Sattar's hidden hand; not Swaraj's
Men, Matters, Memories

By M L Kotru

Did someone really sabotage the Vajpayee-Musharraf summit? I have this great conspiracy theorist who will at the drop of his hat give you weird theories to prove there is a hidden hand behind anything happening in the subcontinent. Like Gen Pervez Musharraf's Press advisor, Maj. Gen Rashid Qureshi, even my friend believes that there was a hidden hand that caused the Agra summit to produce no results. It's another matter that my man usually sees the Chinese hand behind every such move.

I don't know whose hand Qureshi had in his mind when he spoke of it soon after the summit collapsed. He would, of course, like one to believe that it was the Indian Minister for Information and Broadcasting, Ms Sushma Swaraj who caused the problem with the innocent TV sound byte. Sushma Swaraj went out of her way to clear the air after that, but according to the Pakistanis, it was her hand that did the tric. If you ask me, Sushma Swaraj may have erred by agreeing to give that mini byte to the TV network but to accuse her of sabotaging the summit would be extremely graceless and inappropriate.

It would appear to me that the one to contribute much to the debacle of the summit was none other than Mr Abdul Sattar, the Pakistan Foreign Minister, a known India - baiter, who passed on that note to his President warning him of Indian duplicity; as evidence he cited Sushma Swaraj's short interview in which she had mentioned some of the issues discussed by Musharraf and Vajpayee at their first meeting without listing Kashmir among these. Sushma Swaraj was not present at the talks at the time and obviously she did not know what all had transpired. All she said was that the talks were moving in the right direction, listing three or four issues among others. You may fault her for having ventures into an area where she should not have but tell me of any politician willing to resist the temptation to be seen on TV (I&B Ministers included), particularly when events of great import are taking place around him or her. And we have Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh's word for it, that there was nothing improper about the I&B Minister's brief interlude. And in fairness to the I&B Minister she went to great lengths to put the record straight once the Pakistani reaction to her observation became known.

So far as Sattar is concerned the Swaraj faux pas was just the stuff he needed. The Indians Minister's statement the Indians were upto their tricks again. The Indian Minister's statement would send wrong signals home; that Parvez Musharraf had gone soft on Kashmir. Sushma's explanation that Kashmir in any case was one of the major issues up for discussion did not cut much ice with Sattar. He ensured that the Sushma clip was promptly played on PTV. With this Sattar had scored his first major victory in derailing the summit. Gen. Musharraf who admits his lack of diplomatic skills, bit the Sattar line hook, line and sinker. That was the turning point. Soon thereafter came the request from the Pakistan side for a meeting between President Musharraf and senior Indian journalists. The Indians, as Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh has said, readily agreed and offered help. Again in Jaswant Singh's words it was supposed to have been an off-the-record background briefing by Musharraf. Which, as any journalist will tell you, is meant to be used as background only. The Pakistan side however decided to have the meeting taped and relayed not only on PTV but it was Pervez Musharraf putting across his views as bluntly as one a soldier can. The General in fact said as much. In the event, the interaction with the Indian media men became a forum for Musharraf to debunk the Indian position on some of the more intractable issues.

He described the Jihadis operating in the Valley as freedom fighters, likened the scessionist movement to the one being waged by the Palestinians and even chose to refresh his audience's memory about the Bangladesh war.

If Sushma Swaraj had at all queered the pitch, Musharraf, flanked by Sattar and the Pakistan Foreign Secretary, made sure that little room was left for operation salvage. The Musharraf performance and the wide publicity assured to it courtesy PTV and the Star News Channel narrowed down the Indian options considerably.

The consequence was that the Indians had to counter it by releasing the Prime Minister's opening remarks at the first formal meeting of the two delegations. Obviously this was nothing else but a reiteration of the stated Indian position. There is nothing unusual about that. At formal meetings it is the norm to start by narrating such positions. Given the unusual nature of the Vajpayee-Musharraf summit, with no fixed agenda, it became inevitable that the Prime Minister should air Indian concerns on various issues. And mind you, this presentation need not have been publicised at all but for the fact that Pakistan had taken the extraordinary recourse to having a background briefing telecast in full. If Musharraf and his advisers felt that such an exposure was necessary to keep the home audience happy and reassured, Vajpayee too found himself in the unenviable position of being forced to make his presentation public.

