The Burden Of Popular Optimism

JANUARY 3, 1994. The VIP lounge at Islamabad airport was teeming with journalists and officials. The then Indian foreign secretary, J.N. Dixit, and his Pakistani counterpart, Shahryar Khan, prepared to address the press at the end of the seventh round of foreign secretary-level talks. A Pakistani journalist asked Dixit how India would react if Pakistan moved an anti-India resolution on Kashmir at the upcoming UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva. Pat came Dixit's reply: Pakistan can move as many resolutions as it wishes to. That will not solve the problem of Kashmir, and India can live with resolutions "moved or unmoved by Pakistan".

In a combative mood, Dixit showcased the Indian stand quite succinctly: it would be pointless to battle the Kashmir dispute in international fora. Pakistan had done it for many years. The two countries must talk. He left for New Delhi soon after. And Shahryar Khan announced that foreign secretary-level talks could not be resumed unless India sent out substantive signals on Kashmir. These demands were articulated two weeks later in the two Pakistani non-papers despatched to New Delhi. The first sought modalities to hold a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir and the second suggested measures for creating a suitable climate to resolve the Kashmir dispute and other issues peacefully. Thus ended the process of dialogue initiated in 1989.

Three years down the line, while the respective positions of the two countries have remained unchanged on Kashmir, there is for the first time widespread public support in Pakistan to improve relations with India—for several reasons.

There is a new Prime Minister in Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, who does not carry the same political baggage as his predecessor, Benazir Bhutto, and is keen to brush up bilateral ties. There are hints that the Pakistani establishment may be rethinking its strategy.

And then there is a determined foreign minister in India, Inder Kumar Gujral, who says "it is an ambition of my life to sort out problems with Pakistan". Driven by his conciliatory doctrine, he even wants to go the extra mile as the representative of a bigger country.

On March 20, Gujral took a major "unilateral step" by easing travel and visa restrictions. Henceforth, Pakistani tourists will be allowed to visit India in groups and Pakistani businessmen will be eligible for a multi-entry visa valid for a year. And use either Delhi or Mumbai as entry/exit points if they travel by air. He followed it up by a host of other announcements. Young and elderly Pakistani visitors will not have to report to the police, the elderly need no visa fees, the number of religious shrines that Pakistanis can visit in India will be increased, cultural ties will be enhanced and cultural groups, artistes, writers, poets, journalists and students will be encouraged to visit India and last, but perhaps the most important, India will unilaterally permit the import of Pakistani books and periodicals, keeping within its general policies.

After years of a restive relationship, in which one country would pay back in the same abrasive coin for any abrasive act, Gujral has done his bit to bring a whiff of fresh, clean air. India, he believes, as the bigger country, should be generous to its smaller neighbours. Until now, the visa regimes on both sides have been restrictive to say the least. Neither country allows tourists from the other side. Under a reciprocal arrangement, Pakistani nationals could only visit India to meet relatives in India with a visitor's visa.

Now, it is up to Pakistan to respond. Says Imran Aslam, senior editor, The News, Karachi: "There is external pressure not only from the US, but also from international institutions to bring about peace".

Agrees Lt Gen. (retd.) V.R. Raghavan, former director-general, military operations (DGMO), now with the autonomous think-tank, Delhi Policy Group: "There is US pressure on both the countries, especially related to Kashmir and linked to nuclear issues". He says there are other factors as well. "Apart from the state of Pakistan's economy, seven years of its pronounced involvement in Kashmir and the visible demonstration of the Indian economic growth patterns have created a general impression in Pakistan of its own failures". He calls Sharif a shrewd and perceptive politician, who has displayed a tremendous grasp of what people want. "By introducing the Indian element, Sharif created a tremendously hopeful mood".

