The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

ARTICLE

A tale of two visits
Use symbolism to improve ties with US
by Arundhati Ghose

Clearly nothing succeeds like success. President Obama’s swing through East Asia appeared high on symbolism — US “continued interest in Asia, reassuring allies in South Korea and Japan and, as culmination, a visit to the Middle Kingdom. To the Chinese, it must have seemed fitting that the once sole and now declining super power was calling on China in need. Whether in fact the US is a declining power or not, it is at the moment trammeled sorely by problems at home and abroad. At the very least, the US is, in its own words, seeking “strategic reassurance” from the Chinese. Issues such as China’s military modernisation, trade issues, China’s undervalued currency, human rights and climate change were probably raised, but what appears most important is the formal recognition by the US of China’s emergence as a great power.

Coming at a time when India’s own relationship with China is under strain as the rising great power flexes its muscles, this recognition can only be a source of discomfort in New Delhi. Not that India should grudge the Chinese their magnificent growth, but there is no doubt that such recognition might make Chinese posturing on our borders more rigid and uncompromising.

Working out a modus vivendi with China, an essential element of India’s own hopes of building a more prosperous economy, will become that much more difficult. I am not here referring to the not-so-innocuous reference to South Asia — no doubt insisted on by the Chinese to “balance” the reference to Pakistan’s role in terrorism in the region, and agreed to by the US as not of great consequence — but to the appearance of the sole super power concurring in China’s approaches to not just President Obama’s programme while in China but also to those relating to China’s “core issues”. Whether difficult or not, India, a growing rather than a rising economy, will have to accept that it will have to contend with a not-so-friendly neighbour for the immediate future.

Almost immediately after President Obama returned to Washington, he had to receive Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. While the importance of this visit to the US was nowhere near that of the Chinese meeting, it was also full of symbolism. India’s democracy has been, no doubt, lauded — somewhat patronising I have always felt — as was New Delhi’s strategic importance. But does anyone stress Japan’s democratic credentials? Even in an interview given by the Prime Minister to The Washington Post, he shed light on the issues which were likely to be discussed and these were bilateral ones — we seem to be still building the relationship. It is now clear that there were no grand initiatives, and that is perhaps just as well. There are still too many disagreements on issues such as non-proliferation and climate change, not to mention protectionism and, of course, the implementation of the Indo-US civil nuclear agreement.

The Prime Minister rued the fact in the interview that the US was still unwilling to give India the access to technology that had been the basis of that agreement. At the same time, in other areas such as defence and cooperation on counter-terrorism after 26/11, matters appear to be moving ahead. There is no doubt the relationship has “normalised”, with areas of agreement and disagreement; perhaps we should work on keeping it that way. After all, one of the most important issues for the US at the moment lies in our neighbourhood, in the Af-Pak region. Had we really been of strategic importance to the US, surely there would have been more consultations on the way ahead? Instead, the US has chosen to depend on the analysis of the Pakistani Army, including on the usefulness or otherwise of India’s advice.

It would be well to recognise the close relationship, even at the personal level, between the US military and intelligence services and the Pakistani Army — it is a decades’ old relationship and has been cultivated assiduously by both sides over the years. The developments immediately after the passage of the Kerry-Lugar Bill, granting Pakistan massive and badly required aid, were telling. The Pakistani Army objected to some sections of the Bill, which they felt affected its role in the governance of the country; a US Senator, one of the authors of the Bill, was rushed to Islamabad to “explain” the motivations behind the Bill. Yet the Pakistan Army had accepted US largesse over the years. According to a book written by the now much-maligned (in Pakistan) Pakistani Ambassador to the US, such largesse was one of the reasons why the Pakistan Army had, from Ayub’s days, cultivated the US.

The argument I would put forward would be that, instead of looking beyond symbolism during the Prime Minister’s visit, India should have used the symbolism to strengthen the relationship, and not try to break any new ground with what appears to be a less than comfortable relationship. India needs to bide its time till the US has figured out how important New Delhi is in its geopolitical vision. That the US will remain important to India is obvious.

