|
|||
HOME | NEWS | COLUMNISTS | KULDIP NAYAR |
April 5, 2000
NEWSLINKS
|
Kuldip Nayar
After the visitBoth India and America were buoyant with expectations when Jawaharlal Nehru visited Washington early in 1962. John F Kennedy, the then President, had read and followed him and wanted his country to appreciate what India under Nehru represented to the world. It was a guru-shishya relationship where the shishya stood in awe before the teacher. Kennedy was disappointed. So was Nehru. Their agendas were different. The former was seeking answers to his problems in Vietnam and the Moscow-aided Cuba. Nehru, standing distant from the Cold War, was looking for American capital to build India, which was stuck at the annual 'Hindu growth rate' of 3.2 per cent. In the same way, President William Jefferson Clinton and Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee had separate agendas when the two met in Delhi. The first had his eyes fixed on Indian markets and the concessions he could get for American investors. The second was keen on America's support for his problems with Pakistan on Kashmir and terrorism from across the border. The first's priority was economic; the second's political. The meeting point was difficult. But both have met with success of sorts. They have done far better than Nehru and Kennedy did. The latter's remark after Nehru's visit was that India could be written off for many decades to come. It turned out to be so. However, Clinton ended his journey on a positive note. He told his country to look for India's achievements. He gave a signal for new relations. US Commerce Secretary William Daley's statement that the economic sanctions against India would not be lifted till it signed the CTBT spoilt the atmosphere of proximity between the two countries. Clinton was able to retrieve it when he enthralled New Delhi by his straight advice to Pakistan's military chief Pervez Musharraf to desist from exporting terrorism to Kashmir and violating the Line of Control. But the press conference, which Musharraf addressed after Clinton's stopover did not give India relief. Musharraf said he was not asked for any assurance, nor did he give one. He said he would 'influence' militant groups to 'moderate' their activities provided India stopped 'atrocities' in Kashmir. That meant there was no improvement in the situation between New Delhi and Islamabad. It is obvious that either Musharraf did not take Clinton seriously when the US President warned Pakistan could collapse because of Kashmir or Clinton did not convey his message seriously, even when they spent two hours separately. The statement by Javed Jabbar, Musharraf's political adviser, that Clinton did not even ask them to outlaw terrorist organisations operating from Pakistani soil underlined the point that Islamabad was not listening when Clinton was speaking or that Clinton was not saying what he had been promising. True, Clinton wants the LoC to be respected. But he too does not accept it as the international border. Had he said that as far as the United States of America was concerned, this was the line it recognised, the haze would have cleared. It would have sent a message to the world and t might have led to a permanent solution. Instead, Washington reiterated that it continued to consider Kashmir a 'dispute.' Strange, American quarters feel that Clinton went further than he wanted to because of New Delhi's pressure on Washington two to three weeks before the visit. There may be a grain of truth in it. Messages coming from Washington on Kashmir were not categorical. The Indian foreign ministry was in favour of leaving things at that. But the Prime Minister's Office wanted Clinton to take a clear position. His hard talk on terrorism indicates that the PMO had its way. India still believes that America has not pressurised Pakistan to the extent it could have. Musharraf has resiled from his statement on jihad (holy war). But fundamentalist and terrorist organisations which operate from Pakistan with its assistance, have not lowered their cry of jihad. Nor have they scaled down their brutalities in Kashmir, for example, the killing of Sikhs and Hindus. How does India hold talks with Pakistan if Clinton has not been able to convince Musharraf to come clean on terrorism? Even if the two countries resume negotiations at the secretary level, nothing would come out of it if the guns continue to boom openly and surreptitiously. Both sides would be overlooking their shoulders. Two things are, however, clear after Clinton's tour. One, America does not want to mediate, although Musharraf repeatedly requested Clinton at Islamabad to do so. Two, both countries have to find a way out of this issue themselves, they have to sit across the table to settle the Kashmir issue and the other outstanding problems between them. Defence Minister George Fernandes has said in a television interview that India is willing to have talks with Pakistan provided the latter takes up all the outstanding issues between the two countries, Kashmir being one of them. This is a departure from New Delhi's earlier policy of not holding talks until cross border terrorism was stopped. If this is true, the credit must be given to Clinton. India can live with dictatorships. It has done so earlier when Pakistan was headed by Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Zia-ul-Haq -- all the three were military chiefs. Clinton's advice to Musharraf to return to democracy is welcome. But America should look back and reflect on its won policies. For the sake of support in the Cold War, it encouraged military regimes in Pakistan. The state department followed the Pentagon. And there was a liberal supply of armaments to Islamabad to prove to New Delhi that Washington looks after its allies because of their strategic importance. In fact, America has preferred dictators to democratic leaders because Washington finds authoritarian methods quick and ready. Another factor counting with America is how anti-Communist is a regime. What it does to its country is its own business. Washington's concern in the past was whether a particular country was on the side of the Soviet Union or against it. Free institutions were no concern of America, its own policies counted. Terrorism too has a similar history. America blessed it and gave it full support, both financially and by providing weapons. One concrete example is that of Afghanistan. Weapons were given for the asking because the purpose was to make the Soviet Union bleed. The same consideration motivates terrorist organisations operating from Pakistan. They are using the same type of weapons which Washington had supplied to Pakistan for the Afghans. In fact, there are too many weapons in the region and violence is sweeping all over. Both India and Pakistan, particularly the first, is reaping what was sowed by America during the hostilities in Afghanistan. If America is diverting its attention to the region, it is late in doing so. What the US and other rich nations do not realise is that people in Asia and Africa cannot always remain hewers of wood and drawers of water. They have been exploited by foreign colonists for centuries. Even now the policies of the West reflects a strong desire to concern the resources of poor countries. Iraq had once said that oil was cheap but technology to process it was dear. The other important aspect of the South Asian situation is that terrorism has struck its roots deep here. Religious fundamentalism has got strengthened, not letting liberalism grow. Clinton should put all his weight against terrorism. South Asia is a good laboratory for experimenting provided he gives up the policy of balance of power, bolstering one country against another. Clinton has seen for himself the fallout of America's earlier policies. The region is waiting for his next step. |
Tell us what you think of this column | |
HOME |
NEWS |
BUSINESS |
MONEY |
SPORTS |
MOVIES |
CHAT |
INFOTECH |
TRAVEL SINGLES | NEWSLINKS | BOOK SHOP | MUSIC SHOP | GIFT SHOP | HOTEL BOOKINGS AIR/RAIL | WEATHER | MILLENNIUM | BROADBAND | E-CARDS | EDUCATION HOMEPAGES | FREE EMAIL | CONTESTS | FEEDBACK |