The upshot was that old doubts and suspicions took from the atmosphere of trust which Vajpayee and Gen Musharraf had been able to create during their first one-to-one meeting, lasting over one and half hours as against the 15 minutes originally earmarked for it. Much as they did try to rescue the summit on the second day, the walls of suspicion had only to risen higher. A draft statement/declaration, prepared by the officials overnight, flitted between the two hotels, where Vajpayee and Musharraf were staying, a few times but by now the usual war of semantics was raging. Centrality of the Kashmir issue and cross-border terrorism haunted the two hotels like so many ghosts. Drop cross-border and retain terrorism, said the Indians. No said the Pakistanis. Use ending violence instead, said the Indians. No, said the Pakistanis. Forget centrality, said the Indians. What's left then, countered the Pakistanis. That was the end of the joint statement/declaration -- and of the summit as well. Never mind, the eleventh - hour meeting that followed between Vajpayee and Musharraf just before the latter left for home. The summit had well and truly ended, a victory for the time being for the Pakistani hawks. For Prime Minister Vajpayee the failure of the summit as well. Never mind, the eleventh - hour meeting that followed between Vajpayee and Musharraf just before the latter left for home. The summit had well and truly ended, a victory for the time being for the Pakistani hawks. For Prime Minister Vajpayee the failure of the summit must remain a matter of regret. In Musharraf's words, the "very bold and statesmanlike step of the Indian Prime Minister in inviting me to the meeting", must now remain a mere footnote in the history of Indo-Pak relations.

Fortunately for the two neighbours, Jaswant Singh has said that Vajpayee's acceptance of Musharraf's invitation to visit Pakistan stands accepted, which leaves the door ajar. That's if the hawks in Pakistan do not in the meantime devise ways of baging it shut. The two leaders will have two other opportunities to meet - should they wish to -- at New York during the UN General Assembly session and at the SAARC summit in Kathmandu. But then I wish someone tells the two to meet away from the glare of constant media attention. You can't hold summit via TV cameras or through newspaper columns.

In fairness to Sattar I must admit though that at his first Press conference on his return home, he disagreed with those who dubbed the Agra summit a failure. According to him the two delegations had made "very substantial progress" in converting the vision of the two leaders into words in declaration but for a last minute hitch. Unusually for him, he felt that the declaration might well have been finalised but for the shortness of time. "Fruition of our hopes" may have been delayed but "we are hopeful that there will be an early opportunity for the two leaders to meet soon again and hopefully lead to an agreement." But then no Sattar story would be complete without that twist in the tail; there was no cross-border terrorism-the border in that case being the internatioanl border. If the reference is to cross -- LoC terrorism that is a different story. (Which is Sattarese means it's indigenous terrorism).

And, where was the 'Indian Stand' at Agra ?.......
Yours Randomly

By Dr. R L Bhat

India does have a dispute with Pakistan. The dispute involves the illegal Pak occupation of 38% -- a hefty 83,000 square kilometers-- of the territories of the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir State that acceded in full to India in 1947. Leaving out Ladakh, Pakistan occupies 2/3rd of the landmass of the state while India is in possession of Just 1/3rd! This area referred to as the POK is legally, rightfully Indian territory that has been served out by force. The 1993 resolution of the Parliament reiterates the will of the Indian people to free these territories from the Pak occupation. Twenty-five of the assembly seats in the J&K legislature have remained vacant, for the past fifty years of its existence, waiting to be filled by the representative from these areas.

