G. Parthasarathy

India has realised it should develop a coherent policy of regional and global economic integration if its voice is to be heard in the councils of the world. But its flip-flops on Nepal and failure to join issue with Bangladesh on crucial matters have undermined its credibility. Most important, vis-à-vis Pakistan, populist rhetoric is no substitute for diplomatic realism, says G. Parthasarathy.

AS THE Manmohan Singh Government approaches the first anniversary of its assumption of office, objective observers will acknowledge that the soft-spoken economist-Prime Minister has left his distinct mark on the world stage. Despite pressures from his Communist allies and the predilections of some in his own party, Dr Manmohan Singh has been a realist in understanding global power equations.

He has realised the need for India to develop a coherent policy of regional and global economic integration, combined with accelerated economic growth, if it is to become a power whose voice receives attention in the councils of the world. He has dealt with major power centres such as the US, China, Japan and traditional friends such as Russia in a manner that has led to ourneighbours across Asia recognising that India cannot be ignored, or excluded from major forums in the Asian region.

Dr Manmohan Singh has not hesitated to use the dynamics of the Indian market to promote India's influence. This was evident from the manner in which Indian Airlines placed orders for the Airbus aircraft, while Air-India placed a much larger order for Boeing planes. Further, the progress that has been achieved without too much fanfare in promoting India's association with the East Asian Summit reflects a sound approach to the realities of economic power.

It is such realism that has characterised recent developments in relations with Pakistan. The Pakistan President, Gen Pervez Musharraf, has for long claimed that India fights shy of discussions on Kashmir. He proposed that all options not acceptable to either party should be excluded from consideration.

Dr Manmohan Singh, in turn, became the first Prime Minister to categorically state that division of any part of India on religious lines, or any redrawing of boundaries was unacceptable. Gen Musharraf had earlier stated that declaring the Line of Control as an international border is unacceptable to Pakistan. This should pose no problem to us, as we have maintained that the whole State of Jammu and Kashmir is an integral part of India.

It is evident that the gap between the positions of the two sides on Jammu and Kashmir can be bridged only incrementally by progressively easing the movement of goods, services, investments and people across the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir. It would, however be imprudent for us to either slow down our defence modernisation, or believe that Pakistan is going to become a bosom chum in the near future. One has only to read school history textbooks in Pakistan to understand the depth of the communal animosity directed at us.

We had earlier sought postponement of the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation summit because of the then prevailing law and order situation in Bangladesh. What was surprising about the announcement of the meeting of Mr Natwar Singh with his Bangladeshi counterpart in Bandung was the absence of any mention of the brutal killing of an Indian BSF Commandant on Bangladeshi soil.

Did the External Affairs Minister take up that issue strongly with his Bangladesh counterpart, while agreeing to new dates for the Dhaka SAARC Summit? Do we believe that relations with Bangladesh can be dramatically turned around by ignoring the reality of continued Bangladesh support for groups now being declared international terrorist organisations?

It is no secret that our covert capabilities have been eroded in recent days due to internal bickering at high levels of government. Have we adequately developed these capabilities for promoting our interests in recalcitrant neighbours? The flip-flops recently seen on the entire question of resumption of arms supplies to Nepal have confused important powers that have let us take the lead on the issue. They have undermined our credibility and given the impression that we have a weak and vacillating Government, unable to steer a consistent course in the face of pressures by domestic lobbies.

Rulers in the neigbourhood see these as manifestations of Indian weakness that they can take advantage of. India must learn to manage relations with its South Asian neighbours in a more credible manner. It is now acknowledged that there are differences within the Government about the course adopted after the royal coup in Nepal.

While Dr Manmohan Singh sought and obtained a national political consensus on policies towards Nepal, this consensus barely exists today, thanks to some aggressive lobbying by interested parties, including those with business and other links with the Nepalese Royal family. This is an undesirable development. There has also been far too much rhetoric in recent days about the extent of support for our candidature as a Permanent member of the Security Council. The hard reality is that a group of around 40 countries, led by the likes of Pakistan, Argentina, Mexico, Italy and South Korea, has emerged. This grouping does not wish to see the quartet of Brazil, Germany, India and Japan emerge as permanent members of the Security Council.

Those who have visited the UN in New York recently note that it is no secret that this group enjoys quiet, but firm backing from China. More important, we lack credibility when we speak of "democratisation" of the world order, on the one hand, and demand veto powers in the Security Council, on the other, rather than building world public opinion for total abolition of veto powers.

Indian public opinion should be made better aware of these facts. Populist rhetoric is no substitute for diplomatic realism. It is evident following the announcement in Bandung that the next SAARC Summit would be held in Dhaka towards the end of May, that there will be another meeting at the level of Prime Minister between India and Pakistan. The Pakistan Prime Minister, Mr Shaukat Aziz, lacks the authority of his boss, Gen Musharraf.

The Dhaka meeting may, however, provide an opportunity for both sides to work out some mutually acceptable mechanism that prevents delays in implementing major hydro-electric projects in Jammu and Kashmir, while assuring Pakistan that the projects will not lead to our utilising the waters of the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab for consumptive purposes.

I recently met a number of political figures from Haryana and Punjab who have returned from visits to Pakistan. They spoke like those who used to believe that candlelight vigils in Wagah were the antidote to cross-border terrorism. A weird impression seems to prevail that merely by stressing linguistic affinities, the two parts of Punjab can set the pace for Indo-Pakistan amity. It is true that the concept of "Punjabiyat" does help to promote goodwill.

But it would be naïve to believe that such bonhomie impresses those who wield power and run the Pakistan Army's GHQ in Rawalpindi.

Pakistan will seek good neighbourly relations with us only when its rulers realise that the policies they have pursued over the last two decades have been counterproductive and that alternatives are needed in the present global environment This appears to have been the message that Gen Musharraf and Mr Shaukat Aziz, gave the country's military commanders on April 25 and April 26, immediately after Gen Musharraf returned home from his visits to India, the Philippines and Indonesia.

Gen Musharraf, however, rubbished and virtually disowned past agreements, like those signed in Tashkent, Simla and Lahore, when he was in New Delhi. What guarantee does India have that his successor would honour what he says, or that he would not go back to his old habits when circumstances change? Dialogue has to be coupled with discretion.

(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line