Desperate for recognition, isolated at international level, trapped in economic recession, on the verge of being declared a terrorist state, infested with sectarian conflicts. These were some of the perceptions of Indian establishment about Gen. Parvez Musharraf and his Pakistan, when the decision was taken to invite him for a dialogue. It was believed that Pakistan having lost its position as a frontline state against communism has become irrelevant for Americans strategically. On top of it, being a breeding ground of Islamic militants, it has lost sympathies of its previous Western allies.
On account of his Western life-style Musharraf was perceived to be one who is keen to get Pakistan out of this mess. It was believed that he wants to legitimize his rule and in case India helps him in this pursuit, he may be ready to give some concessions. Benazir Bhutoo added to this estimation of Indian establishment by declaring that Musharraf was the weakest ruler of Pakistan to negotiate with India. It was also believed that Musharraf is keen to remove the stigma of Kargil from his image and project himself as a moderate ruler. Some commentators on Indian T.V. channels predicted that he is unlikely to get I.M.F. loan in case he does not enter into a compromise with India.
While asserting these conclusions, Indian policy makers neither looked to the positive points in favour of Gen. Musharraf nor to weaker aspects of the Indian side.
When Indira Gandhi and Nehru negotiated with Pakistan, they represented a stable government in the centre and a party that ruled most of the Indian states. Atal Bihari Vajpayee proceeded to negotiating table as head of a coalition government of about 25 parties. His party is ruling only in three out of 28 Indian states. Even in these states, BJP government is dependent upon the support of other parties. Externally, Nehru and Indira Gandhi enjoyed support of Russians. They also had credibility among the non-aligned countries of the third world. Their secular credentials facilitated a positive image for them in the countries of Middle East. Atal Bihari Vajpayee neither enjoys the support of Russians internationally nor has the status that was enjoyed by Nehru and Indira Gandhi within the fraternity of Non-Aligned nations. On account of his R.S.S. background and growing Indo-Israel relations, he is looked at with suspicion in Muslim countries. When Nehru and Indira Gandhi proceeded for dialogues with Pakistan, freedom movement in Kashmir was dormant and confined to political agitation. Today Kashmir is turbulent politically as well as militarily. The right of self-determination although accepted internationally was previously applied only to states which were under the colonial possession. Now the right has been accepted and extended to non-colonized territories as well. Examples of this can be seen in Eritrea and Eastern Timor, Quebec province of Canada and various parts of Eastern Europe.
While analyzing the position of Gen. Musharraf it was taken into consideration that the General is heading a nuclear weapon state. This is the position which none of his predecessors had enjoyed. Pakistan has achieved long cherished parity with India in this field. Gen Musharraf also represented a Pakistan that was instrumental in facilitating the disintegration of Soviet Union. Through this, Pakistan has regained its confidence and achieved an experience of fighting a proxy war against a disproportionately strong adversary. Pakistan while negotiating with India has for the first time a friendly Taliban government in its backyard in Afghanistan. This not only has relieved four divisions of its army for deployment on Indian borders but also created Taliban Militia as its reserve force.
Gen. Musharraf thus proved to be strong and uncompromising beyond the estimation of Indian policy makers. Contrary to their expectations, he was talking from the position of strength. He did everything that he wanted. He met Hurriyat leaders against the wishes of his hosts. He addressed Indian media and through it whole of the Indian nation. Atal Bihari Vajpayee on the other hand seemed to be helpless. On his return Musharraf had not only elevated his status in the estimation of his country men but also in the eyes of the whole world. IMF loans were released to Pakistan soon after his return from Agra. Americans to his liking offered their good offices for negotiation on Kashmir. Pakistan welcomed it, India rejected the offer.
The simple lesson that Indian policy makers have from Agra is that they should never under estimate their adversaries. Nations irrespective of their size are equal. Huge size and population do not necessarily add to the strength of a nation. India needs to reconcile to this formulation of Mohammed Ali Jinah and get ready for resolution of all outstanding issues with its neighbour. Borders of nations keep changing. It is beyond the competence of any power to freeze them forever. Greatness of a nation lies in its capacity to survive in the face of geo-political changes. Those who adapt to these changes can transform adverse changes into success. If Pakistan could survive and become stronger after loosing half of its population size, why can’t India survive after resolution of the Kashmir dispute? Nationhood of India should not be so fragile as crumble with any solution of the Kashmir dispute. It is this perception that should be imbibed by the Indian Prime Minister before proceeding to New York for initiating a new round of talks with General Parvez Musharraf.
