Between the lines
Move with the time
Kuldip Nayar, writes from New Delhi
THE Dawn, one of the few liberal English dailies in the subcontinent, posed this August a question to 26 leading writers and poets in Pakistan: Should Pakistan and India bury the hatchet? All of them responded positively. There was none who hedged or put conditions to the proposition. In fact, they said that it was time that the two countries settled down as good neighbours, many reminding the governments on both sides that they had no other option. Of course, the replies were in the wake of the electrifying effect the visits of parliamentary delegations had created in June and July. I do not think there is any basic difference in the mood even after the spat between Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf at the UN. I was in Karachi a few days ago to attend a seminar. My interaction with many people convinced me that the same current of goodwill ran beneath the surface, although there were some bruised feelings and some expressions of exasperation that people should resign themselves to sour relations.I suspect that when Islamabad allowed the parliamentary delegations and a meet of MPs and journalists it expected the government-level talks to follow. After New Delhi's firm 'no' to a dialogue until cross border terrorism stopped, the Pakistan establishment was angry. This became clear from a statement by Foreign Minister Kurshid Kasuri. Hewelcomed people-to-people contact but wanted the governments to take over for any tangible result. It should not come as a surprise that Islamabad barred the entry of former Indian jurists, eminent artists and writers. That looks like the pattern henceforth unless some developments take place to ease the atmosphere. New Delhi has not banned the entry of Pakistani groups because it has not been rattled by the popular response as the Pakistan establishment has been. Still when it comes to issuing visas to individuals, however distinguished, the Government of India is as cussed as the one across the border. New Delhi does not realise that it is losing the opportunity for wider contacts by not issuing visas liberally. This is the time when India should open an office at Wagha near Amritsar to facilitate the visit of Pakistanis to India, without making them face the police harassment or pinning them down to one or two cities. Visitors on their return make no secret of their admiration for India's open society and its technological advancement. What happened at the UN has had a negative effect on the people on both sides, although there is nothing new in the accusations and counter-accusations. In fact, this has become an annual ritual which could have been skipped if Musharraf had not used thevitriolic language while attacking India on Kashmir. Vajpayee could have avoided the situation by ignoring what Musharraf said. But then the two have certainelements at home to placate. The disappointing part is that the democratically elected Prime Minister is increasingly bringing himself down to the level of a military dictator. The dangerous aspect of the stand off is that every time the language is becoming harsher and the attitude harder. So long as the two sides find in abuses the catharsis to their alienation is not bad. But things can go out of hand, particularly when officials on both sides seem to have been allowed to dip their hands in the muck and throw it at the other in the manner they prefer. Many people do get worked up when they witness the UN-like scenes. But my experience is that they soon dust off the fallout and pick up the thread from where they had left it off. It is apparent that a vested interest in peace and amity has got built over the years. Still I wish the civil society in both the countries had been more vocal and more critical of their respective government for keeping the peoples apart. Vajpayee, who is singled out for praise in Pakistan for his desire to nurture good relations, has rekindled some hope by saying at Zurich that "a fresh impetus" was needed to bring about amity between the two countries. He may have rightly blamed Musharraf's statements for causing "a setback to peace initiatives." But has he ever considered the Pakistan President's predicament? Maybe, Musharraf has got the short end of the stick. He wants a way out of the various problems he faces and believes that the talks with India would provide him with one. True, Musharraf is the person who initiated the Kargil war and sabotaged the Lahore Declaration. True, he is the one who has encouraged militants such as Maulana Masood Azhar of Laskar-e-Toiba which operates in Kashmir. True, Musharraf has admitted his complicity when he offered during his UN speech to encourage a general cessation of violence within Kashmir. But will his successor, another military dictator, be better? A television programme at New Delhi showed the audience almost unanimously preferring Musharraf to any other military man. I do not see any immediate prospect of military losing control over Pakistan. Should we continue to keep Islamabad at bay as long as Musharraf is at the helm of affairs? In a new audiotape released by Osama-bin Laden group, the terrorist outfit of Al-Qaida has appealed to the Pakistanis to "topple" Musharraf. It finds him too soft towards India and its allegation is that he will hand over them "to the Hindus." Obviously, he does notlook popular with at least one set of terrorists even though he has the knack of keeping another set on his side. Time is of the essence. It is an open secret that there is nobody other than Vajpayee who can push the government or the BJP to come to terms with Pakistan. Between now and the general elections, there is only one year left. Both Vajpayee and Musharraf have to face the facts. No ideal situation would ever be available between India and Pakistan. Even now, with all their efforts, they will be hard put to find a solution which is acceptable to New Delhi, Islamabad and Srinagar. Yet, some steps should be taken without further loss of time. To begin with, Musharraf should work unilaterally on the general cessation of violence in Kashmir, the offer he made at the UN on "reciprocal basis." Vajpayee on his part should take up Musharraf's offer for a ceasefire on the Line of Control (LoC). This does not amount to beginning a dialogue. It is for the examination of ceasefire proposal. New Delhi will not look changing its stand. One of the suggestions made by Pakistan Foreign Minister was to have a SAARC force to supervise the LoC. Musharraf's latest is a joint supervision by India and Pakistan of the LoC. New Delhi was itself once in favour of a joint patrol of the LoC to check infiltration. All these proposals can be on the table for a discussion between the top brass from both sides. They can also be examined at the diplomatic level now that both countries have their ambassador in place. The warning by the UN observers overseeing the LoC that the violence can escalate should be taken seriously even though we do not recognise them officially. I think New Delhi should make more efforts if it wants to give some shape to Vajpayee's remark that "a fresh impetus" was needed to bring about amity between the two countries. Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.
| 
