Prudence Demands India not Stretching the Rope too Far

10 Apr, 2002    ·   715

Prof RVR Chandrasekhara Rao argues for a rapprochement with Pakistan ending the ongoing brinkmanship
Prof. RVR Chandrasekhara Rao
It is heartening that the official Indian attitude towards the crisis in Indo-Pak relations has encountered serious criticism in many quarters. President Musharaff’s words need to be taken at their face value, and the righteous indignation caused by the provocative terrorist attack against the Indian Parliament cannot be forgotten. But a sense of proportion is required for managing tensions. The official reaction is adamantine. To demand a response from Pakistan commensurate with Indian demands is unrealistic.

 

 

Crisis situations and armed belligerence can easily get out of control; the classic illustration being the Sarejevo crisis leading to the First World War. Austrian intransigence in not modifying the terms of its ultimatum to Serbia led inexorably to other nations entering the fray. India should avoid indiscreet bravado. Insisting on Pakistan demonstrating its reining in of terrorist groups is tough enough; but not moving towards even limited disengagement of forces is irresponsible.

 

 

The situation on both sides has now led to diplomatic taunting that augurs ill for dialogue. Islamabad is now drawing up a list of Indian terrorists, past and present, in retaliation against India ’s demands on its own terrorist list which is an ominous sign.

 

 

Prime Minister Vajpayee’s combative speech reverting back to India ’s sovereign rights over Pak-occupied Kashmir may have been an election gimmick, though it was also indicative of the further hardening of attitudes. Coercive diplomacy, it should be remembered, can easily become corrosive diplomacy.

 

 

There is the other hazard of Indian policy becoming a foil to Israel ’s. Prime Minister Sharon’s relentless pursuit of military solution to terrorism without any negotiations with Arafat cannot serve as a good precedent. Besides the US endorsement of Israel ’s reckless adventurism may not extend to India . India ’s confidence lies in the US ’s understanding of its hard posture given President Bush’s rhetoric of eradicating terrorism, regardless of the time it would take. Thus there is a near convergence in US, Israeli and Indian crisis management. The question is whether the US would support India ’s insistence on Pakistan demonstrating good faith. This is very unlikely. 

 

 

It is in the sub-continent’s interests that this armed stand-off between its two big states be relaxed. Whatever the justification for India refusing to begin disengagement earlier, why load the crisis with the rather worn-out thesis of Pakistan locating its occupation of the part of Kashmir the only basis for negotiations. The Indian Prime Minister has further added that nothing less than that could constitute the agenda for talks. 

 

 

This inflexible posture of the Prime Minister suggests paradoxically that the issue of Pak-occupied Kashmir is negotiable. So far the Government of India has not conceded this point, but it is commonly recognized that the bottom line for any comprise on the Kashmir issue would be the internationalization of the Line of Control, perhaps with necessary adjustments to make it more defensible. If this is correct, the motives for his recent statements could be two-fold viz., taking a strident stand to assuage the BJP’s rightist elements, and keeping the door ajar for Pakistan to negotiate on India ’s demands.

 

 

India needs to move beyond its apparent intransigence towards a positive approach to Pakistan . Of course, the present opportunity to force Pakistan to concede its role in the terrorist campaign on Indian soil should be exploited. President Musharraf’s admission of the need for Pakistan to acquire a clean and progressive image is an acknowledgement of that country’s dirty hands. Prudence on India ’s past now requires a less bellicose disposition. 

 

 

 

POPULAR COMMENTARIES