MIDDLE

MBA made easy
by V.S. Chaudhri

Managing time after retirement is a real problem, especially for those who are not club-minded, who do not play bridge and who do not drink. There is always enough time left after a morning walk, yoga, reading newspapers and magazines and watching TV.

Whenever two old friends meet, the usual topic for discussion is “how do you spend time”.

Some people have done a good deal of research on the subject and devised novel ways and means to kill time without shedding any blood, for which they deserve to be honoured with nothing less than a Nobel Prize. They have tried these recipes themselves and they claim a 100 per cent money-back guarantee in case of their failure.

One of my colleagues says that after getting ready and taking breakfast, he asks his wife if she needed anything to be brought from the market for the day. She would be pleased to name two or three things. The gentleman would go to a general store in the neighbourhood market which he has patronised and purchase one thing.

He would come back and say, “sorry dear, I forgot to bring the other two items.” After about an hour, he would go again and bring one more item and make the same excuse. He would make a third trip after some time and bring the third item. This is his routine.

This exercise enables him to spend some time. The shopkeeper addresses him as ‘Sir’ every time he visits the shop and this reminds him of the good old days. His spirit gets a boost and he feels elated. The rest of the day passes cheerfully.

Another colleague has made it a point to go out at about 11 a.m. to the mini secretariat or some other office complex. He would spot some officer who is seemingly not so busy. He would introduce himself, sit down and narrate some interesting incident of his career to impress him. The young officer might start addressing him as ‘Sir’ and offer him a cup of tea. He has cultivated 4-5 such contacts and he frequents them according to the degree of their hospitality and regard shown by them.

Here is a third colleague and his modus-operandi is most interesting. He met me at a marriage party. After exchanging pleasantries, I posed the same question to him. He said, he was doing his MBA. I was astonished and asked him if he had gone mad. MBA required so much labour which was not possible at this age.

He said, “nothing to be afraid of. It is all very easy. I will tell you the trick, if you are interested to know.” He walked away in the crowd shaking hands with other acquaintances and friends. My eyes were following his movement as I was anxious to know the trick of doing MBA — a much coveted degree in this age. After some time, he returned to me and took me aside. He said, “I will now tell you what an MBA is. MBA means Marriage, Bhog and Akhandpath.”

While taking leave, he spoke in an authoritative tone: “Do not miss the opportunity to show your presence whenever there is such an occasion.”

OPED

Sustained dialogue sans media glare is the key: Omar

Amidst reports that the Home Minister has been holding secret talks with the Hurriyat Conference, how does the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir regard the prospect of such contacts? That is the key question Karan Thapar asked
Omar Abdullah in his incisive programme “Devil’s Advocate” on CNN-IBN. Here are excerpts from the interview:

Q: Chief Minister, there are widespread reports — first broken by The Hindu — that the Home Minister had two secret meetings with the Hurriyat leadership, and in particular with Mirwaiz Omar Farooq. If these reports are accurate, do you as Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir welcome such talks?

A: If they are accurate then yes we certainly do. We have been advocating a sustained dialogue between New Delhi and various shades of political opinion that is not represented by the mainstream political parties. I think the best way to carry out the initial stages of that engagement is away from the glare of the media. I think it is unfortunate that we already have this story break on the front page of The Hindu but I hope too much damage has not been done by that.

Q: You began by saying if they are accurate, but you ended your answer almost as if you believed that they are accurate. What is the truth? Are they happening?

A: I think it would be futile to deny a story that has not been denied by anybody else. We have been advocating a dialogue; the Home Minister has recognised the need for a dialogue and he has talked about quiet diplomacy. When you put these three points together, I think the answer should become self-evident.

Q: I will take that as confirmation. Let me raise with you the manner in which the talks are happening. The Home Minister has emphasised silent talks away from the glare of the media, but members of the Hurriyat Conference — like Naeem Khan himself — have said quiet diplomacy could lead to deceit, transparency is a more honest and accountable way. Do you think that there may be truth in that, given the awkwardness of the Kashmir situation?

