Reconstruction politics and Indo-Pak rivalry

By Fazal Mehmood

NATO, which has the responsibility for the International Security Force (ISF) in Kabul, will soon move to main provincial centres and other areas in the interior. With that, the external security presence in Afghanistan will get a new edge. The ISF, the UN-mandated multinational force, was earlier headed by one of the constituents, on a rotational basis but, later, its charge was given to NATO to ensure continuity. Its internal decision which, surprisingly, has not attracted media attention in India is expected to reach the implementation stage soon, after it receives specific authorisation by the UN and the names of the countries willing to contribute their troops for expanded operations are known. But, Afghanistan’s two immediate neighbours have not joined the ISF. While, Pakistan has its own political compulsions, but India is engaged in developing the basic infrastructure of the strife-torn country.

Here the two countries are engaged in an unacknowledged bid for primacy in their bilateral relationship with Kabul. For the moment, India seems to be winning this new version of the great game effortlessly. The warmth for India is visible and palpable, both among the people and the Government, leaving Pakistan to cope with the bitter legacy of its long and tortuous involvement in Afghanistan.

India has had a long history of backing both militarily and politically, the Northern Alliance, whose key members are now in positions of power in the Hamid Karzai Government. Without the problems of a contiguous border, India has been able to reap the rewards of being a neighbourhood friend. The goodwill that has seeped into public consciousness over the past several decades has been cemented with India’s no-strings-attached aid package to Afghanistan after the Karzai Government took over. Pakistan suffers from the constant comparison.

Though the contribution of India and Pakistan to the process of reconstruction in Afghanistan is only a fraction of the international aid being poured into the country, their presence and role is certainly attracting international attention. Central to it is the proximity of both countries to Afghanistan. The relationship between India and Pakistan and their ties with Kabul are an important component in the issues relating to Afghanistan’s security and stability.

The Indian Ambassador to Afghanistan, Vivek Katju, says Pakistan is "no factor" and that "we don’t view Afghanistan through the prism of any third country." While Mr. Katju may be right in that India has never publicly raised any issue vis-à-vis Pakistan in Afghanistan, Islamabad’s sharp focus on New Delhi’s role has made it a factor nonetheless. The public interface during the Kabul visit of the Pakistan Foreign Minister, Khurshid Kasuri, last month was dominated by his comment on India’s role in Afghanistan. Mr. Kasuri claimed both were equal but added, "our [Pakistan’s] support is not as visible as buses going on the road nevertheless it has made a very basic and very immediate impact on the lives of the Afghans. Now the lesson therefore is that some things that you do should be visible." Pakistan, Mr. Kasuri said, did not feel it needed to score a point. May be wheat from Pakistan, he suggested facetiously, could be put in "bags of a kilo with Pakistan stamped on it."

India has opened consulates in Herat, Mazar-e-Sharif, Kandahar and Jalalabad, in addition to its embassy in Kabul–the cause of consternation to Pakistan. Islamabad’s earlier private protests to the Americans over this gave way recently to public charges against New Delhi on the grounds that its consulates were being used for anti-Pakistani activities. In private, Pakistani officials have even stated that India is using its consulates and officials based there to instigate local armed forces against the Pakistanis. The issue is more serious than that of pure political rhetoric. With an unstable and volatile border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, charges that India is instigating trouble against Pakistan have serious security implications with the potential of destabilising the ongoing operations against the remnants of the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is a charge that has received short shrift from the Karzai Government.

"It is for India and Afghanistan, and not for any third country to decide the level and nature of Indian diplomatic presence," says Mr. Katju. Describing the allegations in the Pakistan media as "utter rubbish," he emphasise that Indian consulates are acting completely in accordance with international norms and will continue to do so.

The Afghanistan Foreign Minister, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, echoes the sentiment, saying the activities of the Indian consulates "are in the limits of their duty as consulates in accordance with international norms and principles." He adds that sometimes suspicions in relations between different countries are reflected on Afghanistan and it is something the country wishes to overcome.

Pakistan continues to block the transport of Indian goods through its territory even though it allows Afghanistan to send its goods to India. This has severely limited the trade opportunities between India and Afghanistan as all the goods have to be routed through Iran or airlifted by Ariana’s biweekly flights, an expensive proposition either way.

