Opinion - News Analysis

Bilateralism the casualty

By K.K. Katyal

The outcome of the Armitage mission to India and Pakistan is to be hailed, primarily because it helped avert the threat of war. Also because it contained a promise for reduction of tension even though it may be a slow, calibrated process.

Equally significant were some other points. One, it represented the triumph of third-party role or ``facilitation'' over bilateralism. Two, the third country was not India's old friend, Russia: it was the U.S., with which a ``new beginning'' was made some four years ago. All this is certain to have a close bearing on the developments across the subcontinent in the near future.

Bilateralism, unfortunately, had touched a new low of late. It culminated in downgrading of the diplomatic missions in each other's capitals, just when the channels of communications needed to be working overtime. It was evident from the odd spectacle at Almaty where the heads of the two countries, the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, and the Pakistan ruler, Pervez Musharraf, who were among the 16 participants at a multilateral conference, studiously avoided any contact with each other. The diplomatic missions in New Delhi and Islamabad were used by the respective host governments for conveying angry messages rather than for the easing of tension.

Contrasting this bilateral chill were close intimate contacts by each of the two countries with the U.S.. This, along with the keenness of New Delhi and Islamabad to seek the good offices of Washington in support of their respective stand on the issues, thrown up by the current stand-off, gave the U.S. a leverage of which it made good use. India and Pakistan were prompted by different considerations in their approaches to the U.S.. Pakistan had been wanting to internationalise the issue of Kashmir, as also its other problems with India, and the current crisis, it thought, provided it another opportunity to move out of the purview of bilateralism. As for India, the main concern was cross-border terrorism — and the U.S., as the leader of the coalition that launched an operation against this menace after 9/11, was considered well-suited for help. Another important factor — because of the presence of its troops in Pakistan, the U.S., too, was India's nextdoor neighbour now. New Delhi, however, made a distinction between America's good offices in the fight against terrorism (which it welcomed) and its role in resolving the Kashmir issue (which was opposed).

Russia, too, was fully qualified to try its hand at facilitation in India-Pakistan matters. Moscow's relations with India were close and deep, particularly strengthened by cooperation in defence and other areas and their shared concern over terrorism, of which they were co-victims. Pakistan, eager for an opening to end the freeze in its relations with Moscow, jumped at the prospect of the Russian President Putin's role. Perhaps because he was new to this job, Mr. Putin did not quite grasp the finer elements of India-Pakistan adversarial ties. He set a too-ambitious, even though highly laudable, objective — of a meeting between Mr. Vajpayee and Gen. Musharraf. And if the reports of his plan for a trilateral meeting, either in Almaty or Moscow, had any basis, he had not made the right calculations. India, however, could have done well to welcome his initiative and encouraged him to play a role which, given the Delhi-Moscow ties, could not but be helpful.

Because of its status as the only superpower, the U.S. will continue the job it had undertaken. The Armitage mission marked the latest stage in the process which will be carried forward during the coming visit of the U.S. Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. The U.S., it was known, had been blunt in exhorting Pakistan — in the words of President George Bush — to ``live up to the commitment to end all support to terrorism'' while stressing on India the need for responding with de-escalatory steps.

The U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, was forceful in conveying the message to Gen. Musharraf in Islamabad and was able to get an assurance that the terrorist infiltration would be ended permanently. There was, thus, a strong compulsion for India to reciprocate. It is expected to announce some goodwill measures soon — and with that New Delhi would do well to keep up the momentum.

At some stage — sooner than later — mutual contacts would need to be re-established and bilateralism, the casualty of the current crisis, would have to be the currency for this purpose. It would be ridiculous for the two countries to be communicating with each other through Washington all the while.

War clouds may have thinned but the period ahead will be crucial. The Pakistani papers have not highlighted the assurance of Gen. Musharraf to end infiltration permanently — for which, there may be domestic compulsions. The emphasis, on the other hand, is on ``resolution of the core issue'' in the hope that it would be the culmination of current American moves.

Bilateralism will get a fillip if the two sides undertake mutually reinforcing steps — and if, apart from other things, the snapped rail and air links are restored. The noted leader of the human rights movements in Pakistan, I.A. Rahman writing in Dawn today, made out a strong case for restoring the links between the civil societies. ``One great cause of tension,'' he says, ``is the unwarranted severance of relations between the civil societies of the two countries. Only public effort can liberate the people of their death-wish. It is a pity that the governments of Pakistan and India have ousted civil society from their counsel at a time when its contribution is needed the most. Resumption of traffic between the two countries appears to be one of the surest ways to avert war.''

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

• War talk takes its toll
• Every drop counts
• Bilateralism the casualty
• Paying the piper
• Scaring them away
• Weapons of the weak

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