Now that the two sides have agreed to a dialogue, they have to see how to move forward. Kashmir, everyone agrees, is the most prickly issue. Unless the Kashmir issue is addressed, talks won't amount to much. But Kanti Bajpai of the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, is optimistic. "The history so far is encouraging. When the two meet, the record is pretty good. They have solved nearly every bilateral issue except Kashmir between 1947 and 1963". He points out that in talks between the late 80s and early 90s, comprehensive agreements were drawn up on Sir Creek, the Tulbul/Wullar navigation project and demilitarisation of Siachen. "These accords could be dusted off and signed, though perhaps not immediately," he says.

Gen. Raghavan, who has led a division of troops in Siachen, has reservations about this approach. He says India will run the risk of "disappointment and disillusionment if we start with Siachen, delink it from Kashmir and then nothing moves on Kashmir. To settle Siachen now is no guarantee that other issues will be settled. In 1992, we simply decided to disengage troops. Pakistan has not given up its claim in that area".

Siachen, Tulbul project and Sir Creek are the obvious issues which can be resolved. But there are other matters that need to be looked into—granting MFN status to India, improving business ties, sorting out the nuclear and missile issues, easing visa and travel restrictions, revival of the India-Pakistan joint commission, which was set up in March 1983 to strengthen cooperation in economic, trade, information, cultural, industrial, scientific and technological fields. Until Gujral announced his unilateral relaxation of travel restrictions and import of newspapers and periodicals, this was a major problem. Now it has to be seen how Pakistan reacts.

"India and Pakistan must bring a new mindset to the bilateral talks," says Khaled Ahmed, former editor of The Frontier Post. "The negotiators shouldn't isolate themselves in their respective countries and be scared of considering new formulations," he adds. He argues that the position on Kashmir is static on both sides and that some new options must be considered, while tackling "peripheral issues" like Wullar barrage, Siachen and so forth. "Agreements on these issues can actually serve as confidence-building measures, paving the way for solving the Kashmir issue."

SO what can be the new options on Kashmir? First, the Pakistan angle: Rasool Baksh Rais of the Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad, says that because of regular reports of atrocities in Kashmir, it will be difficult for a Pakistani leader to strike a deal on Kashmir.

But India can never agree to the Pakistani demand of plebiscite. According to George Verghese, senior journalist who is working with the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi: "There can be no question of a second partition. India can't accept another partition".

He agrees with Farooq Abdullah's formula: turn the LOC into an international border. "The LOC represents broadly the ethno-cultural divide in Jammu and Kashmir". He feels that both countries should have sovereignty over their respective areas. "Once this twin sovereignty has been accepted, there is nothing to prevent a porous border. Then movement can take place across the border, there can be trade and commerce, tourists can come and go.

This will require management of trade, commerce, water, ecology, tourism and other areas. You can have formal and informal structures for that." He sees a European Union-like situation where "borders begin to lose their rigidity and people move across without impinging on any country's sovereignty". Concurs Bajpai: "The rationality of demarcating the border along the LOC is obvious, though it will not be an easy thing to do."

Gen. Raghavan points out that the entire gamut of Indo-Pak relations has been vitiated because of Pakistani actions on the LOC. "They have kept the LOC volatile. The Indian position is 'we will hit you where we want to––if they attack across the LOC, we will attack elsewhere'. It is a classic international military doctrine. Therefore, because of this small sector (the LOC) we have these huge army structures to fight a war across borders where there is no dispute." He says both sides will have to make an extra effort to bring about a resolution. The two sides should give up their claim to the other side, stop involving third parties by raising the issue in international fora and then provide what people need—autonomy, soft border or whatever is worked out, adds Gen. Raghavan. He emphasises that a purely military strategy can't "get you very far".

THE nuclear and missile race is another tricky subject in South Asia. Bajpai also suggests that India could set up a nuclear risk reduction centre, which could lead to the setting up of a hotline between the nuclear administrators of the two countries. In case of a nuclear accident in either country, they can get information without having to go through the bureaucratic circles. "This does not necessarily mean we become friends overnight. But it certainly is a confidence-building measure (CBM)".

