Nilacharal

The author sincerely thanks Ayesha Jalal as she had inspired and provoked the author through her courage and intellectual power to question the traditional assumptions (read as "prejudices") that India and Pakistan are afflicted with. Ayesha Jalal is a MacArthur Fellow and a well-known writer and Professor of history at Tufts University (USA). Her books on the history and culture of Pakistan and India have constantly challenged traditional assumptions. Her work has explored the creation of Pakistan, its struggle to become and remain a democracy, Indo-Pak relations and changes in Muslim identity through globalization. Her controversial views have had the political mainstream up in arms and have earned her a reputation as one of the most innovative scholars of the region. Some of the thoughts expressed in this article are thanks to Ayesha Jalal's unbiased and infectious curiosity to see through the reality.

This article turned out to be a lengthy one as the author wanted to discuss all the connected issues at length. The author is not just interested in writing his opinions on the outcome of the Agra Summit, as the readers must have already got an inkling on the outcome of the summit from many press reports. The title of this article conveys the opinion of the author. The real intention of the author to write this lengthy article in two parts is to try and see whether he could impress upon the readers to assess their opinions in the backdrop of arguments/views expressed in this article.

In the first part, let us analyse the context in which this Summit was held. And in the second part (which would appear on 30th July 2001), author shares his views on the outcome of the Summit and the suggestions for future.

Re-assuring Sentiments

In the same column on 9th July 2001 ("New ray of Hope- Spotlight on the Visit of Pervez Musharraf"), this author exhorted the readers to guard themselves from the euphoria created by the media hype. The author had also mentioned in that article that the new generation is not that biased as its elders. Ayesha Jalal, a famous Professor of History, in an interview to Nilanjana Bhaduri Jha ('Rigid nationalism blocking peace moves', Times of India, 14 July 2001) also echoed similar views, as expressed by this author in this column published on 9 July, 2001.

Background of the Summit

We need to assess the end result of this summit in the light of few issues raised in different quarters. Before we go into the discussion on the outcome of the Agra Summit, let us look into these issues. There was a wide spread feeling that we should not have invited Musharraf for two reasons - he is a military General and not an elected representative, and the other objection was that he is the architect of the Kargil.

As far as his legitimacy goes, we can choose to ignore it by saying that it is an "Internal matter of Pakistan". India waited for almost two years before recognizing Musharraf as the head of Pakistan. A section of people in India also questions that when US has not openly recognized Musharraf as the Head of Pakistan, why was India more enthusiastic to invite him for a dialogue? The counter question which this author wants to pose is has USA stopped doing business (arms deals, trade and commerce) with Pakistan by invoking an economic ban? How long can we wait to see a democratically elected leader in Pakistan to assume the power? Especially when the tensions are not reduced across the border. Can we afford another Kargil although our jawans are capable of safeguarding the nation at the cost of their lives? The former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto undermined the Summit on the logic that Musharraf is not an elected representative of Pakistan people. Even the ousted Prime Minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif questioned the legitimacy and credibility of the Agra Summit on the same logic and patted himself and the Lahore Declaration in which he is the signatory from Pakistan. How valid are these objections going by the fact that Nawaz Sharif had to fall in line with the military and attack India at Kargil within few weeks of the much credited Declaration/Bus journey by the Indian Prime Minister to Lahore. All the elected Prime Ministers of Pakistan could not stand up to the Military power but they question the legitimacy of the Summit now.

People question the coup carried out by Musharraf and the illegal means by which he assumed the Presidency of Pakistan. With a caution that the following arguments be not viewed as favouring Musharraf's undemocratic way of assuming power, let us ask ourselves a question - With the present turmoil and political uncertainty in Srilanka, if for some reasons India has to have a dialogue with Srilanka, shall we have a dialogue with Ms Chandrika Kumaratunga? If we can entertain a dialogue with the current Srilankan President who unconstitutionally and illegally suspended the Parliament for the fear of getting voted out of power, there is no reason why we should raise a hue and cry to talk to Musharraf. Musharraf is currently at the helm and he is obviously the "right man" to try and talk peace.

Fundamentalism comes in the Way

AAnother objection was that Musharraf is a military General. Although he is at the helm of affairs today, he is not the legitimate representative of people. Even when there is an elected democratic government at the helm in Pakistan, going by the fate of Nawaz Sharif's much-touted Lahore declaration, one can say without any doubt that Military is the one which calls the shot in Pakistan, more so to do with defence and Kashmir. So the current military rule does not matter to India. The sheer fact that Musharraf came to the discussion table suggests that the Pakistan military came to an understanding that that there cannot be a military solution in Kashmir.

There is a wide spread belief in India that only the military regimes in Pakistan have patronized Islamic fundamentalists. In fact, politicians have done much the same with even greater enthusiasm for political gains. Even on our side, till it came to power, BJP approached the Kashmir issue only with the fundamentalist attitude. They always criticized the autonomy and special status to Kashmir by equating them to pampering the minority. Now, the same BJP is in the driver seat and has to play the big-brother role. In this new role, now BJP tries to seize the entire picture. Even now the party wing of BJP talks on fundamentalist lines. So, it is one sided to blame only the Pakistan military as fundamentalist. It is heartening to note that Musharraf chided the religious heads just before departing to India for their war-centric statements against India. Musharraf is believed to have the control over fundamentalist Jihadi groups. On both the sides, the fundamentalist attitude has got too deep into the social fabric that it is very difficult to ease them out without a significant backlash. Now, one can appreciate why Musharraf the architect of the infamous Kargil war, and Vajpayee the moderate among the fundamentalist BJP top echelon needed the incentive of a softening of relations with the neighbour. . ....more