You don`t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
The moment, it has been said, produces the man. In a like manner, a meeting between Indian and Pakistani top leaders usually produces some truly top class analysis. Last week`s visit by President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan was no exception.
But the credit went entirely to columnists and the Hindi newspapers, whose leader writers took a more realistic view of the visit. Hindustan pointed out that while the progress was good, it was up to Pakistan to keep terrorism under check. It also made the point about the Baglihar dam that there was no need for third party intermediation, as being demanded by Pakistan. Navbharat Times was more forthright both in tone and content. Musharraf, it said, may have succeeded in chaging his image, but has he changed in his heart?
Needless to say, the English editorials, barring a few exceptions, were gooey and treacly and thus only worth ignoring. Even the sensible ones appeared unwilling to strike the wrong note. I think the editors need to attend fewer of those embassy and MEA cocktails.
Altogether the best article came from K P Nayar, the diplomatic editor of The Telegraph. He gave a clear and succinct account of what went on behind the scenes and gave, perhaps not wholly justifiably, the entire credit for the success of the meeting to the national security adviser, M.K. Narayanan.
"Narayanan`s uncompromising insistence on a reference to terrorism in Monday`s joint communiqué on Musharraf`s talks with Indian leaders meant, for some tense hours on Sunday, that there would be no joint communiqué."
Nayar says Narayanan wanted the joint communiqué to make a reference to the the India-Pakistan joint statement of January 6, 2004 in Islamabad and its follow-up in New York on September 24, 2004, namrly, "President Musharraf reassured prime minister Vajpayee that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan`s control to be used to support terrorism in any manner."
The Pakistanis, writes Nayar, were unwilling but "Narayanan, typically for a man who has spent his entire professional life as a spook, refused to budge". Why was this so important?
Because, says Nayar, such a reference would commit Pakistan to something it was not willing to commit itself to. "Pakistani officials tried to sweet-talk their Indian counterparts into dropping any reference to the January document. They argued that the two sides, after all, were making progress on Kashmir: why bring up the distasteful matter of terrorism and spoil the atmosphere? This argument found many takers on the Indian side. The Pakistanis were counting on Dixit`s absence in New Delhi, but Narayanan proved to be an equal match for the Pakistanis as the new national security adviser."
Narayan, says Nayar, had comprehensively reviewed details of terrorist training camps that still operate inside Pakistan preparatory to the visit of the American secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. 52 camps continue to be run inside Pakistan.
The next best article came from Swapan Dasgupta, again in The Telegraph which, I must say, has perhaps the best editorial page amongst the general newspapers. Dasgupta reviewed the personalities of the Pakistani leaders from Jinnah down to Musharraf, about whom he had this to say:
Pervez Musharraf who breezed his way across the cricket stadium and the negotiating tables of Delhi earlier this week has many things in common with his predecessors. He matches Bhutto in loquacious flamboyance, Zia in shrewdness and Ayub in his disavowal of all that Islamist clap-trap. He is an opportunist, pragmatist and modernizer rolled into one."
He then pointed out that Musharraf had also held out a veiled threat which went un-noticed in India because of the phoney goodwill in the air. "Unless we resolve the core issue, it can again erupt again on a different time-frame and under a different leadership".
But the most important point Dasgupta made, one that the MEA and the PMO should explain, was "Musharraf by committing himself to the confidence-building measures so favoured by India and the West has established the status of Kashmir as a "disputed" province that can only be resolved on a tripartite basis… He believes he has set the agenda for a war by other means."
Dsagupta`s conclusion: "There is enough in the personality of Musharraf to suggest he could either emerge as the pragmatic peace-maker or a perfidious rogue."
A similar point was made by a former senior official of the Cabinet Secretariat, the euphemism for RAW, B Raman on the website for which he writes regularly (www.saag.org) Saag stands for South Asia Action Group. It provides some very insightful analysis by real experts.
Raman`s point was similar to Dasgupta`s, namely, that much would depend on Musharraf`s personality. As a commando by training he can be expected to adapt to surivive as also to spring surprises.
Time will tell.
feedback: editor@thehoot.org