Some CBMs between India and Pakistan are already in place like the communication link between the the director generals (military operations) of the two armies and prohibition of attack on nuclear installations and facilities. A list of these installations is exchanged on January 1 every year. In non-papers sent to Pakistan in January 1994, India had suggested some more—like not to be the first to use or threaten to use its nuclear capability against each other and an extension of the agreement on prohibition of attack on nuclear installation to population and economic cen-tres. Pakistan had laughed off the non-first use proposal, saying it was an admission by India that it was nuclear capable. Some of these points can be discussed now.

What if the talks get bogged down as usual? On March 19, the Pakistan foreign office announced that no agenda has been set for the talks. Gujral confirmed this, saying the only agenda was how to become good neighbours.

Mani Shankar Aiyar, former Congress MP and former diplomat, has some interesting suggestions. "The only agenda should be which says either side is free to bring up any item it wants to without the permission of the other side. The level and nature of the dialogue is also very important. The talks should not be at the official level because foreign secretaries can't write their own briefs." Thus restricting the scope for "imaginative leaps" during negotiations. Besides, it is not realistic to expect foreign ministers to be able to give the time required to bring such negotiations to fruition. "So pick a special envoy who has a background in diplomacy, with experience of Pakistan but drawn from the political milieu. And if that means me," says Aiyar unabashedly, "why not".

Another advantage, he says, of having a special envoy is that he can have a "holistic" dialogue. So far it has been a segmented dialogue, the foreign secretary meets his counterpart and the defence secretary meets his counterpart. "All trade-offs have to take place in the given sector. In a holistic dialogue what you lose on the swings in one sector, you gain on the roundabout in another."

There is a widespread recognition of the fact that the talks will be a long drawn out affair and no dramatic breakthroughs should be expected. Aiyar says they should be "uninterrupted and uninterruptible". Veteran journalist I.A. Rehman echoes the same feeling: "The dialogue can be moved forward by persisting in negotiations without any conditions and without excluding any issue". Mubashar Hassan, former secretary-general of the Pakistan People's Party and promoter of the Indo-Pak people-to-people contact, holds forth on a similar strain: "The dialogue should be an unending process and at the end of every meeting, the date for the next should be decided". Gujral's unilateral step of easing visa restrictions should send the right signals to Pakistan. Says Ameen Bundukda, owner of a textile processing industry in Karachi: "The biggest advantage of the talks is that it may possibly ease tensions and we may be able to travel to India freely". He sees India as a big market for his products.

바카라 웹사이트But some Pakistani businessmen are apprehensive. Feroze Khan, president of Pakistan's Auto Manufacturers' Association, says "we may need to protect our industry. We should restrict our trade and open it step by step." Pakistan must not delay any longer in granting MFN status to India, which is its due under the new WTO rules. Says Rehman: "We should grant this sooner than later and get some grace marks".

As the March 28 talks near, it is uncertain how they will go. But there is a fundamental difference from the earlier seven rounds. In a letter to his Pakistani counterpart Gohar Ayub Khan, Gujral has linked these talks to subsequent discussions at the political level. The earlier seven rounds were autonomous exercises. The political content in the bilateral exchanges is far more than ever before in recent years. Gujral told 바카라 that Gohar Ayub had agreed to stay on for two days after the non-aligned ministerial meeting when they will discuss bilateral matters. If these talks go well, then the two prime ministers, expected to meet at the SAARC summit in Maldives later, can also have some one-to-one discussions.

So are the talks a historic opportunity to solve Kashmir and other bilateral disputes? Yes, says Sardar Sher Baz Mazari, a veteran Pakistani politician. "Saner elements on both sides of the border want better ties. It is also a historic opportunity because no leader in Pakistan, since its inception, has won such a massive mandate as Sharif. He represents Punjab and if he takes any step, he won't be accused of being anti-Pakistan. I know people think that the majority of people in Punjab do not want better relations with India. But that has changed".바카라 웹사이트