Opinion - News Analysis   

SAARC summit dates bother Delhi

By K.K. Katyal

The controversy over the next SAARC summit has taken an unseemly twist — avoidably. The main question is not whether the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, is to take part in the next meeting (in Islamabad under the rotational arrangement) but whether it should be held in January next year or later.

To raise doubts about Mr. Vajpayee's participation is to put India in the wrong by causing ambiguity about its approach — of support — to SAARC. Not very long ago, India had to do a lot of defensive explaining because of its refusal to attend the summit to be held soon after the coup in Pakistan.

"Our Prime Minister would not like to be seen in the company of the murderer of democracy'' was one argument, in so many words. A momentary show of disapprobation of the military leader's presence at the summit barely two months after the coup in a member-country was understandable, but India's "no'' for over two years thereafter was not appreciated even by its friends.

There is a strong case to avoid giving the impression that New Delhi is lukewarm to summit participation because of its bilateral problems with the host country. To do so would be to walk into the trap laid by Pakistan, which had been wanting the SAARC to take note of its problems with India, especially when cooperation in South Asia is affected.

To counter this point, New Delhi used to cite the SAARC charter, which excludes bilateral and contentions issues from the purview of the grouping. India would need to take care against mixing the SAARC with a bilateral matter (which is what Mr. Vajpayee's decision not to go to Islamabad for the summit would mean). As a matter of fact, the Minister for External Affairs, Yashwant Sinha, stated as much at the last Ministerial meeting in Kathmandu. That was also the sense of a brief remark by the Union Minister of State for External Affairs, Digvijay Singh, recently. But official "clarifications'' tended to create confusion.

While the rotational plan of the summits is not to be tinkered with, there is nothing sacrosanct about the dates. In the past, the heads had met during various parts of the year — in the beginning, towards the end, or in the middle. For Pakistan to make the summit in January next year a prestige issue is somewhat inexplicable. Not all the members have accepted the tentative suggestions for the next meeting and, as such, the matter could be sorted out through quiet consultations. New Delhi is not to be blamed if it is not enthusiastic about the January schedule.

For two reasons. One, the political situation in Pakistan is in a state of flux. The election — or whatever exercise was conducted under this label — produced a hung National Assembly and a viable combination has not emerged despite intense consultations among the party leaders. It may be a government headed by a Prime Minister from the MMA, the combine of religious groups, or led by the King's party, the Muslim League (QA), or a coalition of anti-Musharraf forces or a national government. India would prefer a Prime Ministerial visit, even for the SAARC summit, to take place in a settled political situation in Pakistan — or, for that matter, any other host country. Also, New Delhi would like to be sure as to who calls the shots in Pakistan. On the face of it, the real power would continue to reside in the President (for the next five years) Pervez Musharraf. Who would represent Pakistan at the summit? The President or the Prime Minister (to be)? Whether or not the Pakistanis themselves regard the transfer of even the limited power, from the military to the civilian dispensation, a genuine affair.

True, these are internal matters of Pakistan — but these will have a bearing on New Delhi's decision on the timing of Mr. Vajpayee's unit.

Two, the post-election scenario in Jammu and Kashmir. As is known, there was a spurt in terrorist activities, mostly sponsored from the other side of the Line of Control, during the Assembly elections. If there is another spurt after the formation of a new government in Srinagar in, say, November, New Delhi would not find it easy to decide in favour of the Prime Minister's visit in January.

If, on the other hand, there is a pause — and it stays for a while — there would be no difficulty in taking a positive decision. But January would be too early even in that case.

Printer friendly page  
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

• Back to the barracks... what next?
• When an army moves
• Close calls
• SAARC summit dates bother Delhi
• The issue of conversion

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