A Peace See-Saw - (Indolink.Com, 03/05/2002)

-- By Dasu Krishnamoorty

The American invasion of Iraq, sidelining the United Nations, has pushed the world at large into a variety of political predicaments and confusion. It takes time to know if the Iraq experiment is a one-time show of military muscle or part of a new world order George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld are fashioning. In the midst of these war games, India´s Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee sprang a peace initiative directed at Pakistan. These winds of peace are indicative of the reach of the Iraq effect. One may recall that pressed by the opposition to make a clear statement of his government´s stance on the American intervention in Iraq, Vajpayee had to do a lot of tight rope walking. Despite its protestations to the contrary, Washington has a major stake in using Pakistan to preserve the balance of power in the region. US-Pak collaboration in South Asia is now half century old.

Though there are rival claims about who waved the olive branch first, Vajpayee clearly wrenched the initiative by visiting Kashmir, the first such visit by any prime minister in fifteen years, and extending from across the border his hand of friendship to Pakistan. Then followed last week´s history of a hectic round of phone calls between Islamabad and Delhi. As a first step, India is sending back its high commissioner to Pakistan and also resuming civil flights between the two countries. Pakistani Prime Minster Zafrullah Khan Jamali assured that Pakistan would respond in a concrete form.

On both sides, there seems to be a thaw on the two important bones of contention: Kashmir and terrorism. One significant shift in Pakistan´s stance is its tactical comedown on Kashmir. It is ready to come to the negotiating table without its usual insistence that Kashmir be the first item on the agenda of any dialogue. This may have something to do with the telephonic diplomacy of US Secretary of State Colin Powell. More important is the declaration of Pakistani president of the United Nations Security Council that he has no plans to include Kashmir issue in the agenda of the council meeting. He prefers to do it as an envoy of Pakistan but not as the council president. Its Foreign Minister Khursheed Mahmood Kasuri said the same thing in an interview to BBC. This has saved India the embarrassment of insisting on this as a precondition for talks.

There is also a lurking danger of mediators trying to enter the troubled waters in the subcontinent. Delhi has always maintained that Kashmir is a bilateral issue and opposed third party intervention. However Pakistan´s willingness to entertain mediation and American interest in the region enhance the need to cautiously navigate this thorny terrain. There is a vibrant democracy in the Indian side of Kashmir, the result of a free and fair election supervised by a fiercely autonomous election commission. What is in place in Kashmir today is a truly people´s government unlike the puppet regime in Pak-occupied Kashmir.

In addition to the constant pressures Pakistan exerts on the Indian defense machine through direct and proxy wars, it loses no opportunity to raise the Kashmir issue at whatever forum, proper or improper, that opens up for intrusion. Its efforts to persuade the UN to discuss the issue are a non-starter because the UN itself has abandoned debate on Kashmir as irrelevant. The original Pakistan does not exist any more after the birth of Bangladesh. Is Pakistan ready to yield a stake to Bangladesh in the Kashmir territory under its occupation? Will Pakistan troops withdraw from occupied Kashmir to facilitate a plebiscite? On the other hand, every election in the Indian side of Kashmir should be considered as a plebiscite.

While making the offer, India too abstained from referring to cross-border terrorism and closure of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. But terrorism is bound to raise its ugly head the minute meaningful talks between the two sides resume. Islamabad may even be naïve enough to think that proxy terrorism will lubricate the negotiations in its favor. Gen. Musharraf assured no one in particular that he will make all-out efforts to confront terrorism. Though this has not figured in the flurry of statements making and welcoming peace moves, it will be unwise for India to start a dialogue without some proof of respite in terrorist activity.

All this cynicism around Pakistan´s promises to stop cross-border terrorism and infiltration has roots in its deliberate failure to check both. Following the September 11 terrorist blitzkrieg, Gen.Musharraf promised to ban all jehadi outfits. Yet scores of such organizations eluded the net. Several hundred known terrorists were arrested to mollify American sentiment but very soon many of them were set free. With the snows melting on the Kashmir hills, there is going to be a surge in terrorist infiltration with a potential to bring both countries to the brink of another confrontation.

It is evident that all this euphoria will have a very short life unless Pakistan cries a halt to this peril. A civilian government in saddle has greater chances of pulling off this wonder. With the clout they have now over the civil/military regime in Pakistan, the Americans are well placed to get Pakistan to totally dismantle terrorist infrastructures and defuse a volatile situation in the region that always precedes the kind of Pakistani adventure in Kargil. It is Islamabad´s responsibility to help Delhi forget the memories of terrorist attacks on its Parliament, the temples at Ahmedabad and Jammu.

In reality, management of nuclear facilities in both countries is a greater priority than some of the matters that figured in last week´s peace pleasantries. In this, the nature of the regimes makes all the difference. India´s nuclear trigger is firmly under civilian control. In Pakistan, it is the army, a euphemism for Gen. Musharraf, which takes decisions on the use of its nuclear arms. It enoys a record of providing nuclear help to Iran and North Korea, both blacklisted by the United States. Pledges from both sides are necessary to prevent another confrontation. On record, India has declared it would never exercise its first strike option. Musharraf has said he would not hesitate to do that.

These developments were greeted with relief both at home and abroad. Russia was one of the first countries to congratulate India on its peace overture. Its Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov conveyed to his Indian counterpart his country´s support for all measures taken to achieve political stability in the region. Colin Powell hailed the events as ´very, very promising at a time when we were beginning to wonder whether or not we were not going back to the potential of conflict.´ British Foreign Minster Jack Straw also endorsed these sentiments.

In contrast to the fierce opposition from his own party, Vajpayee received overwhelming and positive response from parties which are not partners of his coalition. The Congress, the main opposition party, favored uninterrupted diplomatic discourse even as the Marxist Communist Party stressed on people-to-people contacts. The Communists argued for a phased restoration of normal relations beginning with a resumption of civil flights between the two countries.

It is also time that the western world realize that nearly all the peace initiatives so far have come from Delhi and not Islamabad, author of all hostilities so far. It does not make much sense in equating both sides. That will only harden whatever opposition there is in India to making gestures ad infinitum. There is now ample evidence to show that Pakistan is the source of anti-Indian terrorism. These are realities that have an impact on the outcome of any dialogue between the two countries.

Dasu Krishnamoorty is a former edit page editor of three national dailies and associate professor at Indian Institute of Mass Communication, New Delhi.