What General Pervez Musharraf had to say, via satellite to a gathering of distinguished Indians at the India Today Conclave - also aired by an Indian satellite TV channel and two local channels - last Saturday, must have cleared public confusion about certain aspects of the unfolding Indo-Pak peace process as per the Islamabad Joint Press Statement of January 6.
Some of his assertions, though, have drawn a rather strong reaction from the Indian government.
While the recent months have seen the two sides take Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) at a rapid pace, some media and political pundits on both sides have been saying that this has been made possible by Islamabad's willingness to 'freeze' the Kashmir issue.
In his prepared speech as well as in his response to the audience's questions, President Musharraf firmly dispelled such absurd thinking that can derail the peace process.
Expressing the hope that "the Composite Dialogue schedule for May/June this year should augur well for our future relationship," he averred that "there is a simultaneity/linkage between CBMs and the Composite Dialogue.
CBMs cannot outstrip the dialogue process on all substantive issues, including Kashmir."
Responding to the questioners who argued that Kashmir should be put on the backburner while moving ahead on the normalisation track, he left little room for confusion or misunderstanding, saying "we can't sprint on the CBM's while moving at a snail's pace on the dialogue process. There has to be simultaneity."
This clarity should be useful for the prospering trade and industry community in India, which is eager to sell its surplus goods and services to Pakistan and the region beyond, while hoping to bring in cheaper energy from Iran and Central Asia via Pakistan.
These people have a stake in the success of the new peace process. It is important that they know what they need to do in order to give a push to this effort.
Kashmir being the recurring theme in his assertions, President Musharraf was asked about the difference in Agra and Islamabad, and also if he would characterise the two recent attempts on his life as terrorism.
His answer to the second question, of course, was in the affirmative; as expected of him, he described the situation in the Occupied Kashmir as a freedom movement. As to the first question, he noted that the Islamabad Statement accepted Pakistan as a party to the Kashmir dispute, and further that in it India had agreed to resolve all outstanding disputes "including Kashmir."
This acceptance indeed is written in black and white in the Statement, and, obviously, reflects a qualitative change in the Indian position.
Yet it is too early, he noted, for the other side, especially when the general elections are due in a month's time, to be seen to have shifted its stand on the issue.
Understandably, New Delhi would prefer things to remain ambiguous until the CBMs have gathered momentum of their own, creating a self-interest for different influential sections in the two societies, especially their business classes; and until the elections are also safely out of the way.
Hence it came as no surprise to hear the Indian External Affairs Ministry issue a strong rejoinder, though a rather distorted one, to the President's assertions.
The Indian comment said that there is no reference in the Islamabad Joint Statement to "any so-called central or core issue, but to addressing all bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir."
Though the President had repeatedly described Kashmir as the core issue, not once did he attribute that description to the Joint Statement. All he had said was that in it India had agreed to resolve "all disputes, including the Kashmir issue." Which is in line with the text.
The Indian External Ministry spokesman also said that in the Islamabad Statement President Musharraf had reassured Prime Minister Vajpayee that he would not permit the territory under Pakistan's control to be used to support terrorism of any kind, without making a specific reference to the issue of Jammu and Kashmir.
In fact, the President said the same thing before the India Today Conclave too. The spokesman argued that violent incidents inside Kashmir could not be categorised as part of a "freedom fight" while those inside Pakistan are called "terrorist acts."
The trouble with this argument is that it ignores the basic fact that no one on this side of the border is carrying out an armed struggle for freedom; those who attacked President Musharraf probably were angry with him because of his policies vis-à-vis Afghanistan as well as Kashmir. This reality is not lost on anyone.
Apparently, New Delhi reacted the way it did because of internal compulsions, which goes on to show how important it is for both sides to remain cautious in publicly commenting on the sensitive issues at this early stage of the peace process.
Comments
Comments are closed.