The Hindu : Looking through the Pakistan prism

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Feb 27, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Looking through the Pakistan prism

By Amit Baruah

NEW DELHI Feb. 26. It came straight from the Prime Minister. Atal Behari Vajpayee told presspersons that he felt the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) might be divided on the Iraq question before travelling to the leaders' summit in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday.

Mr. Vajpayee appeared relieved that the NAM leaders took a united position on Iraq. There were debates and discussions, changes and alterations but in the end the 116-nation grouping came out with a resounding "no" to any unilateral military action, including those without the support of the United Nations Security Council. The draft on Iraq went through without any changes.

The NAM declarations and statements are long and winding; they are comprehensive and in today's world appear to be quite an achievement given the vast differences in worldview. Of some interest was the adoption of a separate statement on Palestine, which "condemned systematic human rights violations and reported war crimes by Israel".

It called for the immediate withdrawal of "Israeli occupying forces from Palestinian cities" to positions prior to September 2000. It said "settler colonialism" was the "main danger" to the realisation of Palestinian rights. On the issue of "reported" war crimes, it "noted the role" of the International Criminal Court.

For many nations, including in a few instances for India, some of the language used in NAM formulations hark back to what many may think is a bygone era in international relations. India's new Israeli friends may be concerned that New Delhi was a party to the statement on Palestine. But issues such as Iraq and Palestine can hardly be wished away.

Iraq may be hogging the limelight currently, but the issue of Palestinian rights cannot be brushed off just because some elements in that movement adopt terrorist methods. Indian officials did well to ensure that New Delhi's position on counter-terrorism was appreciated in the summit declaration, including the all-important reference to the U.N. Resolution 1373.

India, however, took a certain position on opposing references to "root causes" in the final declaration of the summit. Mr. Vajpayee said in his speech that "root causes" was a method by which Pakistan justified terrorism against India. But that doesn't detract from the fact that the Palestinian people have a just cause or that not all Palestinians are suicide bombers.

Given the fact that many current world realities may be linked to the Palestinian question, requisite consideration to context is necessary. Just as many Indians consider the LTTE as an organisation that doesn't hesitate to use fascist methods, they also understand that the Tamil people living in Sri Lanka have genuine, real grievances and the Sri Lankan State must address these issues.

In the case of Pakistan, even the people of Kashmir have begun raising questions about what "cause" Islamabad and its establishment had in mind. Groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Muhammad don't believe in "root causes", they simply believe that "infidels" must be gotten rid off. To use a cliché, one size doesn't fit all.

In promoting India's legitimate concerns about Pakistan, there is a danger of looking at everything through the Pakistani prism.

On the issue of root causes, India may have ended up differing with many of its friends.

Privately, even some Indian officials have expressed concern over the negotiating strategy adopted on occasion in Kuala Lumpur. They referred to it as the "let's give it to them" school of diplomacy.

India appears to be in danger of losing the once pre-eminent position it enjoyed in NAM. Some may even argue that such a position may be in the overall interests of Indian foreign policy. (While the Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad's strident speech may not have won him many friends and could have been more appropriate for the OIC, his views were given serious consideration by NAM leaders and nations alike.)

Taken in the context of India's harsh stand against Bangladesh (Pakistan, as always, is in a category of one), one can only wonder whether such official positions are in the best national interest. Is the BJP-led Government doing all this in preparation for the general elections next year?

Is foreign policy to be an extension of domestic electoral requirements? If that is the case, then such views could have both short-term and long-term consequences for India, its foreign policy and how the country is viewed abroad.

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Let the wagons roll

Affront to the founding principles

Budget and the neighbours

BJP reigns and RSS governs

Looking through the Pakistan prism

Misfit in Central Hall

Nothing ethnic

Salute the approach

Sacrificial lamb