Opinion - Leader Page Articles

An opportunity missed

By K. K. Katyal

The first visit of an Indian Minister to Pakistan after the recent escalation could have been put to constructive use.

WHAT HAPPENED during the visit of Sushma Swaraj to Islamabad for the SAARC Information Ministers' Conference served to convey a rather unhappy message — that an immediate end of the India-Pakistan standoff was not in sight. It was an unintended message, communicated at the very start of the meeting with the highlighting of the issue of India's ban on Pakistani overflights. Not a good augury; for though Mrs. Swaraj's trip was not meant to be an occasion for bilateral discussions, it could have been used by the two sides for discreet, subtle inquiries on mutually acceptable ways to break the ice. It was not destined to be that way.

The first visit of an Indian Minister to Pakistan after the recent escalation and could have been put to constructive use. True, New Delhi had made it clear that Mrs. Swaraj was to take part only in the SAARC meeting and was not to engage in bilateral discussions which could appropriately be conducted by the Minister for External Affairs or a functionary of the Ministry. There had been several instances in the world where major diplomatic moves were initiated through indirect, informal channels and yielded positive results. But there was an essential pre-requisite — political will. Obviously, it was lacking in this case, both in Islamabad and New Delhi.

Given the intricacies of the India-Pakistan problem, every opportunity, formal or informal, should be grasped for finding a way out. Informal or preferably unpublicised back-channel moves could yield better results than formal contacts, under media glare. Had not such an initiative before and after the Lahore meeting made considerable headway? It even survived the Kargil conflict but collapsed after the coup in Islamabad. The Sushma visit could have been used for paving the way for some such initiative.

That ways need to be found for the resumption of flights by the aircraft of India and Pakistan over each other's territory — as also for re-starting rail and road travel — had been the subject of lively discussion in the past few weeks. For instance, the issue cropped up through informal comments at Kathmandu in early January when delegates from Pakistan for the meetings of the SAARC and South Asia media conference complained of the difficulties caused by the long detours they were forced to make. But it did not acquire the adversarial dimension witnessed at Islamabad. The Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, could have briefly responded to the Bangladesh Minister's complaint of the discomfort caused to him for the journey to Islamabad and avoided the theatrical gesture — of an on-the-spot offer to lift the ban if Mrs. Swaraj had the authority to do so from the Indian side. He need not have over-stretched the point. On her part, Mrs. Swaraj could have avoided labouring the technicality that the SAARC, in the terms of its charter, was not a fit forum for taking up bilateral issues. She could have explained New Delhi's position — as she did in the subsequent TV interview.

That the ban on the SAARC taking up bilateral matters should be removed was the known position of Pakistan and it had made use of every SAARC summit to call for an amendment of the charter. There was nothing wrong in Pakistan — or, for that matter, any other member-country — suggesting changes in the norms of the SAARC's functioning but the final decision rested on consensus, which had been elusive. There was no need for India to be touchy on this subject. It could have just expressed the contrary viewpoint.What is the outlook for de-escalation? Going by the official stand of New Delhi, immediate steps for de-escalation seem unlikely. This is evident from the recapitulation of the positions taken by the two Governments (without passing a value judgment). First, the Indian stand. The build-up on the border, undertaken after the December 13 strike on Parliament House, was intended to secure an end to cross-border terrorism. New Delhi did see a bold departure from the past in Gen. Musharraf's January 12 speech but felt that the new orientation was sought to be limited to the domestic scene, leaving uncovered the Kashmir-specific activities of the militants. Such references as "Kashmir is in our blood" and reiteration of "moral, political and diplomatic support to the Kashmiris" were seen as continuation of the old approach and hence a matter of concern. The assurances by Pakistan (and, at its instance, by the U.S.) that the anti-terrorism package of the General was certain to have a beneficial effect on India failed to allay fears. The real test was to be the ground situation in Jammu and Kashmir. Officials in New Delhi say they have not been able to reach a firm conclusion, chiefly because there is a drop in the level of violence around this time of the year because of the snowfall in the region (which has been unusually high now). In another two to three months, it would be possible to make a correct assessment. Then there is the list of 20 wanted persons, given to Pakistan some time back. At one stage, there was some hope of Pakistan talking to the Indian side on this subject. Islamabad was not prepared to discuss the cases of six of them, Pakistani citizens, and, by implication, appeared willing to talk about the others. Subsequently, however, it had second thoughts — as such the impasse continues.

New Delhi may be willing to relax non-military embargoes — the suspension of rail and road traffic, prohibition of overflights and recall of the High Commissioner from Islamabad — in the case of meaningful discussion on the list. As for the de-escalation on the border, New Delhi insists on credible evidence of efforts on the other side to check infiltration across the LoC. What India looks for is a sea change, not a statistical comparison with the terrorist activities in the past. It says it has a yardstick to find whether irreversible anti-terrorist steps had been taken.

The Pakistani view. The General went a long way in addressing Indian concerns, related to the December 13 attack. The organisations linked by India with terrorist activities were banned and their accounts seized. There was a clear indication that Pakistani territory would not be allowed to be used as a springboard for violent activities in India. As a result, there had been a marked decline in violence across the LoC, says Islamabad, citing, in support, the acknowledgement of this point by senior military officials. It sees signs of unannounced second thoughts by New Delhi, like the "clarification" that the freight traffic was not covered by the embargo on the rail journey, and reports of de-alert on the border by the Indian side (including the cancellation of "no leave" and "no courses" orders for the defence personnel) and movement of administrative units away from the border. With this evidence of improvement, there is no case, it says, for continued escalation.

The versions of the two sides are conflicting. The Sushma visit ran into difficulty. The political stances continued to be rigid. But if the objective reality has changed for the better, it needs to be made known — and serve as the basis for appropriate diplomatic moves.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Trade power
• Woes of a visitor
• An opportunity missed
• Reversing distorted perspectives
• Communalism in the time of war
• Judicial restraint
• A flawed system
• Gender bias
• Secular majority
• They are PoWs
• Kerala's loss
• Adoption laws

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu