Opinion - News Analysis   

Will agreements follow the buses?

Amit Baruah

Now is the time for a resolution of key disputes with Pakistan.

A JOURNEY WELL BEGUN: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with passengers of the inaugural Amritsar-Nankana Sahib bus service, in Amritsar on Friday. — PHOTO: PTI

SHOULD PRIME Minister Manmohan Singh have gone all the way to Nankana Sahib in Pakistan on the new bus from Amritsar on March 24? Or should a visit to Pakistan be linked to some tangible progress in the bilateral relationship?

There has been quite a debate within South Block on the issue. Insiders say one view is that the Prime Minister should have gone on the bus to Nankana Sahib. Others demurred. They felt that Dr. Singh's visit to Pakistan should not only be symbolic, it must yield concrete results.

The symbolism of a bus journey, of course, can be traced to the historic ride on the first-ever Delhi-Lahore bus by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in February 1999. The rather novel way of travelling to Pakistan generated considerable euphoria, but the Kargil incursion by Islamabad negated the gains of Mr. Vajpayee's visit.

A visit by Dr. Singh to Pakistan has been on the cards since President Pervez Musharraf invited him to Islamabad in April 2005. According to the joint statement issued at the time, India had accepted the General's invitation in principle, with the dates to be worked out through "diplomatic channels."

In the last couple of years, India and Pakistan have added substantially to cross-country transport linkages, including the new Amritsar-Nankana Sahib and the not-so-old Amritsar-Lahore bus services. Not to be outdone, the provinces of Rajasthan and Sindh, too, have revived the Munabao-Khokhrapar railway link.

Given the fact that every baby step taken in India-Pakistan relations deserves to be applauded, the time seems ripe to seal agreements on both the Siachen and Sir Creek disputes. With the guns having been silent since the midnight of November 25, 2003, there is no better time than now to come to an agreement on bringing the troops back from Siachen.

In the next few months, Dr. Singh is sure to meet Gen. Musharraf in some multilateral setting: a September session on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly is always on the cards. So, the exchange of views has now become an institutionalised process.

The Prime Minister should travel to Pakistan — by bus or by air — only when something substantial is in the bag. There is no earthly reason why agreements on Siachen and Sir Creek cannot be clinched if the two sides show political will.

Dr. Singh must go to Pakistan in 2006. But his visit must be preceded by a quiet, prior agreement on Siachen. Gen. Musharraf and Dr. Singh should then sit at the same table and announce to the world that their troops are getting out of the world's highest battlefield.

In his March 24 speech at Amritsar, the Prime Minister minced no words when he said Islamabad should not link normalisation of relations with India to a settlement of the Kashmir issue. At the same time, India was prepared to discuss and resolve all issues, including Kashmir, with Pakistan.

While calling for a "long view" of both history and destiny, Dr. Singh said forward movement was possible if all concerned were willing to accept ground realities. Ground realities between India and Pakistan implies the acceptance of the status quo. However, the Prime Minister did not stop here.

A change in existing borders, he continued, was not possible, but these could be reduced to being just lines on a map. Calling for free movement and trade across the Line of Control, the Prime Minister also envisaged a situation where the "two [Indian and Pakistani] parts" of Jammu & Kashmir work out "cooperative, consultative mechanisms."

A point of interest here is that the Prime Minister does not refer to "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir" or "PoK" — the favourite phraseology of official India. The use of the term "two parts" is significant — it is a dignified way of referring to the ground realities.

Obviously, neither India nor Pakistan is going to give up territory under its control. What did not happen during wartime, clearly, is not going to happen at the negotiating table.

Aides to the Prime Minister pointed out to this correspondent that Dr. Singh's speech was of a piece with his earlier statements on Pakistan. There was no dramatic departure from the past. Ultimately, if there was an acceptance of ground realities and a check on terrorist activities, the peace process between India and Pakistan, the Prime Minister added, must lead to a treaty of peace, security, and friendship.

Such a proposition can only be supported. Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri has welcomed Dr. Singh's speech in Amritsar. The nuanced ideas put forward there should also address Pakistani concerns that India has been slow to put forward its views on what a final settlement between the two countries could look like.

Gen. Musharraf can be faulted for many things. But he still controls the Pakistan Army and remains the best bet to sell a settlement with India to his people. The time to settle is now. Siachen will be a good beginning.

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

Stories in this Section

Renunciation and after
Making water a basic right
A protocol of engagement needed
Strategic interests and political lobbies
Will agreements follow the buses?
Corrections and Clarifications
Imperial overreach speeding U.S.' decline
Reprehensible
Widen the debate
Muddled indeed
Ban crying

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu