ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Resumption of secretarial level talks or continuation of the hiatus? Which way will the Indo-Pak summit go?

Kanchan Gupta in Colombo

For all its pious intentions and declarations about regional co-operation to implement a lofty socio-economic agenda aimed at rapid and equitable development of the member-countries, the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation has virtually been reduced to a talking shop.

Nothing illustrates this better than the 10th SAARC summit which formally begins in Colombo on Wednesday. The heads of state of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and the Maldives will be present at the summit to discuss issues pertaining to socio-economic co-operation that come within the ambit of the SAARC Charter and make suitable noises about the need for regional solidairty.

But the irrelevance of the summit is reflected in the fact that all attention is focused on the scheduled bilateral meeting between Prime Ministers Atal Bihari Vajpayee of India and Nawaz Sharief of Pakistan. And understandably so -- after all, this is the first time that the two countries will formally talk to each other after India, followed by Pakistan, conducted a series of nuclear tests in May, triggering a tectonic shift in regional as well as global power equations.

While New Delhi has all along maintained -- both before and after Pokhran II -- that it is willing to kickstart the bilateral talks stalled because of Pakistani intransigence and belligerence, Islamabad has found in Pokhran II yet another excuse not to talk. When it was suggested that Vajpayee and Sharief could have a one-to-one chat, unencumbered by officials and politicians, in Colombo, the hardliners in Islamabad tried their best to scuttle the proposed dialogue. Pakistani Foreign Minister Gohar Ayub Khan took the lead in rubbishing the very concept of bilateral talks, instead demanding third party (read American) mediation.

Indeed, even before the SAARC standing committee, comprising foreign secretaries of the member-countries, could begin its meeting on July 25, Gohar Ayub Khan gave a blistering interview, saying that if 50 years of dialogue had not yielded any tangible results, further discussions could only be equally futile. He reasserted the demand for third party mediation as the "only solution" and listed Kashmir as the issue that had to be settled before anything could happen on the economic co-operation front.

The Pakistanis maintained this line during talks on the sidelines in Colombo. And to drive home the point, they tried to amend the draft declaration that will be adopted at the 10th summit, insisting that it should talk of "peace and security" in the region. The Pakistanis argued that unless "peace and security" are ensured, there cannot be economic co-operation. The Indians scotched the move by pointing out that economic co-operation automatically leads to peace and security.

The Pakistani move, however, was not without long-term motive -- had they succeeded in including "peace and security" in this declaration, then they would have pressed for the inclusion of solving the Kashmir issue to Pakistan's satisfaction as a pre-requisite to regional peace and stability in the next declaration. For all practical purposes, inclusion of the Pakistani amendment would have amounted to converting Kashmir from a bilateral to a multilateral issue.

Any amendments, as per the SAARC charter, have to be unanimous for inclusion and mere majority support does not suffice. At a superficial level, it can be argued that the Pakistani amendment was bound to fall through since there would be no unanimity over it with India opposing the move. But that is a simplistic explanation; India, no doubt scored a diplomatic victory by scotching the Pakistani move.

More importantly, the fact that the Pakistani amendment did not find any takers drives home the point that India's other neighbours do not share Islamabad's view. In other words, India is not isolated in the region, either over Kashmir or Pokhran II.

As for the scheduled meeting between Vajpayee and Sharief, the good news is that the two will meet and talk, notwithstanding Gohar Ayub Khan's fulminations. It is not a well-guarded secret that Strobe Talbott, during his recent visit to Islamabad, told the Pakistanis in no uncertain terms that they would have to resume bilateral dialogue with the Indians. The not-so-good news is that the outcome of the Vajpayee-Sharief meeting could go either way -- resumption of secretarial level talks or continuation of the hiatus.

In the preparatory discussions that have been taking place in the sidelines as well as between the Indian and Pakistani foreign secretaries -- the two met late on Sunday night for more than an hour -- the Pakistanis have been insisting that any purposeful dialogue can only begin with Kashmir. All this is in tune with the three lines that have emanated from Islamabad in recent times -- one, there can be no progress without a "mediator"; two, Kashmir must be the first issue of any bilateral discussion; and, three, settle the Kashmir issue before any bilateral discussions on other outstanding issues.

The Pakistani stand flies in the face of the mutually agreed upon framework for Indo-Pak dialogue. The framework lays down the setting up of joint working groups on eight issues, including Jammu and Kashmir. But the Pakistanis are now insisting that any resumption of bilateral dialogue has to be limited to the meeting of the working group on Jammu and Kashmir; the Indians have suggested that all eight groups can meet simultaneously and the outcome of the talks declared collectively.

Obviously, this is not acceptable to Pakistan because it has made Kashmir the fulcrum of talks on other issues, including those of economic co-operation. Success on these fronts and a failure on the Kashmir front would take the wind out of the Pakistani argument that co-operation cannot be possible without solving the Kashmir issue. Indeed, Kashmir would cease to remain what the Pakistanis are so fond of describing as the "core issue".

India, of course, has reiterated in Colombo the suggestion that the two countries can agree on a "no first use" of nuclear weapons pact and that this can form a component of the outcome of the Vajpayee-Sharief meeting. As a confidence-building measure, both India's offer and the suggested agreement cannot be faulted. But the Pakistanis have expectedly scoffed at the suggestion.

Therefore, as things stand now, with the Pakistanis striking an unacceptable posture on the resumption of bilateral dialogue within the agreed upon framework and refusing to endorse a mutual denunciation of "first use", it is anybody's guess as to what the tangible outcome of Vajpayee's meeting with Sharief will be.

Viewed from a narrow perspective, it can be said the very fact that the two prime ministers are taking time off from the summit deliberations to sit and talk in a room, is a breakthrough by itself, especially against the backdrop of Pokhran II. But a broader perspective demands that the meeting can be labelled as successful only if it leads to resumption of bilateral dialogue on all issues and within the agreed upon framework. It remains to be seen whether Pakistani belligerence wins the day.

Tell us what you think of this analysis