Of Presidents and precedents.

 

by Salman Khurshid

President Musharraf’s visit to India has been by a circuitous and perilous route. He will probably want to forget the uncomfortable halt at Kargil. He will certainly not be nostalgic about the deliberate and conspicuous absence at Lahore when Prime Minister Vajpayee was taken for a ride. The guns will boom again but this time to welcome him. Soldiers will raise their arms but this time to salute. No more proxies, for the summit by definition must be face-to-face, man-to-man, not eye for eye.

There is no real agenda because the one thing he wants to talk about is what we will not wish to hear anything about. But of course the Shimla agreement, not Pakistan’s favourite document, does at least envisage settlement of differences through bilateral negotiations. Pakistan wants the Kashmir valley because it feels itself incomplete without it. Perhaps they have just got into a habit of desiring it. India cannot part with J&K because it is a part of its definition as a secular nation. If the dispute were about territory or security per se there would have been no objection to third party resolution efforts. But a third party, friend, foe or indifferent, cannot be given the right to redefine the Indian nationhood. It is India’s good fortune that finally the world, particularly the democratic western powers have finally realized this.

No one should expect wonders from the summit. There is no indication that we have burnt the midnight oil to come up with novel ideas for peace. But there are some unfinished tasks of the past that can swiftly give work for the anxious delegates on both sides. But where do we begin, rather where will the leaders begin? Economic cooperation is the most promising window but it is not something dramatically new. We have talked a lot about it in SAARC. There is modest trade between us although Pakistan’s shortsightedness forces trade to take the longer sea route rather than the convenient Wagah border crossing. Yet we should not underestimate the power of the market. It was not change of heart but the allure of the Indian market that influenced the dramatic shift in the American position. Where Americans rush in, the Pakistani affluent elite cannot fear to tread. India should not underestimate the potential of its market or the business priorities of the influential Pakistani rich and mighty.

Peace summits have a matter of timing, place, space, and atmosphere. Sometimes it takes considerable effort over a period to get some of these right. Generally speaking they happen after battle fatigue is set in or forces that have instigated or supported the conflict have lost interest. In Vietnam several months were spent on the shape of the negotiating table. Pakistan’s defeat in Kargil was a good point for a peace summit; our own admitted disappointment with the "cease fire" in J&K would certainly not add to our negotiating strength. President Musharraf may have killed several birds with one stone in issuing stern advise to the conservative elements in is country. But Prime Minister Vajpayee will have the bitter resonance of Bal Thackeray’s intemperate statements in his ear when he greets his guest. On the other hand the visitor will be worrying about the world’s reaction to his occupation of the Presidential palace. Of course he has been able to extract a positive greeting from the Indian President on becoming President himself. This is not something he received even from China.

The road beyond Agra looks very rough. But all true followers of non-violence will hope for the best and hope for a lot. If India is to ride fast and firm, a detour to the valley is inevitable. It is too early to tell if K.C. Pant will prove to be a good navigator (or is it negotiator?). There is a lot of work to be done in the valley. We have alienated the youth. We have made mistakes. The worst mistake was of taking them for granted. We gave them charity and subsidy where dignity and opportunity were called for. The unrest in Punjab and J&K is a contrast in point. In both cases there was foreign instigation and help. In both cases a strong and mean separatist movement took hold of the youth and drove them to violence. Yet we were able to get on top of the problem in Punjab; but we are still at sea in J&K. It may be possible to conclude that the Punjab trouble was born out of prosperity and the J&K unrest is linked to poverty. Poverty of body and mind takes time to eradicate. So we cannot expect wonders overnight but a beginning must be made somewhere.

It is distressing to see that people entrusted with the responsibility of looking for a solution for the trouble in J&K, take a tourist’s view. It is naïve to look for reasons for the trouble. We need to look for an imaginative way out of the stalemate. In the rest of India we have to accept and recognize that Kashmir has real people, not just carpet and dry fruit traders. How often in different parts of our country do we see Kashmiris in jobs and positions of authority (with the exclusion of the erudite Kashmiri Pandits)? How many of us can boast of Kashmiri friends? The key lies in giving Kashmiris a stake in the country. Ten years of preferential treatment for Kashmiris in educational institutions, public sector, and quasi-government organizations will make a dramatic difference.

The narrow Banihal tunnel is a symbol of the relationship we have with the Kashmiris_narrow and susceptible to climatic conditions. Many years ago some of us had proposed the building of a new railway tunnel. It would provide work while it was being built and when ready, would open up tremendous opportunities for the people of the valley. The government has accepted that plan but is moving slower than a centipede. It seems not to have its heart in the project. If the Channel tunnel between UK and France can be built and run successfully, so can this. We only have to put our heads and hearts together.

The bottom line is that talking will not do any harm. But it will not do any good either unless there is a clear idea about what we want and the price we are ready to pay for it. That is not to say that we have to tell the Pakistanis what our plans are. But not telling them should not be an alibi for having plans at all. The fact is that more the talks succeed, more we will have to place on the table. India and Pakistan have talked before but this time it might be different. This is the first we are talking as nuclear powers. There is some physics in addition to the usual chemistry of political summits.