On account of his Western life-style Musharraf was perceived to be one who is keen to get Pakistan out of this mess. It was believed that he wants to legitimize his rule and in case India helps him in this pursuit, he may be ready to give some concessions. Benazir Bhutoo added to this estimation of Indian establishment by declaring that Musharraf was the weakest ruler of Pakistan to negotiate with India. It was also believed that Musharraf is keen to remove the stigma of Kargil from his image and project himself as a moderate ruler. Some commentators on Indian T.V. channels predicted that he is unlikely to get I.M.F. loan in case he does not enter into a compromise with India.
While asserting these conclusions, Indian policy makers neither looked to the positive points in favour of Gen. Musharraf nor to weaker aspects of the Indian side.
When Indira Gandhi and Nehru negotiated with Pakistan, they represented a stable government in the centre and a party that ruled most of the Indian states. Atal Bihari Vajpayee proceeded to negotiating table as head of a coalition government of about 25 parties. His party is ruling only in three out of 28 Indian states. Even in these states, BJP government is dependent upon the support of other parties. Externally, Nehru and Indira Gandhi enjoyed support of Russians. They also had credibility among the non-aligned countries of the third world. Their secular credentials facilitated a positive image for them in the countries of Middle East. Atal Bihari Vajpayee neither enjoys the support of Russians internationally nor has the status that was enjoyed by Nehru and Indira Gandhi within the fraternity of Non-Aligned nations. On account of his R.S.S. background and growing Indo-Israel relations, he is looked at with suspicion in Muslim countries. When Nehru and Indira Gandhi proceeded for dialogues with Pakistan, freedom movement in Kashmir was dormant and confined to political agitation. Today Kashmir is turbulent politically as well as militarily. The right of self-determination although accepted internationally was previously applied only to states which were under the colonial possession. Now the right has been accepted and extended to non-colonized territories as well. Examples of this can be seen in Eritrea and Eastern Timor, Quebec province of Canada and various parts of Eastern Europe.
While analyzing the position of Gen. Musharraf it was taken into consideration that the General is heading a nuclear weapon state. This is the position which none of his predecessors had enjoyed. Pakistan has achieved long cherished parity with India in this field. Gen Musharraf also represented a Pakistan that was instrumental in facilitating the disintegration of Soviet Union. Through this, Pakistan has regained its confidence and achieved an experience of fighting a proxy war against a disproportionately strong adversary. Pakistan while negotiating with India has for the first time a friendly Taliban government in its backyard in Afghanistan. This not only has relieved four divisions of its army for deployment on Indian borders but also created Taliban Militia as its reserve force.
Gen. Musharraf thus proved to be strong and uncompromising beyond the estimation of Indian policy makers. Contrary to their expectations, he was talking from the position of strength. He did everything that he wanted. He met Hurriyat leaders against the wishes of his hosts. He addressed Indian media and through it whole of the Indian nation. Atal Bihari Vajpayee on the other hand seemed to be helpless. On his return Musharraf had not only elevated his status in the estimation of his country men but also in the eyes of the whole world. IMF loans were released to Pakistan soon after his return from Agra. Americans to his liking offered their good offices for negotiation on Kashmir. Pakistan welcomed it, India rejected the offer.
The simple lesson that Indian policy makers have from Agra is that they should never under estimate their adversaries. Nations irrespective of their size are equal. Huge size and population do not necessarily add to the strength of a nation. India needs to reconcile to this formulation of Mohammed Ali Jinah and get ready for resolution of all outstanding issues with its neighbour. Borders of nations keep changing. It is beyond the competence of any power to freeze them forever. Greatness of a nation lies in its capacity to survive in the face of geo-political changes. Those who adapt to these changes can transform adverse changes into success. If Pakistan could survive and become stronger after loosing half of its population size, why can’t India survive after resolution of the Kashmir dispute? Nationhood of India should not be so fragile as crumble with any solution of the Kashmir dispute. It is this perception that should be imbibed by the Indian Prime Minister before proceeding to New York for initiating a new round of talks with General Parvez Musharraf.
No comments:
Post a Comment