Sonia snubs anti -PM lobby

By B L Kak

The Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, has ably demonstrated his capability to shoot if shot at. Amid the loud noises from a section of the Congressman and some elements from the non-Congress groups against some of his utterings in New York on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting, Manmohan Singh has been compelled to sit up and sharply react to the unwarranted comments against his performance during his stay in the United States.

The Prime Minister had reasons to lose his cool barely a day after a section of the Indian media put out stories with regard to the dissatisfaction of some Congress Ministers in the Manmohan Singh Government and the Left parties over his strong pitch for US investment in India. In fact, a multi-edition English daily let it be known that a ginger group of Congress leaders had charged Manmohan Singh with pleading like "a salesman" and that the Prime Minister and his ''new coterie'' are more pro-American than Atal Bihari Vajpayee or LK Advani.

And if the story put out by the publication were to be believed, the displeased Congress Ministers had joined the Left Front in identifying Planning commission Deputy Chairman, Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Finance Minister, P. Chidambaram, and Economic Advisor to Congress president (Sonia Gandhi), Jairam Ramesh, as those giving a US-centric hue to Indian economic policies. This kind of portrayal of the performance and perceptions of the Prime Minister led him to make public -and that too in New York itself on September 25- his bitterness over the spread of false reports.

Manmohan Singh was found unusually aggressive in his tone and presentation in the course of his press conference in New York. In this connection, sample number one: " I am here certainly to sell India, explain to the rest of the world what India is doing. The rest of the world knows that the bulk of the resources for India's development have always been mobilised domestically and we will continue on those line... But at the margins there is scope to involve the world community in supporting over development".

Sample number two of Manmohan Singh's call-a spade-a spade style: "As Prime Minister it is my duty and obligation that whenever I come abroad I should seek to promote India''. Obviously, this was his response to the criticism in India that he was behaving like a "salesman" during his US visit.

Sample number three: "I don't see anything wrong in what I have said, what I have done that Jyoti Babu (former Chief Minister of West Bengal) can take exception to. Before I came here I had a very good meeting with Jyoti Babu, with Comrade Surjeet (Harkishen Singh) and Sitaram Yachury and I told them clearly that this is what I am going to say. I said to them I am going to tell the world community that India needs foreign direct investment and we will seek to create in our country a climate, an atmosphere, an environment conducive to greater flow of direct investments. And on that there were complete agreement between us"...

The reported ginger group of Congress leaders that had quietly laboured to influence their party chief, Sonia Gandhi, by their argument accusing the Prime Minister of anti-Congress behaviour, had to beat a quick retreat when she strongly defended Manmohan Singh. Sonia Gandhi's line in support of her Prime Minister has to be studied in the context of the fact that even the National Common Minimum Programme of the present United Progressive Alliance (UPA) Government in New Delhi has supported further growth in the country's economy and industry as a result of investments from outside. Secondly, Sonia Gandhi was reportedly in line with the Prime Minister, who made his sales pitch for American investment, as a complement to a politically important partnership between India and the United States.

Thirdly, barring the so-called ginger group of Congress leaders, many within and outside the party endorsed Manmohan Singh's sales pitch. Its bottom line was that every international business must necessarily have an Indian strategy. Whatever the attitude adopted by his critics towards him, there is no doubt that the Prime Minister has drawn the most revealing conclusion: "There is an Indian story which must be a part of every company's story".

Again, the so-called ginger group sought to build a strong case against the Prime Minister for his "failure" to highlight terrorism during his talks with Pakistan President, Gen. Musharraf, in New York. But their game-plan, in this regard, failed to bear fruit, after Sonia Gandhi was informed by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) that the terrorism issue was raised by Manmohan Singh during the talks. And Manmohan Singh himself stated: "Yes, it (terrorism issue) came upto at the meeting. I mentioned unambiguously to President Musharraf that the starting point of the whole dialogue is the commitment given by Pakistan in the January 6 statement, that Pakistan territory or territory under Pakistan's control will not be used for terrorist purposes".

That the Prime Minister had taken up the issue of terrorism was borne out by the fact that the statement issued at the end of the talks between him and Gen. Parvez Musharraf did contain a reference to the January 6 statement. The January 6 statement issued by the two sides (Atal Bihari Vajpayee was than the Prime Minister) had three elements-creation of a peaceful environment, negotiations on all subjects including Kashmir, and the implementation of confidence -building measures to normalise the relationship.

There is no reason to find fault with Manmohan Singh's agreement with the Pakistan President for purposeful negotiations on finding a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue. It has to be admitted and the Vajpayee Government had, of course, admitted- that there can be no peace process without discussing the Kashmir question. The BJP fielded former Minister for External Affairs, Yashwant Sinha, to take on Manmohan Singh. Sinha should have realised that if the Manmohan Singh-Parvez Musharraf agreement contained specific details on Jammu and Kashmir issue, it did not amount to giving special dispensation for the subject in the bilateral engagement.

The BJP-led NDA Government with Vajpayee as the Prime Minister had initiated a bold political effort to restructure relations with Pakistan against great odds. Sadly, instead of trying to take credit for initiating the peace process, the BJP is now opposing to on technical grounds.