It is this dispute, which India took to the UN Security Council in 1947. Yet one searched in vain in the deliberations at Agra for an assertion of this plain Indian position. The Indian side spoke of fishermen and smugglers, POWs and terrorists, but not of thousands miles of land, and lakhs of people living upon it, that Pakistan has held as a conquered possession-and used all along as mali-gani-mat, the spoils of the 1947 war. (A related dispute, subsumed thereunder is that of Pakistan having bartered (sold for material gain!) nearly five thousand square kilometers of this territory to China). Has India given up its stake to this part of the state and national territory? The issue of the cross-border terrorism may have got the Pakistans' goose. The Pak president may have been tongue-tied over a direct confrontation on the issue of sheltering Dawood Ibrahim. They, of course, did not seem to take much note of the Qandhar hijackers. And on the POWs point the Pak side actually plastered the blame on the Indian face for having failed to secure the release of its two score prisoners after releasing a lakh of the Pakistani soldiers at Simla! In any case, these are only extraneous issues. Minor problems that the Pak president, promised to look into, though he did 'not have much hope'. There, any rational person would be hard put to blame him! And, the silence over the Pak occupied territory distorts the whole perspective.

Take the issue of cross-border terrorism. If' Indian Kashmir-as the non-mention of the Pak occupied parts reduces it to -be a 'disputed' area the infiltration there cannot be reasonably condemned. If India has 'held' a part of the state over which Pakistan has had a claim, it would not be very unjustified for Pakistan to try securing its claim through 'other' means. Terrorism here becomes a relativist term. And, the members of Pak contingent called the terrorists in Kashmir, 'freedom fighters' on the Indian TV channels without many people confronting them over it. If you are holding a 'disputed' territory, you very well cannot claim precedence or a very exalted righteousness just because the other side has agreed to non-use of force at Simla. It becomes illegitimate only when the lawful claim of India to the whole of the J&K state, as it stood at the time of accession is made.

Indeed, over the years through a curious lapse India's claim to the Pak occupied Kashmir has not been pressed. Why, even those brilliant Marathon speeches of Krishna Menon did not dwell very hotly on this aspect of the Kashmir dispute. Sometimes when India gets into a very tricky straints a ritual mention of the PoK is made but for all practical purposes India appears to have given up its claim. And thereby has not only weakened its case but also closed the way for a solution. For if the areas held by Pakistan are theirs, the dispute reverts to the Indian parts of the state. It is this fact of the illegal occupation of the Pakistan which makes the issues of infiltration, terrorism and interference seeking to change India's internal and external disposition, relevant.

That, indeed, is the position from which the path to a settlement of Kashmir, in whichever shape, can be laid. It is well nigh foolish to expert Pakistan to accept any dispensation short of an actual transfer of territory, if India keeps shying away from asserting its rightful claim to the areas unlawfully held by Pakistan. And there is a constitutional obligation, too. How can the government of India overlook forcible occupation of her territories and still claim to safeguard the territorial integrity of the nation? The Indian case and claim stems from the fact of the state having acceded to India legally, as per the procedure that was laid for such accessions. And, the 'dispute' began when Pakistan tried to annex the state through force and did actually snatch a part that she still hold in unlawful occupation.

Thus the aspirations of Kashmiri people are nothing very different from those of the Baloch or Sindhi or Mohajir aspirations in Pakistan itself. Therein lies the basis of the Indian case that the aspirations of Kashmiris are a matter to be dealt with internally without any external aid or advice, which if tendered would be interference in the internal affairs of the country. Here while the aspirations for autonomy etc. can be granted or denied as the nation deems fit, the Pak denial of freedom to the people in occupied territories is a reprehensible crime, because the notion of 'occupied territories' is not accepted by the modern world. In that Pakistan is clearly impinging upon the norms of international behaviour. If and when, India clarifies its stand, that is.

It may be sometime before it is known what exactly transpired at those hours-long one-to-one meetings at Agra between the PM and the Pak President, whether he did assert the Indian claim. On record there is no mention that he did. The official Indian statement issued after the 'inconslusive' summit makes no mention of this Indian position. And in its absence, the Pakistani claim that India is straying into peripherals to bog it down looks not very incorrect. For, if India has given up its claim to the Pak occupied parts there verily remain the Indian parts of the state alone, to be arbitrated. Nay?