National

To Talk Or Not To Talk?

India doesn’t want to legitimise Pakistan’s junta-for now at least

Advertisement

To Talk Or Not To Talk?
info_icon

"A dialogue is always desirable, but there must be some basis for it," says former foreign secretary T.N. Kaul. "If there’s some basis to conclude that talks will be fruitful, that there’ll be some improvement in bilateral ties, we should talk. But as long as Pakistan declares political, ‘moral’ and diplomatic support to militants operating in Kashmir, how can we talk?" Precisely what external affairs minister Jaswant Singh told Asiaweek in a recent interview. "India was the initiator of the Delhi-Lahore (bus diplomacy) process, which I believe was path-breaking. But our neighbour decided to turn the bus towards Kargil.... Thereafter Pakistan has slipped into internal convulsion and is yet to settle down from the consequences of the coup. We’re not averse to the dialogue process; we remain committed to it. But for that a proper environment has to be created. The least we expect is that this daily invocation of jehad stops. Unless Pakistan sheds this compulsive hostility, how are we to move forward?"

Advertisement

Former army chief V.N. Sharma refuses to mince his words. "We’ve had three wars with Pakistan in the last 52 years. We’ve had talks before and after them. And where has it got us?" Instead of "finishing" the job during each of the wars, India actually went out of its way to be "nice" to Pakistan, which in turn possibly encouraged Islamabad to continue its activities in Kashmir, he says. "This holier-than-thou attitude has been the bane of India since Independence. We’ve actually been making an ass of ourselves. It’s about time someone stood up and told these chaps where to get off. However, we’ve been following the policy of turning the other cheek, and getting slapped each time. How long should this go on?"

Advertisement

As regards the question of a plebiscite, Kaul warns that self-determination on the basis of ethnicity is a dangerous doctrine to apply to J&K. "Pakistan itself will be dismembered if this doctrine is applied across the board," he says, pointing to ethnic problems in Baluchistan and the northwest frontier provinces of Pakistan. "In fact," says Kaul, "if Pakistan thinks it can threaten us just because they have the bomb, they are living in a fool’s paradise. Even the two superpowers could not use the bomb against each other, since it is meant to be just a deterrent." However, he adds that, "Even though Musharraf was the man behind the intrusions in Drass and Kargil, it’s my personal impression that he is not a fool like Yahya Khan, who actually thought that the US and China would help Islamabad during the ‘71 war. Musharraf seems to be a wiser man, I hope he is wise enough to realise the folly of continuing these incursions."

Author and political analyst Achin Vanaik too calls for caution when it comes to talks with Musharraf, but says New Delhi should "act soberly instead of trying to capitalise on the situation". Deploring India’s attempts to use forums like the saarc to try and isolate Pakistan, he says: "This self-righteous attitude, of saying that Pakistan must prove itself worthy of talks with us, is not the way to go about it." Concurs Arpit Rajain of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, "I believe that negotiating and talking is the best way to prevent any misunderstanding. I feel India should reach out and talk." Adds he, "India is not reconciled to military rule in Pakistan, but the fact remains that the two nations are in a very different political-strategic environment now. If any misperception arises now, the cost to both nations will be much higher. So we must keep channels of communication open." Differentiating between negotiations and communication, he contends that given the mood in India, the time may not be right for negotiations, but the communication process should not be stalled. But, says he, "If Musharraf continues to stay in power for two or three years, will India refuse to negotiate for that entire period?" If both nations continue to take a hardline stand-Islamabad with its insistence on Kashmir being the "core issue" and New Delhi rejecting any discussions until Pakistan publicly dissociates itself from cross-border terrorism-"where do the relations between these two neighbours go?" he wonders.

Advertisement

"The bottomline," he concludes, "is that Musharraf’s in power. You can’t wish him away. And though the Commonwealth has suspended Pakistan, it continues to have a seat in the UN and other international fora, most of which seem to treat the new dispensation in Pakistan as just another change in government." Ignoring that fact might not be a wise thing to do. In other words, while talk may be cheap, continued silence could prove very, very expensive.

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement