Nilacharal

Last week, in the first part of this article, we went through the context within which the Agra summit took place. Now that the dust has settled down and the euphoria of the summit is over, let us take stock of the outcome in an objective way. We would discuss in this part the causes of disappointment, the agreed part of the declaration draft, issues associated with the Line of Control (LoC), further steps to be taken by the Central Government, the things to be avoided by Pakistan, and the constructive steps to be taken by both the countries.

Much was talked about on Musharraf's visit to Rajghat and his stay in Rashtrapathi Bhavan as President's guest. Some sections even questioned the act of playing the Pakistan National Anthem in Rashtrapathi Bhavan when Musharraf was received with full State honour with 21-gun salute. These were all the acts of civilization. This author does not see any contradiction to ridicule it. Let us not forget the fact that we signed an agreement with Nawaz Sharif in Lahore in 1999 who was the man behind the Mumbai blasts of 1993 which caused enormous loss to India in terms of money and human lives.

Media Hype -Cause of Disappointment

This author exhorted the readers not to fall prey to media hype in this column published on 9th July 2001 and also suggested that we must be practical and pragmatic. The fact is that when one can not thrash out differences (of opinions) with his/her friend overnight, how can we expect a solution over night when there are real intense differences on many issues between two countries built over many decades. The author believes that Vajpayee-Musharraf Agra Summit is a start (read as "a new start") and we should not give up. It is definitely a "defining moment" in our bilateral relations. It is hoped that both the heads would meet again in New York in September when they go for the UN meeting.

Only a Preface, Chapters to Follow

The media hype made us to expect a solution after 16th July. There can be a reason for disappointment but the author disagrees that it is an unsuccessful / failured attempt. There are no set yardsticks to measure or define the success of such a summit. Did anybody define the yardsticks for the success or failure of this Summit before 11 am on 15th July when both the heads started their discussion in Jaypee Palace in Agra. The author firmly believes that it is premature to call it off as a failure as not concluding the Summit by issuing a declaration is not at all a yardstick for the success of a Summit. Declaration at the end of a Summit is not a definition of success going by the fate of declarations/proclamations in 1999 in Lahore (Vajpayee- Nawaz Sharif), 1997 in Male (IK Gujral - Nawaz Sharif), 1989 in Islamabad (Benazir Bhutto - Rajiv Gandhi), 1987 in New Delhi (Rajiv Gandhi-Zia-Ul Haq), 1972 in Simla (Indira Gandhi- Z A Bhutto). Agra summit was an attempt to smoothen the bilateral relation. All attempts need not solve the issues and turn fruitful. Meeting between the two leaders after a deep freeze of two years is in itself a concrete advance. As long as such summits instill a confidence that there are scopes to proceed further, that in itself is a happy situation albeit no declarations.

If we view the Agra summit as an attempt to "restart" the bilateral discussions especially after Kargil war (recall that Kargil war was after the 1999 Lahore declaration), is that not in itself a success rather a hopeful situation? The sheer fact that both the heads decided against issuing a declaration when there are still some issues to be resolved shows that they mean business rather than telling the world that we "agreed" on certain things but not to be "implemented", as it happened with the above listed Summits. If one wants to be objective and optimistic, without yielding to the Press versions, one can only say that the Agra Summit was "inconclusive". As the UN Chief Kofi Annan opined, Agra Summit is a "prelude to peace and path to solution in future". We must continue talks and with more intense effort and above all with the change in our mind-sets. Amidst all kinds of allegations against each other, it is heartening to note that both the countries asserted that Agra Summit is a prelude to future efforts and future efforts would concentrate on restoring peace in the region, building mutual trust and friendship, and work in co-operation. The foreign Minister of India Jaswant singh and the Foreign Minister of Pakistan Abdul Sattar denied that the Agra summit is a failure and a defeat. One may say that these statements are due to "political compulsion and exigency" but the point to be noted is that both the nations realize that they can not keep quiet. Even the self-claimed savior of Kashmiris, the Hurriyat, denies that the Agra summit is a defeat. Let us not get disheartened and tear the preface of the book by saying that it did not address all the expectations of the reader. The good will developed from Agra Summit would take us forward. Hopefully, Agra summit served the purpose of cementing better relations between the two countries especially after the Kargil war. Also, this would keep the US away from meddling with the Kashmir issue. If Agra summit can truly succeed in lifting the bilateral negotiations to political level (foreign ministers level), as it is being projected, that would turn out to be an important outcome of this summit. This would give enough room for accommodation, which would not be possible at delegation level talks.

Semantics - cause of Disappointment

No doubt that the two leaders could not issue a joint declaration. However, we should not be sidetracked by peripheral issues like Sushma Swaraj throwing an axe in the wheel through her Press meet wherein she did not include Kashmir issue as one of issues that were discussed in the preliminary rounds. She restricted her list only to issues like cross-border terrorism, nuclear risk reduction, Prisoners of War (PoW), and trade between both the countries. Also, much was written on General Musharraf's breakfast meet with the Press wherein he talked about certain core issues, throwing the diplomacy to wind. Of course, Musharraf should have acted more decent by not holding an arrogant and abrasive media conference in the host nation. Also, he should not have said before departing that his people distrust the Indian government, the host nation. Musharraf should avoid his nonsense tactics to insult the hosts when he is on a diplomatic mission in future as he did during his recent visit by hosting a tea party to Hurriyat. It could have been ignored by India is a different matter. As someone pointed out to me how would it have been viewed if Vajpayee insisted on supping with the Cuban Communists when he was President Clinton's guest last year? If only we are committed to move ahead, let us not make a fuss of these less-serious things. They are not at all the causes for this inconclusive summit.

An agreement on the most difficult and contentious issues that have bedeviled the relations between both our countries was not arrived at during the summit entirely due to the semantics of the draft agreement. For India, cross -border terrorism is the major concern and Pakistan is obsessed with Kashmir. India considers Kashmir as an "integral part of it". The Indian side reportedly took objection to the phrase in the draft agreement that read as "settlement of Kashmir issue" (reader may note the reference to Kashmir as an "issue" and not as a "dispute"). The Pakistani delegation objected to the reference to sponsored "narcotics and terrorism". Pakistan also objected to the word "cross-border" and it kept on referring to it as only "cross-LoC". After marathon discussions for two days, four times at official level, India decided to drop the special reference to "cross-border terrorism" and satisfied by including the word "terrorism" as one of the three main issues. Also, Pakistan gave up on the phrase " according to the aspirations of the people of J&K" in the context of solution to Kashmir issue. One can judge from these as to how much we fool ourselves by not getting into the crux of the issue. After these phrases were changed as per the wishes of both the sides, and after the draft agreement took a final shape close to adoption and acceptance, Prime Minister reportedly forwarded it to the cabinet for its approval. At this stage, his "cabinet colleagues" reportedly rejected it. Pakista+n alleges that at this stage an "invisible hand" played its role, with an indirect reference to the Home Minister Mr Advani. Our Prime Minister in the All-Part meeting held on19th July alleged that "Pakistan took us for a ride". The Centre should issue a white paper and spell out the details that led to this impasse if these reports were nothing but the truths. A cursory look at all the reports suggests that the cause of disappointment was purely the semantics and the lack of will from both sides. In future negotiations, both countries should attend to specific details and focus on strategic decisions rather than wasting our energy on semantics. . ....more