A: Certainly. If quiet diplomacy was to suddenly result in an outcome I would be suspicious as well. I think quiet diplomacy is necessary for both sides to feel each other out, to see where the lines in the sand can be drawn, what they expect from each other and a certain amount of confidence building.

Once that is done then the rest of the discussion will take place within the glare of all the publicity and attention that would follow. But I think for the time being a little bit of quiet won’t hurt anybody.

Q: But you are also suggesting that the second the talks begin to become substantive and there is a real possibility they could result in an outcome, then they need to become open and transparent.

A: I believe so. I think it is important that the people gain confidence in the system of dialogue. I think it is also important they understand that there is no underhand deals going on, no backroom operations and no selling out. The worst thing will be nay sayers — and there will be a lot of them — getting an opportunity to say ‘this was done secretly, it is a deal, it is a sellout and the interests of the people of Kashmir have not been kept in mind.”

Q: So to guard against the naysayers undermining things, it is important that at a critical point the talks become open and public.

A: I believe so.

Q: Let me put to you what Mirwaiz Omar Farooq has said. He says that “flexibility is the need of the hour, we have to be open to all new proposals on Kashmir” and then he adds “a hawkish attitude will get us nowhere”. More importantly he says I am not looking at a one-off solution at one go. I am looking at incremental progress. How do you assess the thinking and the position that lies behind that statement?

A: I think a lot of thought has gone into that line of thinking. I think it is the most realistic line we have heard from the Hurriyat in a very long time; and given the rather chequered history we have of having engagement with them I think this provides us a great opportunity for a graded sort of march towards the final solution we are looking for rather than a one-off agreement that everybody has to sign off on.

But again the Mirwaiz is just one individual amongst a large number — no doubt perhaps the highest profile among them — a decent support base but he is one individual in the moderate Hurriyat faction. There are others — both at the top tier and as well as the second level — that also need to feel part of the process. Otherwise all they will do is jump on to the hard-line bandwagon and threaten the process.

Q: A second voice from Hurriyat is that of Abdul Ghani Bhatt, a former chairman of Hurriyat Conference. He has gone a step further and he has said that Hurriyat is interested in triangular talks and not tripartite talks, by which he means that they will talk to India and Pakistan but separately.

Do you think this is a neat way of finessing the stand-off between Delhi and Islamabad?

A: I think again (it is) realistic. You are not going to get a situation where New Delhi, Islamabad and the Hurriyat are going to be sitting at the same table — it is not going to happen. Therefore, if you can work a system wherein you engage with Islamabad and you engage with New Delhi, both at the same time, I see no harm in it. We have done it from the mainstream point of view. I have had engagement with the government of Pakistan as well as the government of India, and I don’t think anything harmful has come out of that.

Q: You have used the adjective realism to reflect both the thinking of the Mirwaiz as well Mr Bhatt. Realism, in a sense, has begun to dawn on the Hurriyat, hasn’t it?

A: I believe so, at least in a section of the opinion makers in the Hurriyat Conference.

Q: Abdul Ghani Bhatt has said another interesting thing. He has actually called upon mainstream parties, like your National Conference and the PDP, to join hands with the Hurriyat. How do you as president of your party and Chief Minister respond to that sentiment?

A: Well it is one thing to join hands; it is another thing to engage with. We have never had difficulties in engaging with the leadership of the Hurriyat Conference, whoever it may be. Joining hands has a completely different connotation. It means either they have to accept our line of thinking, or we have to accept theirs. It is a little premature in the process to (join hands).

Q: But engage you are willing to do?

A: Engage we never had a problem with them. I have publicly and privately engaged at various fora and would be quite happy to do so.

Q: The fact that they are labelled separatists doesn’t put you off?

A: No, absolutely not. They are part of the political landscape of Jammu and Kashmir. How much of a role they have to play is open to individual interpretation. But they have a role.

