The Hindu : 'Hand of friendship' remains extended

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Apr 29, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

'Hand of friendship' remains extended

By Inder Malhotra

Seasoned observers of the national scene have noted that even eleven days after the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee's offer of a "hand of friendship" to Pakistan there has been no diminution in New Delhi's desire to resolve all issues with the next-door neighbour, including Kashmir, through peaceful discussions.

What makes this all the more remarkable is that during the intervening period there has been a disturbing escalation of terrorist violence in the Valley, typified by the suicide attack on the Srinagar offices of the All India Radio and Doordarshan.

Inevitably, this is interpreted by many to mean that promoters of cross-border terrorism in Pakistan are cynically disregarding the Indian position that talks can begin only after the infiltration of jehadis across the Line of Control (LoC) ends and the infrastructure of terrorism is dismantled.

Unsurprisingly, the Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, found it necessary to give expression to his concern over the ground situation. The BJP president, Venkaiah Naidu, went further and declared that Pakistan was "not sincere" in wanting talks or having peace in the subcontinent. And yet, the policy as spelt out by Mr. Vajpayee at the famous rally in Srinagar and elaborated by him at a press conference the next day remains in place. Quite noteworthy this, especially because only the other day senior Ministers were talking of Pakistan being a "fit case" for Iraq-type "pre-emptive strikes".

Whether and, if so, to what extent this policy would be fruitful depends on several imponderables. The most important is whether the perpetrators of terror would refrain from staging the kind of unspeakable outrages such as Nadimarg or Kaluchak. No less important is the point whether the United States that has been assuring this country that Pakistan would end infiltration across the LoC "completely and visibly" is able to ensure that this actually happens.

Nobody outside the higher echelons of the Pakistan army and the ISI can answer the first question. The answer to the second will be known only after the oncoming brisk bout of triangular, India-U.S.-Pakistan diplomacy is over. It will begin with a meeting at London's Heathrow Airport next week between Mr. Vajpayee's National Security Adviser and Principal Secretary, Brajesh Mishra, and the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage. Thereafter, Mr. Armitage would shuttle between New Delhi and Islamabad and the process will culminate in June in short sojourns in America of Mr. Advani first and then of the Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf.

Meanwhile, it is time to take note of Gen. Musharraf's unexpected and acutely embarrassing problem at home that is essentially of his own making. It arises from the defiant attitude of the entire Opposition in the new Parliament that was expected to be docile to, if not a puppet of, the military ruler.

On April 21, the General declared gruffly that he would "not address an uncivilised Parliament in the current circumstances". He was referring to the fact that Parliament had met four times and on every occasion it had to be adjourned because the Opposition, led by the alliance of Islamist parties called Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA), kept chanting, "Go, Musharraf, go". Nothing like this has happened in Pakistan ever before while a military ruler, combining in him both the offices of President and the Chief of Army Staff, has been in the saddle.

Ironically, one of the Opposition's demands is that in order to be President Gen. Musharraf must do off with his military uniform first and then should be elected duly by Parliament and the four provincial assemblies. This, he would never accept, because he would thus lose his real source of power. Nor would he accept the Opposition's second demand that the Legal Framework Order (LFO), the dubious device through which he has arrogated to himself extraordinary powers must be validated by Parliament by the requisite two-thirds majority or revoked.

Unless the Opposition relents, Gen. Musharraf would be left with no option but to dissolve Parliament and order fresh elections. But this would be an admission that the system he devised does not work. Moreover, there is no guarantee that another poll would not open a Pandora's box in Pakistan.

Gen. Musharraf would easily ride the current crisis not only because the army is the final arbiter of Pakistan's destiny but also because he enjoys America's support in whatever he does about the governing system in his country.

But the painful problem of Pakistan alternating between spells of absolute military rule and interludes of flawed civilian government remains unattended.

Sadly, Pakistan's highest judiciary has made a major contribution to this depressing state of affairs by upholding every seizure of power on the basis of the "doctrine of necessity".

In Gen. Musharraf's case, the Pakistan Supreme Court went much farther than it had ever done before. It gave the General, as an individual, the right to amend the constitution and then upheld his LFO.

No wonder then that a former Chief Justice, Sajjad Ali Shah, one of the most independent judges Pakistan has had, demanded the other day that not only Gen. Musharraf but also every single Supreme Court judge who had upheld his LFO should be put on trial.

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Seize the moment

Chauvinist politics

The working class

PDS: universal or targeted?

'Hand of friendship' remains extended

Indo-Bangla ties: arresting the slide