Old foes learnt the language of détente
Last week’s meeting of the leaders of India and Pakistan was a model of disciplined diplomacy, India’s foreign minister tells Andrew Gowers and Edward Luce
Few relationships have been as subject to rumour, speculation, treachery or counter-theory as those between India and Pakistan. For more than 56 years the two countries have blown hot and cold over the disputed state of Kashmir, both with the gun and the megaphone.
Which makes the latest peace effort – formally launched in Islamabad last week -all the more unusual. In contrast to earlier attempts, notably the first and only summit between Atal Behari Vajpayee, India’s Prime Minister, and Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s President, in 2001, last week’s meeting was a model of bilateral discipline.
In an interview with the Financial Times, Yashwant Sinha, India’s Foreign Minister, said the latest peace process with Pakistan was built, as much as anything, on moderation of language. Both sides had painstakingly agreed to talk openly only to each other and with great “circumspection” to the rest of the world.
Pakistan’s willingness to follow this course had persuaded Mr Vajpayee to sign up to the talks last week. This was in stark contrast to India’s account of the last summit in 2001, which was held in the shadow of the Taj Mahal. That meeting collapsed amid acrimony, some of which, according to India, had been generated by Gen Musharraf’s insistence on publicly describing Kashmiri “terrorists” as “freedom fighters”.
“The critically important thing [In Islamabad last week] was the desire on the part of both countries not to upstage one another,” said Mr Sinha, “It was a matter of great satisfaction that there was no attempt (by Pakistan) to project it as their victory or to put India down.”
There was plenty in the 153 -word statement issued by India and Pakistan to inflame hardliners in either country. India’s key concession was the following sentence: “The two leaders are confident that the resumption of the composite dialogue will lead to peaceful settlement of all bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, to the satisfaction of both sides”.
By agreeing to discuss Kashmir straight away (the talks formally begin next month), Mr Vajpayee has implicitly diluted India’s insistence that it would discuss the divided province only after Pakistan had started dismantling the terrorist groups that allegedly operate from its soil. Officials worry that another big terrorist attack on Indian soil over the next few weeks would be used by critics to question the wisdom of Mr Vajpayee’s diplomacy.”
‘The critically important thing was the desire by both countries not to upstage one another’
If anything untoward happened, of course there would be people who would say ‘I told you so’,” said Mr Sinha. “In both countries there are plenty of people who think the other can never be trusted. I hope they will be proved wrong this time.”
But few doubt that Gen Musharraf, who in the past five weeks has narrowly survived two assassination attempts by suspected Islamist groups, has taken a much greater personal risk than Mr Vajpayee. Pakistan’s key – and deal-making – sentence was: “President Musharraf reassured Prime Minister Vajpayee that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan’s control to be used to support terrorism in any manner.”
By using the word terrorism without putting “freedom fighters” in brackets, Gen Musharraf conceded almost everything that India wanted. By also agreeing to the phrase “any territory under Pakistan’s control”, he implicitly agreed his undertaking also encompassed the portion of Kashmir, which Pakistan administers (roughly a third), and from which the jihadi groups mostly operate.
Mr Sinha expressed much less satisfaction with the public statements of other countries -although he did not mention any by name. But a number of western officials, including Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, have claimed partial credit for the new climate of detente in south Asia.
“When Mr Vajpayee offered his ‘hand of friendship’ to Pakistan [in April last year], it took the whole world by surprise,” said Mr Sinha. “People in India and Pakistan would not like to think this [peace process] was the result of any third party pressure – and it is not even true.”
Mr Sinha stressed the most important aspect of last week’s agreement was the nine months of “normalisation” that preceded it. This had included the restoration of transport links between India and Pakistan, the resumption of sporting ties, with India’s agreement to conduct its first cricket tour of Pakistan in years, and a resumption of “people-to-people” ties across the border.
However, in keeping with India’s newfound linguistic discipline, Mr Sinha did not mention the most important fact of all – that it is almost certainly the same groups who are fighting Indian armed forces in Kashmir that are now strenuously trying to kill Gen Musharraf.
