The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : A wary peace process

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Apr 26, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

A wary peace process

By C. Raja Mohan

ISLAMABAD, APRIL 25. Even before the much-heralded peace process between India and Pakistan takes the first few steps, there is a growing wariness in both the capitals about the commitment of the other for a sustained dialogue.

In India, the recent statements of the Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, have been interpreted as signalling the intent to tear up the Islamabad framework that he had agreed with the Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in January and return to the old obsession with Kashmir.

India continues to doubt whether the Pakistani security establishment is on board the peace process. While New Delhi concedes the dramatic decline in cross-border infiltration since January it points to the rising levels of violence in the Kashmir Valley amidst the elections.

Pakistani analysts here down play the significance of Gen. Musharraf's remarks that he will be out of the peace process if there is no progress in the talks on Kashmir in the next few months. They insist that by "progress on Kashmir," Gen. Musharraf does not mean a settlement of the issue by July/August. They say Pakistan is not naïve to expect immediate resolution of a problem that has troubled bilateral relations for nearly six decades.

What Gen. Musharraf is looking for, the argument here goes, is the sincerity of the Indian purpose demonstrated by actions in Jammu and Kashmir such as troop reductions and improvement of human rights.

There is an apprehension here that peace with Pakistan was a mere tactical ploy for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. Informed sources here say Pakistan might have reasons to believe that once the elections are over, India will return to the old rhetoric on cross-border terrorism and use it as an excuse to get out of the talks.

Mere protestations of good intent from India on the talks or explaining away Gen. Musharraf's remarks are not likely to convince the other side. There is far too much accumulated mutual suspicion to proceed on mere good faith. For the moment, the two bureaucracies are just holding their breath and waiting for the political leadership on both sides to take charge of bilateral diplomacy after the general elections.

* * *

Western diplomats in both the capitals, who closely monitor the India-Pakistan peace process, are urging the two nations not to look too far down the road and to take one step at a time. Pointing to the rising expectations about the future of bilateral, they are urging both sides not to overload the simple tasks at hand with the ideological baggage of the past.

For example, the proposed talks on the bus service between Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus service have been delayed because technical questions on how to structure the negotiations have been burdened by political overtones. The key, according to Western diplomats, is to ensure that their basic positions on the issue of Kashmir are not undermined by the modalities of organising the bus service between the two cities.

Pakistan does not want the bus service lending credence to the idea that the Line of Control is a permanent International Border between India and Pakistan in Kashmir. India, on the other hand, would not want the mechanics of the bus service raising questions about its sovereignty. Diplomatic sources here say there are many ways of finessing these concerns and way out is not too difficult to find.

* * *

Diplomats are supposed to use words with great care. Even whey want to express displeasure against some one, there is a grace about the language that Foreign Offices everywhere employ.

But spokesman of the Pakistan Foreign Office, Masood Khan, seems to have overstepped all boundaries when he pronounced last week that the remarks of the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, as "foolish and irresponsible". He accused Mr. Khalilzad of suffering from "attention deficit disorder."

As the main voice of Pakistan's Foreign Office, Mr. Khan is not known to err on the side of caution. Mr. Khan's outrage on this occasion has been provoked by the remarks of Mr. Khalilzad that Pakistan is not doing enough to capture the remnants of the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda on the border with Afghanistan.

Mr. Khalilzad, who was born in Afghanistan and has a Ph.D. from Columbia University, has a formidable reputation as an academic and served in various capacities in the Republican Administrations over the years. Mr. Khalilzad was appointed Ambassador to Afghanistan after a stint in the U.S. President, George W. Bush's National Security Council.

In an attempted put down, Mr. Khan said Mr. Khalilzad was new to diplomacy and advised him against issuing statements and speak directly to the Pakistan envoy in Kabul or Washington or to call the "highly-professional U.S. Ambassador Nancy Powell" in Islamabad if he had a message for the Pakistan Foreign Office.

But the fact is that U.S. has two things to say — one is to praise Pakistan for its assistance against the Taliban and the other is to demand more action.

The missions in Islamabad and Kabul tend to underline only one of them. Even when you represent the same government, where you stand on an issue depends on where you sit.

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

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

ROGUE STATE BEHAVIOUR

CURB THE THACKERAY ITCH

A tale of two choices

Iraq: the violence spreads