Cold Shake

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's three-nation trip to Europe last week had two distinct flavours. One, to re-emphasise Pakistan's role in sponsoring cross-border terrorism in Kashmir, and two, entice European capital at the third Europe-India summit on economic cooperation. As the summit concluded in the Danish capital, Copenhagen, it became obvious that the two issues were linked closely. But, more significantly, it was the differences between India and the European Union that stood out in stark contrast.

The proof of this was in the joint declaration the two sides issued: it neither mentioned the "K" word nor described Pakistan as the chief promoter of terrorism in Kashmir. Missing from the declaration was also a reference for the need to take de-escalatory measures in the subcontinent and for India and Pakistan to resume dialogue. The paragraph on terrorism was bland, only reiterating the "determination to continue to combat terrorism as expressed in the Declaration Against Terrorism adopted at the New Delhi summit of 2001, in cooperation with the international community and in particular within the UN framework."

Such a formulation doesn't implicate Pakistan in the terrorism the Valley is witnessing, and it also doesn't satisfy India. But all this could have been ignored or forgotten amidst what was achieved in the economic arena, had it not been for the blunt, even pugnacious, stand Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen adopted at a press conference. Asked why there was no mention of Kashmir in the declaration, Rasmussen, in his capacity as president of the European Council, said, "We didn't agree on the text," publicly testifying to the "differences in approach" between India and the EU on the issue. All this candour in the presence of Vajpayee and the entire Indian delegation.

Differences during negotiations are rarely articulated openly and are mostly ironed out even before heads of state meet. That there were varying perceptions on the issue of Pakistan sponsoring terrorism—and that the EU wasn't to follow the Indian line—was alluded to by Rasmussen at the pre-summit briefing itself. "I reckon we will discuss the situation in South Asia—relations between India and Pakistan—and the situation in Kashmir. It is extremely important that tension in the region is calmed. India and Pakistan ought to establish a dialogue on matters of security," he said. None of this found its way into the declaration.

Rasmussen's blunt remark at the joint press conference stunned the Indian delegation. Obliquely responding to his comment, Vajpayee outlined India's position: "The EU wants us to begin a dialogue with Pakistan. That is precisely what I had done when I went to Lahore on a bus ride. The reply I got was a war in Kargil. Even then I invited General Musharraf to visit Agra. But those talks too broke down due to Pakistan's adamant attitude." The Indian PM, who is held in high esteem by European leaders for being a democrat of long standing, reiterated what he said on his visit to Cyprus—talks with Pakistan can only be held if it stopped exporting cross-border terror.

But Rasmussen provoked the Indian delegation to immediately launch damage control. Foreign minister Yashwant Sinha held an impromptu press conference, sweeping aside the speculation of those who thought the Copenhagen meet was proof of India coming under increasing pressure from the "international community" to hold talks with Pakistan. Sinha said, "The US and the EU are the international opinion. We have told the EU our terms for talks. We will tell the Americans the same thing."

He also took the opportunity to counter European commissioner for external relations Chris Patten, the last British Hong Kong governor, who had told a newspaper that Indo-EU relations could not be seen within the prism of Pakistan. Sinha said India wasn't looking at all equations "within the prism of Pakistan", that it was in fact the EU and Patten himself who were looking at the situation within it. Earlier, at the summit, disinvestment minister Arun Shourie's argument was more direct: you cannot put the arsonist and fire-fighter in the same category, there has to be a difference.



With the EU unwilling to recognise this difference, Indian diplomats subsequently admitted the former's positioning had disappointed them. Fingers may, however, also be pointed at the ministry of external affairs. But as one joint secretary told Outlook, "The sheer stubbornness of Rasmussen's team had made any agreement impossible." Indian diplomats say while the stand was "not entirely unexpected, we are disappointed that the EU chose to ignore the successful elections in Kashmir which had vindicated our position".

In fact, Kashmir and terrorism dominated the trip. For the Indian PM, the divided country of Cyprus provided the ideal opportunity to draw parallels. On the day of his arrival, before a few hundred enthusiastic nris in a Nicosia hotel, Vajpayee laced his barbs at Pakistan with cutting humour. As the evening dragged beyond the prescribed hour, he asked, "Is Pakistan ready to accept Indian Muslims?" The prime minister also hailed the tiny island's long association with India. "When we did Pokhran, the whole world was against us, including countries that have carried out N-explosions themselves. Only Cyprus stood by us in our most difficult hour," he told the wildly cheering young Indian nris, most of whom hold lucrative IT jobs in this expensive and developed island in the Mediterranean. The evening ended with Vajpayee at his poetic best—on public demand.

An Indian PM was visiting Nicosia after a gap of nearly two decades (Indira Gandhi was the last to visit), and Vajpayee was generous in praising Nehru, pointing out the roads named after two former Indian prime ministers: while the Cypriot Parliament is situated on Jawaharlal Nehru Avenue, the Indian embassy is on Indira Gandhi Street. In addition, Vajpayee also did what Indian PMs routinely do on visits to a new place: inaugurate a statue of Mahatma Gandhi, located here next to the Parliament.

There was a feeling in some circles that India had overplayed its Pakistan-hand theme in Europe. Should Pakistan have dominated its agenda when the avowed objective of the visit was mainly economic? After all, India had signed five major mous with Cyprus as well. Foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal didn't think so. He told Outlook that the Indo-EU summit was an opportunity to present India's case strongly and it intended to do so, no holds barred.

Meanwhile, business leaders said that despite the security issues that invariably tend to dominate, economic prospects remained pretty bright. A full strength ficci and cii team was there just for that purpose. Despite the public quibbling on some issues, there were four areas in which agreements were signed—biotechnology, textiles and clothing, energy and financial services. EU remains India's largest trading partner and accounts for nearly $25 billion worth of bilateral trade. cii chief Ashok Soota said, "I was present at the second Euro-Indian summit in Lisbon two years ago and the enthusiasm hasn't waned a bit. The PM's presence and the high-powered Indian delegation is a redeeming factor."

Indian corporates are now acquiring companies in Europe, particularly in Germany, and with the growing membership of the EU, the potential for trade is enormous. The whole issue now boils down to the security situation. ficci secretary general Amit Mitra, recalling an earlier occasion, said the first question any investor asked was about the security situation in the country. "Thankfully, that is now changing. There is a queue of European industrialists who are looking for investments and our projected growth is expected to multiply in the years to come."

Clearly, in the end economics was the major gainer, perhaps, at the expense of politics. But equally clearly, those economic gains can easily be offset if the political and security situation in the country remains unstable. That seemed to be the conclusion of Vajpayee's foray into Europe.