| |
After the Kathmandu Handshake: Resume Indo-Pak Dialogue
Praful Bidwai
India-syndicate.com, 14 January 2002
The BJP is playing a dangerous game of brinksmanship with Pakistan for narrow political ends. It could easily snowball, even into a nuclear confrontation. Pushing Mushharaf to breaking-point would be counterproductive. Good, clean, straight diplomacy is the need of the hour
It is typical of the clumsy working of India’s and Pakistan’s foreign offices that there is endless speculation over what transpired in Kathmandu between their Foreign Ministers. The camera captured their interaction. But they deny it. Messrs Jaswant Singh, Brajesh Mishra and Abdul Sattar met about four times to discuss a "road map" for de-escalating their on-going confrontation. Sri Lankan President Kumaratunga facilitated the interaction. However, New Delhi has since hardened its stand, in line with Mr Advani’s US visit. It must respond positively to Islamabad. Regardless of the adequacy of Gen Musharraf’s new "anti-terrorist" moves, both states should radically re-orient their postures. India has so far pursued a strategy of nuclear brinkmanship, while Pakistan has reluctantly yielded to India’s - and America’s - "anti-terrorist" demands.
India’s brinkmanship involves a warlike posture, backed by large-scale military mobilisation, calculated to get the US to exert pressure on Pakistan. Ratcheted-up hostility and harsh sanctions are part of this strategy. This falls just short of war which will be domestically opposed. This strategy has had some success. Islamabad acted against Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed within hours of the US banning them. It has rounded up 300 suspects. Yet, the success is too limited to allow the BJP to declare triumph.
Brinkmanship is fraught with danger. It depends excessively on the US. Military build-ups have their own logic. In the superheated subcontinent, a skirmish can snowball. India’s objectives are diffuse and subjective (how effective is "effective" action?). New Delhi has no clarity about how far Gen Musharraf can go in meeting India’s demands. It underestimates jehadi opposition to him. These groups have staged bomb explosions and killed his home minister’s brother. Above all, brinkmanship risks a nuclear conflagration. This calls for a change in India’s strategy.
For its part, Islamabad must act more firmly against terrorists. The world knows how Inter-Services Intelligence has promoted extremism in India, Afghanistan, and Pakistan itself. Gen Musharraf will make a signal contribution to Pakistan’s stabilisation and normalisation if he cuts the umbilical cord between the ISI and Kashmiri militants - as he did with the Taliban. He is under enormous pressure from the US, which in turn faces pressure from India, and its powerful pro-Israeli domestic lobby, which is seriously alarmed at the possibility of a transfer of Pakistan’s nuclear technology to anti-Western, anti-Jewish militants. The US is deeply suspicious of Islamabad’s political, financial and military support to extremist groups in South and Southwest Asia over the years.
However, Gen Musharraf cannot be pushed beyond certain limits without jeopardising his survival. He held unprecedentedly long consultations before arresting LeT’s Hafeez. A new US Congressional research report says a crackdown on madrassas could cost him his job. It is easy for Islamabad to target gangsters and Khalistanis on India’s list of 20. But Kashmir is another matter. It is seen as linked to Pakistan’s "core identity". No Pakistani ruler can be indifferent to Kashmir. India’s leaders lack an intelligent assessment of how much Gen Musharraf can deliver. Pushing him to breaking-point would be counterproductive. What is needed is good, clean, straight diplomacy. It is critical to decide on what constitutes the right, principled compromise today. Asking that Pakistan hand over to India all the 20 named men may not be realistic. There is no extradition treaty between India and Pakistan. International law does not mandate extradition without one. That too can be only done for specific offences, not "terrorist activity" generally, and after a magistrate confirms a prima facie case.
It should be enough for India if Islamabad hands over to Interpol or a third party one or more persons in the suspects list, with international Red Corner Notices against them. After this, the two should resume dialogue to inaugurate a new era in their relations. It is of paramount importance that the Vajpayee government recognises a good deal when it is offered one. Or else, a precious window of opportunity could slam shut.
Will the BJP/NDA muster the courage to open a new chapter in India-Pakistan relations, not premised upon hostility? For Hindutva, Indian Muslims are Pakistan’s "Fifth Column". Pakistan is the external expression of Islam’s "internal threat" to Indian "nationhood". The BJP faces a pressing political issue too: the Uttar Pradesh elections. If it loses them, the NDA could itself come tumbling down. The BJP is set to do extremely badly in UP, winning just 70 to 100 seats in the 403-member Assembly. The BJP has tried every trick to avert defeat. Its last two trump-cards were, ironically, mandal and mandir. It created sub-quotas for the Most Backward Castes, promising 40,000 jobs. But there is no money to back that promise. The Ram plank isn’t turning out to be a vote-catcher. The "anti-terrorism" platform seems more productive. "Anti-terrorism" allows the BJP to combine jingoistic nationalism with anti-Muslim agendas. It can pretend to be "tough" on Islamabad-to the point of risking war, and putting the secular parties on the mat. This hope may be desperate, even futile. Macho anti-Pakistan postures are not as popular as might seem. The Kargil war, despite the politicisation of coffins, didn’t prevent the loss of half the BJP’s UP Lok Sabha tally, and a three percent vote erosion nationally. Eventually, "anti-terrorism" may yield just a couple of percent more votes.
Will the BJP stoop low and pursue brinkmanship for such a measly gain? Can’t it recognise that its best bet lies in putting Pakistan firmly on the road to moderation? Will it choose unstable, compromised power in UP over the abiding national interest in mending relations with Pakistan and combating militant-group terrorism? Here is Mr Vajpayee’s litmus test. If he has any leadership qualities, he should go beyond provincial calculations and bring about a breakthrough with Pakistan. Can he rise to the occasion? Or will he plunge a billion people into war, terror and more violence?
Copyright 2002 India-syndicate.com
|
|
