Read
Editor's Column on the Same Subject
Read
an Indian Scholar's Views
Is This the First
Genuine Break Between the Two Warring South Asian Neighbors
By
Praful Bidwai
IN
THE SHORT, month-long, span from Diwali to Eid, India and Pakistan
seem at last to have made some real, and long overdue, progress
— at least in moving away from the "atmosphere of confrontation"
between them, as Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali put it,
if nothing else. This may lead to the first genuine break in the
sordid confrontation between the two neighbors since December
2001.
By
the time these lines appear in print, the guns on both sides of
the Line of Control (LoC) and the Actual Ground Position Line
(AGPL) in Kashmir, including Sachin, should have fallen silent.
That
is itself a cause for a celebration of sorts if only because a
ceasefire would end the wanton, random, casually callous shelling
that both sides indulge in regularly, routinely — not so
much to make strategic gains, as for mere effect, just to appear
macho and ready to strike and to hurt and kill. Few other parts
of the world have probably witnessed such purposeless wasting
of human life and the property of poor villagers as occurs with
sickening frequency across the India-Pakistan border — and
that too to the accompaniment of "Allah-o-Akbar" and
"Har-Har Mahadev", slogans that embody the vulgarization
and militarization of faith as few war-cries do.
This
arguably represents a new moment of hope. The credit for it should
go to moderate elements in both governments, who at minimum recognize
that their mutual confrontation cannot go on forever, and that
prolonging it imposes heavy political and social costs upon them
week after week. We must hope that these elements will be able
to make further advances and build big peace constituencies in
each country.
What explains the new development,
in particular Jamali’s November 23 announcement? It is possible
that Islamabad made its (tremendously welcome) ceasefire offer
because of a growing perception the world over that Pakistan is
reluctant to sever its connections with extremist groups, and
that its support to the "war on terrorism" is at best
half-hearted. Several recent statements by Western leaders and
commentators, including Tony Blair and Richard Armitage, reflect
this perception.
President Pervez Musharraf himself
acknowledged the seriousness of this impression, when he reportedly
told a group of senior journalists last Thursday that the world
has started doubting Pakistan’s sincerity in conducting
the "war on terrorism" and that the Major Powers expect
Islamabad to "do more" to capture al-Qaeda fugitives
and restrain and stop aiding militants in Kashmir.
The provenance of, and motive behind,
Jamali’s ceasefire offer is, beyond a point, immaterial
— just as it is irrelevant to ask precisely what motivated
New Delhi’s October 22 proposals. Both governments know
the world wants them to end their confrontation; it is watching
them closely. What is pertinent is that Jamali made the offer
in the first place. Two things about it are significant.
One, it is unconditional —
unlike the ceasefire half-proposal made by Musharraf when he met
Indian MPs and journalists in Islamabad in August, and which he
repeated in his address to the United Nations General Assembly
in September. Musharraf then demanded that India stop its "repressive"
actions in the Kashmir Valley.
Jamali’s unilateral offer created
a special kind of moral pressure on New Delhi to respond in a
"very, very positive manner", as Foreign Minister Yashwant
Sinha put it. (Unilateral goodwill moves always have a good chance
of being reciprocated in South Asia.)
Second, Jamali’s proposal is
not reactive; indeed, it breaks out of the pattern set seven months
ago in response to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s
"hand-of-friendship" offer from Srinagar. That is why
the new proposal is unburdened by too-clever-by-half tactics,
such as contrived counter-offers for involving the United Nations
in an immigration and visa clearance role. It is also free of
awkward or controversial phrases. Indeed, Jamali has shown a remarkable
willingness to discuss India’s one month-old proposals for
starting a Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus and a Mumbai-Karachi ferry
and opening a road or rail link between Munabao in Rajasthan and
Khokhrapar in Sindh.
The Indian response too has been
helpful and positive, despite its reference to "cross-border
terrorism". New Delhi says that "in order to establish
a full ceasefire on a durable basis, there must be an end to infiltration".
More important, India has not made the beginning of a ceasefire
conditional upon anything. (Its comprehensiveness and durability
are of course another matter.)
If a ceasefire lasts even a few months,
its very existence could lower the temperature at the border and
pave the way for fruitful bilateral interaction around the South
Asia Association for Regional Cooperation summit in Islamabad
in early January.
A
more immediate test of New Delhi’s and Islamabad’s
commitment to normalization of relations and to mutual reconciliation
will come on December 1 and 2, when talks are scheduled to discuss
he resumption of civil aviation links broken for close to two
years. If Pakistan does not press its demand for an Indian "apology"
for banning over flights, or alternatively, for a bilateral agreement
never to suspend them in future, there is a very good chance that
the links will be restored.
Optimistically, that could provide
a breakthrough — not only by facilitating travel between
their cities, but also, and perhaps more importantly, through
the restoration of rail links and hence trade and commercial relations,
which too have long remained frozen.
At the end of the day, the success,
even the relevance, of SAARC will be determined by how fast and
how uninhibitedly its seven states, the world’s regional-trade
laggards, move towards cooperative economic arrangements. Crucial
to them is the India-Pakistan bilateral process, whose stalling
can hold all of SAARC a hostage. A good deal of groundwork has
already been done on closer India-Pakistan trade links. If the
process is carried forward, both states — and their civil
societies, including business groups — will develop a stake
in further economic cooperation and closer mutual interaction.
That’s the optimistic picture.
It is easy to build any number of pessimistic scenarios, including
a terrorist attack in India, sudden changes in the ground situation
in Afghanistan, further strengthening of communal forces owing
to domestic politics, etc. But we would all do well to invest
some energy in building and putting some flesh on the optimistic
scenarios.
Among the causes for optimism are
recent moves and tentative proposals to restore India-Pakistan
cricketing ties, hold sports competitions in a number of areas
including hockey and athletics across the two Punjabs, and not
least, a revival of the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline idea.
The truly positive thing about the new avatar of this idea is
that it seeks to make Pakistan a partner in the project and create
a collective stake in ensuring the safety and integrity of the
pipeline.
It
is ideas like these, and unilateral, goodwill-driven, attempts
to behave like responsible neighbors that will pull the two countries
out of the morass of dangerous eye-for-eye confrontation, extremist
nationalism, growing intolerance and war-mongering, and wasteful
military expenditure, all feeding upon unaddressed social and
economic agendas and the unfulfilled needs of their peoples. These
ideas are surely worth fighting for.
The
writer is a former Senior Fellow of the Nehru Memorial Museum
and Library, he is a winner of the Sean MacBride Prize for 2000
of the International Peace Bureau. Email: prafulbidwai1@yahoo.co.in