In fact, Pakistan’s unwillingness to allow Indian goods transit has also caused problems in the transit of material that India wishes to send as assistance to Afghanistan. Mr. Abdullah will not comment on this but says, "It is in the interest of the region that relations between both countries grow in the line of cooperation." It is Afghanistan’s wish, he says, that "grievances which exist between different countries will not be reflected towards us." Right now however, the sentiment remains a fond hope. INAV

Vajpayee's overgenerosity Musharraf's obduracy

By J N Raina

India’s fresh peace overtures to break the logjam of wretched relationship of sorts with Pakistan seem to have hit the hay. Soon after Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee made a dramatic announcement on the eve of Diwali, offering a 12-point peace package — including the most ambitious one to start a bus service on the highly sensitive route between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad (in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir)— it was expected that immediately thereafter, there would be a quid pro quo from our petulant neighbour. But strangely enough, this latest offer has caused hay fever in Islamabad.

But Pakistan’s mixed reaction, coming as it did after a week, under US pressure, and its Kashmir-centric counter proposals, have belied the hope for rapprochement of relationship between the two countries.

The counter proposals concerning the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road are spiteful and evil-minded. Accepting the Indian proposal in ‘principle’, Pakistan has viewed the opening of the road with suspicion; inter alia suggesting that the United Nations should issue travel documents and monitor the checkpoints on the route. Pakistan has feared that opening of the road will ‘legitimise the existence of Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India’.

The most, obnoxious part of Pakistan’s proposal is what it said: "assistance for widows, rape victims and those affected by various operations launched by the (Indian) securities agencies". Pakistan has also suggested 100 scholarships for graduate and postgraduate students from Kashmir in Pakistan and treatment of disabled Kashmiris.

Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar has reiterated that Kashmir is the ‘core’ issue and its resolution is essential for peace. He also described Kashmir as a ‘cancerous and poisonous issue.’ But the Indian reaction is going to be harsh and tough for Pakistan’s reference to alleged ‘rape’. India has already ruled out direct talks with Islamabad on Kashmir until cross-border terrorism is ended.

New Delhi’s offer, made simultaneously along with the 12-point peace package, deputing Deputy Prime Minister L K Advani to hold talks with the separatist Hurriyat Conference leaders, has been generally welcomed in the Valley, but as expected, the offer has been rejected by the Jamaat-i-lslami leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, leading another faction of the Hurriyat. He has even sought UN intervention to resolve the Kashmir tangle.

The Hurriyat Conference had for long been demanding to discuss the issue with political leadership, rather than talking to a retired bureaucrat. The Hurriyat has now been formally invited for talks as demanded. Whether the moderate HC leadership will succumb to the feelers as expected, from Pakistan, is to be seen.

Not only the initial response from our hostile neighbour was lukewarm, but mercenaries-who have been assigned a lucrative job of killing innocent people— made a bold vain bid to blow up the Shalimar Express near Jammu on October 26, significantly on the eve of the holy month of Ramzan. Six bogies of the train got derailed due to the impact of the massive bomb blast. The passengers had a providential escape. May be, it was meant as a Ramzan moon gift in response to Vajpayee’s Diwali gift of peace offer. It seems to be a tactical move to derail yet another peace process initiated by India, to enhance people-to-people contact in a big way.

The tragic train incident was followed by series of bomb blasts, IED explosions, encounters, and ambushes, indicating the level of large-scale infiltration from across the border, giving lie to the fact that Pakistan is interested in peace. The only tangible response from Pakistan, after initial dithering to India’s peace programme was made available five days after India’s ‘tactical’ peace offer, saying it would soon give a 'robust and constructive’ reply; and the reply has finally come but as a naught.

However, Pakistan did not back off completely and it expressed its eagerness to continue peace efforts. After all, there are saner elements in Pakistan, but alas, they are helpless. Pakistan was candid enough to convey that its counter proposals could not be released on October 27, as was hoped earlier, because ‘they (proposals) were yet to be cleared by General Pervez Musharraf.’ How could he rely on his own establishment? He knows acceptance of the Indian proposals will give him a phyyric victory. Perhaps Musharraf might be planning for another Kargil.

