Agra summit not a complete failure

Inder Malhotra

Given its inability even to issue a bald joint statement, it is entirely understandable that the Agra summit between Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf is being written off as a “failure”, a “dead end”, and “impasse” and a “wasted effort”. But while this may be understandable in the immediate aftermath of the inconclusive end of the encounter late on Monday night, careful thought would show that the summit hasn’t been a complete failure.

The desired destination, to use the imagery of the official spokesperson, may have eluded the two leaders, but a journey has commenced. A process has doubtless begun and it is in sharp contrast to this country’s refusal for nearly two years to talk to Musharraf’s Pakistan until “cross-border terrorism” in Jammu and Kashmir has ended. Far from ending, terrorism in the long-suffering state has escalated, as became clear on the summit’s last day. But the resumed India-Pakistan dialogue remains in place.

It was not fortuitous that Musharraf’s farewell call on Vajpayee lasted a full hour during which the Prime Minister reaffirmed his promise to meet the General at the UN summit in New York in September and to visit Islamabad on a later date convenient to both sides. In short, Musharraf hasn’t gone back completely “empty-handed”.

Regrettably, the general feeling of regret and disappointment has been accentuated by the utterly unjustifiable hype before the summit. The media, with the round-the-clock television in the lead, was the main culprit in arousing unrealistic expectations of a breakthrough. To these, politicians and officials also contributed their mite until the euphoria in which they had wrapped themselves in crashed on the hard rock of reality.

The two main reasons that prevented an agreement on even an anodyne statement are well known: India’s ability to accept Pakistan’s phraseology on the “centrality” of the Kashmir issue, and Pakistan’s total refusal even to countenance a reference to cross-border terrorism. According to Musharraf, there is no such thing in J&K as terrorism, only a “fight for freedom”. When asked why then innocent civilians, including women and children, were being slaughtered, the Pakistani strongman said, without a blush, that civilians were killed in all freedom struggles across the world, including in Palestine.

This fundamental chasm between the two sides is not going to be bridged easily or any time soon. However, the efforts to narrow the gap must not be abandoned. For this purpose, diplomacy alone will not do; the Indian state and society will have to be more effective in curbing the merchants of terror and murder than has been the case so far.

It will be instructive to go over the sequence of events that foreshadowed the summit’s failure to find a form of words that could have been acceptable to both sides. For good seven weeks, Musharraf’s massive campaign was aimed at making out that, for him, the summit meant “Kashmir, Kashmir, Kashmir, and nothing but Kashmir”. By contrast, Vajpayee and his senior colleagues, for reasons known only to them, decided to remain silent. At a late stage, they did come forward with a fusillade of unilateral initiatives, beneficial to the people of Pakistan and attractive to the international opinion. But Musharraf dismissed them as “peripheral”.

He said they would be considered only after the summit. At the summit, he changed his stance and declared loftily that while he was prepared to discuss these matters, this could be done only after the “core” issue of Kashmir was “addressed and resolved.”

Interestingly, among the confidence building measures he is holding hostage to Kashmiris that of nuclear restraint. The wide world is interested in South Asia’s nuclear neighbours putting in place agreed precautionary steps to guard against a nuclear launch by accident or miscalculation. But Islamabad doesn’t care.

As if this were not enough, Musharraf allowed the atmosphere to be vitiated by three other acts, the first of which was his astonishingly crude handling of the Hurriyat affair. A high Indian dignitary privately said that the distinguished guest had “played dirty”. Even so, he added, New Delhi didn’t want the shabby episode to come in the way of whatever could be accomplished at Agra.

The upbeat atmosphere at Agra the next day was given a big jolt when a midnight statement by the Pakistani delegation denounced the information and broadcasting minister, Sushma Swaraj, for an announcement she had made earlier in the day. In all fairness, it must be admitted that in this particular case, the Pakistanis had some provocation. Ms Swaraj, normally a lady with great political savvy and exceptional eloquence, had given the impression, unwittingly perhaps, that while issues other than Kashmir had been discussed at the summit, Kashmir was not. The reaction in Pakistan was swift and sharp. Musharraf was so infuriated that, not content with the midnight statement against her, he criticised her personally also at his breakfast meet with select editors the next morning.

It is no exaggeration to say that Musharraf’s breakfast bellicosity proved to be the proverbial last straw on the Indian camel’s back. To compound his belligerence against the host country, Musharraf, also got the entire meeting telecast in not only Pakistan but also India. He thus succeeded in telling the Pakistanis that he was the first Pakistani ruler tough enough to tell the Indians where they got off.
Without the settlement of the Kashmir issue (to change the word ‘dispute’ into ‘issue’ was his only “concession” to India) there would be no improvement in Indo-Pakistani relations was his clear message.
The key question now is where do we go from here. The situation is indeed depressing and it cannot be wished away. Nor can India and Pakistan be enemies forever. And since neither can change geography, both have to learn to live in peace and friendship some day. Musharraf has once again underscored how difficult this task is going to be. However, nations, like individuals, need to be patient and to preserve in pursuit of the noble cause of living together in peace, friendliness and co-operation.

This, of course, is easier said than done as the history of last 54 years shows. But the task, however, stupendous has to be undertaken. If instead of repeating myself, I may have the impertinence to quote myself: to bring about a rapprochement with Pakistan is the task of Sisyphus—the character in Greek mythology charged with rolling a stone up a steep hill and trying again when it rolled down.