Q: Therefore, do I also sense a change of attitude in the government of Jammu and Kashmir toward the separatists? Previously they were kept at arm’s length, now as Chief Minister you are prepared to engage with them.

A: I believe my predecessors also have been (engaging).

Q: Not so openly.

A: Perhaps time has changed and attitudes need to change along with those times.

Q: You accept that, in a sense, its happened with you? You have crystallized that.

A: I think that’s important given the desire on all sides for a negotiated settlement to this problem. It’s important that we all keep an open mind and we all are willing to be flexible. Being rigid is not going to get any of us anywhere.

Q: You talk about a need for an open mind and need to be flexible. Now both you and the Home Minister of India have separately said that all shades of political opinion need to be embraced by the talks. But is it possible to bring someone like Syed Ali Shah Geelani on? After all he has laid down rigid conditions for talks. Can New Delhi meet them?

A: At this point, no. I think the goal post that he has set would make a dialogue with him almost impossible. But then never say never again.

Q: If he has set a goal post that makes dialogue with him impossible, can talks without him be meaningful?

A: Sure, no solution is going to be acceptable to 100 (hundred) per cent of the people. We should have the willingness to accept that. Therefore there are going to be those people, who will not accept, whatever the outcome of this dialogue is. If Syed Ali Shah Geelani is going to be one of those people, so be it.

Q: But if these talks come close to some sort of solutions would it stick, if Geelani is not part of the process? Mehbooba Mufti for instance says it wouldn’t stand the test of scrutiny.

A: Well, she has a different equation with him than we do. Perhaps, that’s her political compulsion and necessity. He does not represent Kashmir, he represents a selection of opinion in Kashmir. If that section of opinion chooses to remain out of the process, you can’t force them into it. But they are not the majority of the people. If the majority of the people are willing to go with whatever solution has been worked out that is what will happen.

Q: So the talks can proceed without Geelani?

A: I believe so. For the time being I think yes.

Q: Let me quote to you something you said at the All India Editor’s Conference in Srinagar, just about six weeks ago on October 13. You said, “it is necessary to engage all political forces, listen to each view, and take all sides of opinion into consideration”. Does that also include militant groups like Hizbul Mujahideen?

A: If they are willing to... move from a path of violence. We have done it in the past and I see no reason why we can’t do it in the future. We have engaged, the government of India has engaged, the Hizbul Mujahideen in the year 2000.

Q: That was a BJP government?

A: It was a BJP government with a National Conference government in the state.

Q: So presumably it should be that much easier for today’s government to do the same thing.

A: Well, BJP has a history of opposing everything that they did in government once they are in Opposition. So I wouldn’t expect — support.

Q: But could you, if the situation reaches that point, as Chief Minister invite them to join the talks on the proviso that they lay down arms and put away violence.

A: Well, if they are willing to, as I said, shift from a path of violence. Then sure I believe it would be possible for the state government to ask the government of India to engage them and if necessary for the state government to engage them as well — let’s understand that they are really not looking for anything from the state government. So our role is of a facilitator.

Q: A facilitator?

A: We would be happy to facilitate.

Q: But you’re prepared to play that role not just for people like the Hurriyat, who are just separatists, but possibly even for the Hizbul Mujahideen

A: As long as they give up the wrong side, the path of violence. Yes, I don’t see any problem because we have done that not only in J&K, as I said, but also in the other states.

Q: Anything that brings peace and a solution to Kashmir you are prepared to try to do?

A: I am prepared to be flexible but sure it can’t be completely unconditional.

Q: Chief Minister, let’s come to the key question that has under laid the discussion until now. Has the time come for New Delhi to resume its interrupted dialogue with Pakistan over Kashmir?

A: New Delhi has already resumed its dialogue with Pakistan, they did it in Egypt in Sharm-el-Sheikh. It’s been subsequently interrupted again because of the furore that the joint declaration resulted in. But I think it is necessary that we continue our engagement with Pakistan. The problem is- I think the Prime Minister himself brought it out- the multiplicity of power centres in Pakistan makes our task much more difficult.

