Silence Is Golden

The spat between A.B. Vajpayee and Pervez Musharraf in Kuala Lumpur is in stark contrast to the position the Indian PM adopted at the 1998 Durban NAM summit. Then he said, "This is not the place to air the differences in some of our positions. The Shimla Agreement, which both India and Pakistan have ratified, provides an agreed mechanism for resolving these differences amicably among ourselves."

New Delhi's foreign policy specialists feel Vajpayee should have desisted from responding to Musharraf, more so since foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal had articulated India's views on the Pakistani chief. Asked about the possibility of Vajpayee shaking hands with Musharraf, Sibal had responded, "What, shake hands with a terrorist?"

Former foreign secretary J.N. Dixit is surprised that the prime minister countered Musharraf point by point. "I would have simply said that 'all that Musharraf has said only underlines the fact that by hook or crook, Pakistan wants to capture j&k. The basic message I want to give to President Musharraf is that Jammu and Kashmir will never be alienated from India'."

Dixit faults Vajpayee for debating Kashmir on Musharraf's terms. He says, "A clear and short message would've conveyed a stronger message. I've attended four NAM summits. Mrs Gandhi never replied point by point. She always said that she didn't want to waste the time of this august audience gathered here for a larger purpose, that the motivations of Pakistan were well known."

Adds M.H. Ansari, a former permanent representative to the UN and vice-chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University, "Any argument can be rebutted but you don't have to froth at the mouth. A good batsman does not play according to the wishes of the bowler but crafts his own batting strategy."

K. Natwar Singh, who heads the Congress' foreign affairs cell, would have wanted Vajpayee to completely ignore Musharraf. "By responding to Musharraf," says Singh, "Vajpayee has only given him more prominence. Pakistan revels in India responding to it at an international forum. Vajpayee has accorded him diplomatic equality. We should practice benign neglect in international fora where Pakistan attacks us."

Pakistan became a member of NAM at the 1979 Havana summit—and diplomats were straightaway astonished when, in transgression of the NAM Charter, it raised Kashmir. But Charan Singh's foreign minister, S.N. Mishra, ignored the outburst. It seems pointless to have responded to Pakistan in a body that is dead, and waiting to be buried. As Dixit points out, "Since 1986, NAM has been a failing organisation. But nobody wants to formally dissociate with it."

There's this view that Vajpayee's response was addressed to the ultra-nationalist constituency in India. Agrees Pakistan specialist Prof Kalim Bahadur, "These forums are all about publicity. General Musharraf is a publicity seeker. The audience is international. NAM is a community which comprises many Muslim countries who are concerned about these issues. Pakistan has been trying to get them to support its stance. For Vajpayee, there is the domestic audience in India which might well have asked why Vajpayee did not respond to Musharraf."

But didn't Vajpayee shake Musharraf's hand in Kathmandu last year? Obviously, Gujarat has inspired the bjp to return to its Hindutva agenda, which has strident anti-Pakistan rhetoric and policy as an important ingredient.

But former PM I.K. Gujral supports the prime minister: "Vajpayee was left with no option. I don't differ with him over his decision to deal toughly with Musharraf. But I disagree with him over his people-to-people policy—that implies relaxation of visas, restoration of travel facilities like train, road and air. This should be relaxed in order to distinguish between the relationship between two civil societies and the hard line forced on India by Musharraf's support for terrorism." But Vajpayee isn't expected to listen to him till the polls in 2004.