October 27 is significant. It was on this day in 1947 that Indian troops had landed in Srinagar, soon after Jammu and Kashmir’s accession with India, to drive away Pakistan tribal raiders, who had at Pakistan’s behest penetrated deep into the Valley, indulging in mayhem.

Earlier, on this day, almost the entire Kashmir valley would remain shut down since the eruption of militancy, but this year there was hardly any response to the separatists’ call for protest rallies. The Hurriyat Conference has got divided. Firebrand leader Syed Ali Geelani has been isolated.

Again coming to the brass-tacks, Pakistan has an ego problem, and genuinely so, at least this time. Pakistan’s Foreign Office spokesman Masood Khan blamed India’s Foreign Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha for his diatribe that the Indian proposals were a move to ‘corner’ Pakistan, aimed at winning the international opinion in India’s favour. But was it necessary to dilute the significance of peace efforts? That so at ab initio.

It is unnecessary to believe that Pakistan would be forced to kow-tow by utterances like ‘ Indian proposals were a ploy to win the world opinion’. It is wrong to presume that the international opinion will get sliced in favour of India by such perceptions. India need not bother about the world opinion, which is divided on the issue of global terrorism because of double standards adopted by the U S.

India’s problem lies essentially in the removal of barriers between the people of the two countries. Peace proposals are basically aimed at confidence building measures. Neither the peace initiative could be termed as the ‘last one’.

Pakistan’s grouse is that India did not include its offer to resume a dialogue on Kashmir.’ India has simultaneously reiterated its rejection of Pakistan offer to resume substantive and sustained dialogue to resolve all issues, notably the Kashmir issue’, the Pakistan spokesman has said. But Pakistan has been time and again told to desist from abetting terrorism in Kashmir before meaningful talks could be held.

Pakistan is piqued as it feels many of the proposals have been ‘recycled’ from those made by Mir Zaffarullah Khan earlier. Pakistan has also taken serious exception to Defence Minister George Fernandes’ statement that this was the last chance for peace.

'The option he has given is an oxymoron . You cannot negotiate peace at gunpoint’, the spokesman has said. The point is if Jammali believes his proposals have been recycled, he should have taken no time in welcoming the Indian move. Vajpayee has however, redoubled his zeal to continue the peace process and Gen Musharraf cannot escape, as he has been put on the litmus paper test. He knows people-to-people relationship if strengthened will be detrimental to his interests.

The proposal to open the route between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad is in fact the most covetous part of the 12-point peace programme, aimed at enhancing peace in the subcontinent, which is bound to help finally in the resolution of the Kashmir issue amicably. It was the lifeline between the Valley and the rest of subcontinent before the partition. It is also called Rawalpindi road. Late Kashmir leader Sheikh Abdullah and many like-minded opposition leaders in the country had frequently been demanding to open the road. And make the borders soft. Even Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed has pleaded for its opening now, unlike in the past.

However, the BJP and other parties have vehemently opposed the move and expressed concern about it, on the ground that it would open flood gates for terrorist activities. Pakistan does not bother now, because the terrorists are otherwise infiltrating into the Valley by other means. India has taken a great risk and might have thought hundred times before including this peace point in the 12 point package. Pakistan has rejected the proposal, to Kashmiris’ chagrin.

On-again, off-again initiation of unilateral peace offer with Pakistan has been long- winded, often resulting in heinous militant acts. Such acts make it clear that Pakistan is uninterested in issues other than Jammu and Kashmir, one-third of which has been illegally grabbed by Pakistan since the tribal invasion shortly after our independence from the British yoke.

If Pakistan thinks Kashmir is the core issue for its survival, so it is for India too. Vajpayee had made it clear a few days before announcing his peace,, that while talking to Pakistan on Kashmir at some stage, it will be the occupied part of Kashmir, which will come under full debate. Pakistanis are being fed on false notion that if India agrees to talk about Kashmir, the entire state will be handed over to them on a platter. India has equally miffed the Islamic countries for raising the bogey of self- determination for the people of Kashmir. (Syndicate Features).