Q: It’s very interesting that you should have said New Delhi has already resumed the dialogue at Sharm-el-Sheikh, using the word dialogue. Because officials in the Prime Minister’s office and in particular the Foreign secretary of the day, they have made it clear that those were talks not dialogue. You actually see it as dialogue.

A: I am not a diplomat. So I am sorry, I don’t cross my Ts and dot my Is with as much care as others do. If I did, I would be a foreign office official and not the Chief Minister of J& K.

Q: When one is talking it is dialogue and let’s not play around with words.

A: When you’re talking, you talk. You call it whatever you like but you are talking to each other.

Q: Let’s come to the position that the Prime Minister articulated in your capital Srinagar on October 30. He said there were no pre-condition to talk or dialogue with Pakistan but he added that it was essential that effective control be exercised over terrorist groups that target India.

The alternate view is that given that Pakistan itself is experiencing terror, it might actually help Pakistan to exercise that control if talks or dialogue were to be resumed. Of those two views which do you incline towards

A: I think there is no doubt that it would definitely help Pakistan to exercise control over the forces that have in the past been used against India particularly in Jammu and Kashmir. So it’s a win-win for both sides. Pakistan excising control over militants helps them domestically and it also ensures that India is able to get engaged with them in a sustained long term dialogue and that, ultimately, is what both sides want.

Q: Do you think the time has come, one year after 26/11, for India to perhaps find a way of resuming that dialogue? Because not just is Pakistan’s own internal future at stake but in a sense the future of Kashmir is standing still and marking time. So has the time come for India to put out some feelers and start the process?

A: I believe India has already put out feelers and started some sort of a process in Egypt and then you had the Sharm-el-Sheikh declaration. It’s a different matter that there was a backlash.

Q: Yes the backlash —

A: It didn’t go down very well at all back home which probably resulted in some amount of pulling back. But I believe it is important that we engage Pakistan. I think it definitely is in the interest of the both countries.

Q: So, it’s time for another try?

A: I believe so. We must always keep trying and there is no time like the present.

Q: And in a sense for Kashmir in particular it’s important that you keep trying.

A: You will not get a solution if the dialogue is only focused internally. Whether we like it or not an external dialogue with Pakistan is also part of the entire process and that’s why I have always maintained that both need to go on almost simultaneously for us to be able to arrive at something realistic.

Q: So do you agree with the view of The Hindu newspaper- “Islamabad’s support for the dialogue process within the state must be secured”?

A: No, I am not talking about support from them. I’m talking about a discussion, a dialogue and a talk with Pakistan aimed at easing their parts of the problem as well. Let’s not forget Kashmir is not just an internal issue, it’s been brought on the international stage as a result of the Simla agreement.

Q: We can’t forget that it has this international dimension.

A: It does have. It’s been accepted by us on paper.

Q: In fact that’s a fact you can’t run away from today

A: you can neither deny nor you can run away from it.

Q: So, if in a sense Islamabad or Pakistan is kept out in the cold then the hope of a meaningful dialogue with groups in Srinagar, particularly the Hurriyat, will not really materialise.

A: It will reach a point beyond which we will not be able to drive it further.

Q: One last thing. When ever there is a serious possibility of resuming dialogue with Pakistan, the security situation ends up bedeviling things. Recently there has been this discovery of Tahawwur Hussain Rana and David Coleman Headley and it seemed to have scuppered the possibility of a resumption. How does India get out of this bind?

A: I think, you come back again to what the Prime Minister has been saying that no preconditions but it would help if these sort of forces are controlled. That’s probably the only way we can get a sustained dialogue and be able to withstand these sorts of security shocks.

Q: So it’s a tight rope you have to walk and you have to hope you keep your balance on both sides?

A: Yes and get a very long stick to hang on to.

Q: Chief Minister, a pleasure talking to you.

A: My pleasure.