The wish-list on Kashmir

THE DIPLOMATIC `MUSINGS' of the Prime Minister, Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, on the ``legacy of the last century'' - the Kashmir dispute - address some but not all of the relevant complex realities. In his reflections, the Prime Minister has certainly done well to recognise the urgency of a final settlement of the Kashmir question without actually using that catch-phrase of the Shimla Agreement of 1972. However, the canopy is short on substance and long on sentiments. This is not to suggest that the format of season-specific `musings' should have been fashioned instead as a doctrinal formulation of foreign policy on Kashmir. Yet, Mr. Vajpayee's brief diplomatic discourse on Kashmir, designed for a target audience of his compatriots, leaves much unsaid. He has raised new questions and left them unanswered even as he referred to the old issue of Partition in terms that might revive an avoidable new controversy involving Pakistan. On the whole, four inter-related aspects of his web of ideas on Kashmir merit objective analysis.

The centrepiece of the Prime Minister's thought-capsule, as it were, is the avid assertion that ``we shall be bold and innovative designers of a future architecture of peace and prosperity for the entire South Asian region''. In order to become ``innovative'', Mr. Vajpayee has pledged that his administration ``shall not traverse solely on the beaten track of the past''. Affirmed, too, is a ``commitment to peace, justice and the vital interests of the (Indian) nation'' as the quintessential guiding principle. Now, an ``architecture of peace'' can surely be an evocative phrase, but it will remain no more than a diplomatic slogan in the absence of specific parameters. The question is whether New Delhi can quickly spell out the follow-up details. At the least, the Vajpayee administration should rise above its image as the practitioner of selective neighbourliness in the specific context of its transparent role in stalling the prospects of a routine summit of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). New Delhi may continue to cite its own dim view of the present regime in Islamabad for the disarray on the SAARC front. But a grandiose South Asian peace architecture is unthinkable without a genuine bonhomie between India and Pakistan.

It is in this context that the second critical aspect of Mr. Vajpayee's list of wishes can prove counter-productive. While looking to the future, he is unable to avoid the temptation, more becoming indeed of the past, of criticising Islamabad for its persistent faith in the ``mindset that created Pakistan''. This ``mindset'' is said to sustain Pakistan's ``untenable policy on Kashmir'' to this day. But it must be recognised that a blame- game, whatever be the facts, is hardly promotive of any new promise of subcontinental peace. A discourse rooted in the idiom of the Partition can only boomerang, as Pakistan is not also short on complaints against India, especially over its alleged negation of its ``pledges'' under the U.N. resolutions of that period. Difficult to exaggerate are the dangers of reinterpreting Partition, even if inadvertently, to suit the arguments of one or the other side. Two other facets, both related to Mr. Vajpayee's latest reported comments on the more immediate prospects of a forward movement on Kashmir, also require elaboration. In his reckoning, the climate is still not conducive to a resumption of the India-Pakistan dialogue at any level, including the highest political echelon. Nor is the current political ambience said to be catalytic of substantive talks between the Centre and the separatist-militants within the ``internal dimension''. On the ``external'' side, Pakistan already tends to view as major confidence-building measures its unilateral statements about observing ``maximum restraint'' along the Line of Control and withdrawing some of its troops from there. So New Delhi will serve its cause better by being more definitive about a propitious climate.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : Beckoning new millennium