Opinion - Editorials   

Unedifying wrangle

INDIA AND PAKISTAN have once again presented an unedifying spectacle by playing out their bilateral squabbles before the multilateral forum of the Non-Aligned Movement and, in the process, have dashed any hope of a reprieve from the acrimony that bedevils their relationship. By indulging in these vituperative exchanges, the leaders of the two countries have squandered the opportunity to re-establish direct links when they were in a mode and setting where neither needed to have felt constrained by the fear of losing face. In a context where the relationship is at a dangerous nadir, the Indian and Pakistani delegations could at least have explored the possibility of low-key contacts, away from the spotlights, so as to offset the sharp decline in the level of diplomatic exchanges between them. Pakistan's President, Pervez Musharraf, set off the ill-tempered debate between the two countries at the 13th NAM summit by quite needlessly thrusting the Kashmir issue in bold relief while adverting to the question of terrorism. There was little to be achieved by raking up this issue at a forum which has neither the mandate nor the interest to delve into it, especially in a context in which NAM is faced with many broad-spectrum and serious matters that require its serious contemplation (including the fundamental question of its own relevance). Gen. Musharraf's intervention could well have had the contrary effect of showcasing his country not as a middle-level power that can contribute significantly to the debate on global issues, but as a one-issue nation. The Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, representing a founding member and leading light of NAM as he does, should have refrained from responding to a Pakistani provocation that could have been, and indeed was, anticipated. While the Indian delegation has tried to retrieve lost ground by declaring that it did not want to stoop to Pakistan's level, that has in fact been the effect of Mr. Vajpayee's intervention. Another inadvertent effect was that India's long-held position, that bilateral issues should not be raised at such multilateral fora, was given the go-by. The global community's growing disenchantment with the endless mud-slinging between India and Pakistan, as much as the pointlessness of it all, appears to have been reflected in the cryptic comment by Malaysia, the host of the summit and the new chairman of NAM, that the matter was something that concerned the two South Asian countries alone.

India and Pakistan engage with other member-states of NAM at different levels and in varying degrees and they should have taken care to ensure that their mutual animosity did not sour the atmosphere and overshadow the exchanges which each would have with the others attending the summit. By publicly wrangling with each other, India and Pakistan misdirected energies that should have been more fruitfully devoted to the enhancement of the cooperation between developing countries as they face the multifaceted challenges posed by globalisation and the efforts of the great powers to change the rules of international conduct. Bilateral antagonisms needed to be submerged so that NAM, as the forum of countries that were once colonised, could construct a moral and legal defence against a geo-strategic conception which holds that the global community — and that usually means the superpower supported by a few allies — can intervene in the internal affairs of any nation that is labelled as being misgoverned.

Even with regard to the phenomenon of terrorism, the member-states of NAM have a perspective and understanding which is different from that of the advanced countries. The global campaign against terrorism can only be enhanced if there are contributions from countries that have different angles of perception. Instead of focussing on specific issues, and even while admitting that there may be a root cause for terrorism (without identifying such cause in every case), India and Pakistan could have worked with the rest of NAM to design suitable mechanisms that would allow the people of the developing world to deal with their multilayered miseries without resorting to terror.

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

• Unedifying wrangle
• Marked optimism
• Fresh breeze from Moscow
• Assam: accord and discord
• Buying support
• Common heritage
• Outrageous
• Politics-driven
• Old script
• Land for tribals

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu