new state, the sacrifices of that generation and contrasted it with the self-seeking next generation. This was, obviously, meant to build an alibi for the military takeover. This became clear when he referred to the ``mess'' in October 1999, the time of the coup and spoke of the remedial measures taken by him. Then came the hawkish line on Kashmir — to prepare the ground for the acceptability of his elaborate rationale of the Government's action against extremists who misused Islam. He pointedly mentioned the attacks on Christians, while taking credit for the arrests of the guilty.

Mr. Vajpayee began with a reference to Pakistan's double standards on terrorism and its keenness to use this weapon to grab Kashmir after the failure to achieve its objective through war. As for the prospect of dialogue, he repeated the known stand. With a slight difference.

In the past, the formulation used to be no talks till cross-border terrorism ends. Today, he said India wanted to live in peace with Pakistan like a good neighbour and, after mentioning Lahore and Agra, added that India was prepared to take more steps but Pakistan had to create a congenial atmosphere. He gave the analogy of European nations which had got over their enmities and asked why India and Pakistan could not do it.

As against the General's marathon comments on domestic matters, Mr. Vajpayee dealt briefly with the internal issues — the drought, the ``unfortunate'' communal violence in Gujarat, the problems of the power sector, etc.

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Replay at Red Fort

Uniting against a dictatorship

The people can provide the answers

France plays a hand

Two addresses: a study in contrast