The BJP was every right to play the oppositional game. But it has to acknowledge and appreciate that fact that all Manmohan Singh is doing to formalise a serious negotiation on Kashmir is return for Pakistani commitment on a cooperative relationship.

Challenges before Pak PM

By M. A. Magrey

An economist of repute, who had earlier served in the World Bank, Shaukat Aziz is the General Musharraf's new chosen Prime Minister of Pakistan. He took over at a time when the country is the midst of a civil war. He took over at a time when the law and order situation is so bad that even the President of the country, who happens to be army chief also, prefers to deprive himself of the freedom of movement and sit in the bunkers. He took over at a time when there is growing demand from the political opposition and the media to decongest the civil institutions from their military bosses. And finally, he took over at a time when both India and Pakistan are engaged in crucial talks to resolve with their outstanding differences in which he may be required to take some bold decisions that may not be palatable to Pakistanis in general who are being continuously fed 'anti-India venom'. As a new Prime Minister, his responsibility certainly would be to tackle all these problems and at the same time provide Pakistan a strong infrastructure for sustained growth. He certainly has difficult tasks ahead.

Baluchistan and North-West Frontier Province are two specific areas, which are simmering with unrest. People in these two areas presently feel completely alienated. A civilian democratic Government would have gone for the talks with the tribal leaders of the area and would have taken steps to mitigate genuine grievances of the people. But this is not so with General Musharraf. He has gone for complete military solution and would certainly like Shaukat Aziz to endorse his line of action. Baloch are struggling for more provincial rights and rights to their natural resources. They detest the Punjabi domination. With Government using force to suppress the aspiration of Baloch nationalists (as they call themselves), the clashes between activists of Baloch Liberation Army and the Government forces have increased. Deadly attacks on army targets and military establishments are happening almost on regular intervals. Its effect has also spilled over to neighbouring Sindh where bombs to blow up trains just barely missed their targets at Hyderabad. The distrust for the Government is so deep that Baloch are opposing tooth and nail establishment of military cantonments at Gwadar, Dera Bugti and Kohlu. They perceive these cantonments as outposts of repression and control, not development. The corrupt Frontier Corps is thoroughly hated and despised as a federal instrument of oppression. Situation in Waziristan is not different. A civil war is virtually on both these areas. The Pakistani army has converted the area as another battlefield for the generals to try their new military acquisitions on their own people. As seen in Wana and Baluchistan, if the Pashtun and Baloch are fired upon, they retaliate with rockets, guns and stingers that they continue to possess, supplied to them by ISI and CIA in good old days of Aghanistan Jehad. However, instead of making any serious efforts to address the genuine grievances of the people, General Musharraf not only denied existing of any Baloch Liberation Army, but also called them a bunch of saboteurs and ordered for its total annihilation. Balochi nationalist politicians and Sardars immediately rallied to support the cause of Baluchistan Liberation Army. In a show of open defiance and belligerence, they held a seminar under the aegis of Pakistan Oppressed Nation Movement in Islamabad, where they discussed the Constitutional, political, economic contravention of the rights of the oppressed Sarakai, Sindhi, Balochi and Pakhtoons. The general refrain was that the oppressed nations have been suffering long due to ruling Punjabi elite and the army. The speakers warned that if Pakistan disintegrates due to injustice to oppressed nations, the army and the people of Punjab would be responsible. A final battle line has been drawn, making it difficult for the new Prime Minister to handle.

Extremism is another factor requiring urgent attention of the new Prime Minister. This single factor has multi-dimensional effect on Pakistan's economy, its growth, its political stability, its polity, its international relation, and above all its relation with India with whom it is seeking peace. However, Pakistan has so far shown very poor record of restraining extremist groups. Pakistan's uni-focal approach keeping Kashmir factor at its centre vis-a-vis India restrains it from taking any strong action against the extremist groups. On the contrary, such groups are openly encouraged to subvert peace in Kashmir and elsewhere in India in the misplaced hope that such tactics would one-day make India to surrender its interest in Kashmir to Pakistan. According to P. Cohen, "the conflict with India place the Pak army front and centre domestically and allows national security issues to cast a disproportionately large shadow on Pakistan's economy, politics and society." In this backdrop, any economic revival appears remote. Foreign investors are still wary of coming to Pakistan in view of unsatisfactory law and order situation, politically motivated violence and acts of terrorism. The political climate is also too uncertain to encourage foreign investment. Although the sentiment of continuing armed struggle in Kashmir and implacable hostility towards India is now confined only to a small but opulent circle of self-styled exponents of the ideology of Pakistan, the tragedy is that this circle holds the country, its system and leaders a hostage to their own power. They ignore that dedication of vast resources to the armed forces and self-destructive nuclear programme only to confront India has already done considerable damage to country's economy by denying resources to industrial investment and trade. For trade to grow, economy to strengthen and social sector to consolidate peace with India is must. However, the much desired peace is not possible unless Pakistan completely stops using terrorism as a bargaining chip.

There is hardly anyone in Pakistan who doubts the sincerity of Shaukat Aziz, but now far will he be able to change the mindset of small but powerful anti-India lobby is difficult to guess. Pakistan does not have a real democracy. A military ruler always needs some excuse to stay in power. If Kashmir is not there, what excuse will be have - asked Ashma Jehangir, the noted Human Rights activist of Pakistan.