India, Pak agree to end
risk of war
From Amar
Chandel
Tribune News Service
ISLAMABAD, Oct 18 —
The Indian delegation is returning to Delhi on the eve of
Divali with a lot of thunder but not much light. So much
hinges on every high-level Indo-Pakistan contact that
quite a few people expect the participants to have
Alladin’s lamp tucked somewhere in their luggage.
When the hard rubbing does not bring out the genie, there
is a sense of disappointment. But those who do not
believe in Arabian tales are not really downbeat about
the outcome of the talks.
The two Foreign
Secretaries will now meet in February in New Delhi to
continue the discussions on peace and security and
Kashmir issues.
Talk talk is always better
than fight fight and to that extent, the three-day powwow
has succeeded in bringing about some much-needed
convergence of views. Pakistani leaders have harped on
Kashmir at every available opportunity, but perhaps the
realisation has dawned on them also that their approach
is basically faulty. No Pakistani leader worth his salt
— leave alone a bureaucrat can dare to make any
public pronouncement about a change in attitude, but an
undercurrent of realism might be catching up with them.
A bland one-page joint
statement issued at the end of the talks here today made
no mention at all of any progress made at the talks and
only said that the two sides understand their commitment
to reduce the risk of a conflict by building mutual
confidence in the nuclear and conventional fields. On the
Jammu and Kashmir issue, it was mentioned that the two
sides reiterated their respective positions.
The only convergence of
views seems to be to continue the talks. The word
underlined is "composite and integrated dialogue
process" and Pakistan seems to be gently shedding
its excessive focus on Kashmir, although for public
consumption, the concern over the alleged violations of
human rights, there are loudly bandied about. This
flexibility is matched fully by India.
It is quite clear that in
the days and months to come, only symbolic gestures like
the release of fishermen and the starting of a
Delhi-Lahore bus service will be put into place. Any
substantive improvement on the ground will have to await
another day, rather another year if not decade.
One significant point that
has emerged is that Pakistan is realising the importance
of bilateralism. Pakistan Foreign Secretary Shamshad
Ahmad tried to delineate the difference between a concept
and a principle and said that the third party
intervention was necessary if the situation demanded it.
Now that the world had become a global village, every
part of the world was looking at the rest of the world
and the idea of others having an interest could not be
rejected out of hand.
If the outcome of the
talks were to be prioritised, the ideas which would be
explored later are threefold: One, the avoidance of a
nuclear conflict, two, failsafe communication links and
regular exchange of data. Both delegations pointed out
that the exercise would require patience and building up.
A step-by step process is envisaged.
There will be regular
exchange of views on security concepts. There was a
common perception that the two sides would address
matters relating to both conventional and nuclear forces.
Mr Raghunath did not agree
with the suggestion that the talks had failed to throw up
any progress. He repeatedly emphasised that it was only
the beginning of a process and if both sides show
flexibility, we could make some progress.
Given the complexity of
the situation and sensitivities, the days ahead are going
to be as daunting as they were during the past many
years. Mr Shamshad Ahmad highlighted the fact that when a
vehicle started moving, it was first put into the first
gear and gradually went into the top gear.
Mr Raghunath focussed on
respecting status quo in Kashmir as ordained by the Simla
Agreement.
He also mentioned that
India had been offering a no first use agreement on the
nuclear issue all along but Pakistan Foreign Minister did
not elaborate his response. That would seem to mean that
Islamabad is not agreeable to go that far.
|
