The Hindu : The peace process and the fear factor

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Mar 28, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

The peace process and the fear factor

By K.K. Katyal

There is no change in the calendar of contacts between India and Pakistan, finalised by their Foreign Secretaries in pursuance of the Vajpayee-Musharraf statement of January 6. But the earlier optimism about the outcome has given place to some anxiety. Officials in New Delhi do not hide their fears that the U.S. decision to designate Pakistan as a `major non-NATO ally' could have a negative impact on the peace process. However, New Delhi, it is pointed out, will adhere to the letter and spirit of its commitment.

The first meeting envisaged in the Foreign Secretaries' package — between the top officials of the BSF and the Pakistan Rangers — was held in Lahore last week after a gap of three years. And the technical-level talks for a bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad (in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir) are due to be held on April 8 and 9. Also last week, experts from the SAARC countries — including, of course, India and Pakistan — — were here for talks on taxation, investment and arbitration. Their job was to find ways to avoid double taxation and work out a regime of investment guarantees and related matters. Though not part of bilateral contacts, this exercise was immensely important for economic dealings between the two countries.

Because of the preoccupation of the political bosses in India with the general elections, there had been no in-depth official review of the situation, created by the U.S. action. This job could only be performed by the new government, to be in office in the second half of May. There was a delay of two days in the official reaction to the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell's surprise announcement of a new deal for Pakistan, because the External Affairs Minister, Yashwant Sinha, was touring his constituency in the interior of Bihar and the Foreign Secretary, Shashank, was away at Geneva for the meeting of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights. Even Gen. Powell (from Washington) had difficulty in establishing telephonic contact with Mr. Sinha.

Most other meetings and contacts, in the road map of the Foreign Secretaries, are scheduled to be held from May-end onward, that is, after the assumption of office by the new government. The experts from the two countries are to meet in the last week of May for talks on nuclear confidence-building measures. In June, the Foreign Secretaries are to take up the first two of the eight outstanding issues, listed by the two sides - 1) peace, security and confidence-building measures and 2) Jammu and Kashmir.

The remaining six items are to be considered by officials concerned in July. And August will witness the all-important meeting of the two Foreign Ministers.

This schedule is unlikely to change but there is bound to be a thorough appraisal of the state of India-Pakistan relations by the new government. This is because of the past experience — of a major setback to India-Pakistan ties whenever Washington sought to establish special military relationship with Islamabad.

Two recent developments attracted special notice here. One, the unilateral interpretation of the joint statement by the Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, and, two, the episode at Geneva where Pakistan used the meeting of the U.N. Commission to rake up allegations of human rights violations against India.

The Pakistan delegate cited a portion of the recent deliberations of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, known for its hostility towards New Delhi, leading India to rebut the charges, exercising its right to reply. Interestingly, Algeria dissociated itself from the remarks made by Pakistan.

The present situation (in the India-Pakistan context) may, hopefully, be different, but on two earlier occasions — in 1954 and in 1980s — Washington's action in forging close military alliance with Pakistan, officials note, exerted a highly negative influence over the relations between the South Asian neighbours. In the first case, Washington's Mutual Defence Agreement with Islamabad and its induction into SEATO caused a major disruption in India-Pakistan talks. It was at that stage that the U.N. resolutions were rendered untenable. The U.N. envisaged a demilitarisation process but, as the Prime Minister of the day, Jawaharlal Nehru, remarked, a major step towards militarisation had been taken as a result of the U.S. move.

In the 1980s, the intensified U.S. engagement with Pakistan in the struggle against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan emboldened Islamabad to step up terrorist activities in Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir.

Because of the past experience, New Delhi is apprehensive that the latest U.S. move may result in resurgence of hardliners in Pakistan, leading, in turn, to a tough stand by the Government.

The U.S. says its action is in the interest of an effective fight against terrorism. In practice, it may have the opposite effect, unless Washington gives a harder push to Pakistan to move decisively against terrorists operating on the Indian front and to dismantle their infrastructure.

By May-June, the snow would have melted in the Kashmir valley and it would be clear whether the slowdown in infiltration of terrorists in the winter was the result of weather conditions or of a genuine change in Pakistan's policy.

The Pakistani establishment is, clearly, happy with the U.S. decision. But non-official opinion is not that euphoric, there being serious reservations in some quarters. A columnist in The News says: "All that is necessary is that we do not act as pawns in another's game."

The Urdu daily, Nawa-i-Waqt, gives vent to prevailing suspicions against the U.S., by citing a popular couplet: "Take care, the cup-bearer may have mixed something in the booze."

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

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Global mission or machinations?

A year under the yoke

Hamas after Yassin

All the cacophony over dynasties

The peace process and the fear factor