news details |
|
|
| Indo-Pak political play in Delhi | | | BL KAK
April 1 to April 5. The five-day phase witnessed five players--three from India and two from Pakistan--making news, if not waves, for the people of the two countries. These five persons of consequence: Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, his External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, and Foreign Secretary, Shivshankar Menon, from India. Pakistan Prime Minister, Shaukat Aziz, and his Foreign Minister, Khurshid Kasuri.
As Khurshid Kasuri and his Indian counterpart, Pranab Mukherjee, met in New Delhi, the Indian Foreign Secretary, Shivshankar Menon, went on record to say that the two countries “have agreed on a common map of a disputed border estuary flowing into the Arabian Sea”. Menon was referring to the Sir Creek dispute in the Runn of Kutch on the boundary of Indian Gujarat and Pakistan’s Sindh province.
On the Sir Creek issue, the two Foreign Ministers noted: “We have completed the joint survey. We have one common map of the area, from which we will now work and try and see how far we can take this issue to a resolution”. The two Ministers also discussed the dispute over Siachen, and were “optimistic” about finding a solution to it as well. Sir Creek and Siachen will be the focus of a new round of talks between Defence Secretaries of the two countries in Islamabad on April 6.
The two sides seem to have moved forward to such an extent that they will discuss possible troop cuts at the world’s highest frontline, Siachen glacier. The Indian Defence Ministry spokesman said that the Defence Secretaries of the two countries would meet for fresh discussions on the 6,300-metre Siachen glacier. The Pakistan Foreign Minister also sounded an upbeat note: “Things are moving in the right direction and we should look at them in a positive manner”.
Are the ‘high dignitaries’ telling the truth or are they simply sought to create good atmospherics on the eve of a SAARC summit in New Delhi? Thew two-day SAARC summit conclued on April 4. Pakistan Prime Minister, Shaukat Aziz, has had a hectic schedule before and after his 50-minute 'cordial' meeting with his Indian counterpart, Manmohan Singh.
After long years of going through the kabuki of ‘composite dialogue’ leading nowhere, the art of lying to inspire hope should be given up. It is much better to speak the truth and tell the long-suffering masses that India and Pakistan are “same play” than to lose personal reputation through useless verbiage. Is it true that all Foreign Secretaries and Foreign Ministers are cut from the same cloth? Pakistan has had Foreign mMnisters on record in the 1990s saying that the Kashmir issue would be resolved “next year”.
In 1992, India’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO), General Raghavan, had predicted that the Siachen dispute “will not be resolved in the foreseeable future”. In 1999, the Kargil conflict near Siachen complicated the issue further. How are things different now?
It is going to take a big leap in the statesmanship capabilities on both sides to sort out the Sir Creek issue. Anyone in the West with the scars of past conflicts would have done it a long time ago, but not South Asia where deadlock becomes politics itself. The dispute lies in the 60-mile-long estuary of Sir Creek in the marshes of the Runn of Kutch. The two fought a limited war in this area in 1965. The Sir Creek dispute — considered smaller than the other disputes lingering between India and Pakistan — might in fact prove to be the most intractable in the coming days as it becomes linked to the delineation of each country’s maritime zones. There is the issue of the territorial waters and the further extension of a much larger economic zone. Both countries have been lured into thinking that the Indian Ocean is full of natural resources which a shift of a few miles of the line drawn from the Runn could jeopardise.
Depending on how the line is drawn from Sir Creek onwards, the gain or loss to either country could be about 250 square miles of ocean and ocean floor. Pakistan claims Sir Creek on the basis of one set of maps while India draws a median line in the Creek on the basis of another set of maps. Old maps are really of no use because the dry Creek has shifted like its sands and requires a new decision by both sides. It would be wise to start with a temporary median line. Wisdom dictates that the 250 square miles of the ocean that are to be surrendered by the ‘losing’ party should be shared half and half. The matter should no doubt be resolved by experts, but there is nothing the experts can do if the “instructions” given to them are tough, based on decades of lack of trust. Lack of trust drove the two to opt for World Bank arbitration on the Baglihar Dam. But last year when the verdict came after millions spent in costs, neither side won. Isn’t it therefore better to resolve the issues in a sprit of mutual confidence?
The same advice is applicable to the trade issues. It is wrong to make free bilateral trade conditional to any other issue. But it is quite proper to engage in marathon talks and sort out the glitches that doubtless exist in starting up a free trade arrangement. The ‘peace first’ formula simply creates more disputes — all the smaller disputes have grown around the issue of Kashmir — but moving forward towards normalisation of relations definitely has the promise of bringing peace to the region and, with it, a resolution of disputes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
