editorial

Peace Beacons in South Asia

Building bridges of peace is always a tough job, particularly between the two warring nations where a section of politics has been fed on the staple diet of hate and animosity. It has to be brick by brick as efforts show to bring India and Pakistan closer to settlement of their intractable disputes, particularly Kashmir where they have fought only wars since independence.  So when Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh last fortnight while launching Amritsar Nanakana Sahib bus service from Amritsar offered a firm treaty of peace, security and friendship, there were bound to be skeptical comments.  “The peace making process must ultimately culminate in giving a meaning and substance to our quest for shared goals”, was the leaned man’s message. He also clearly stated, “India sincerely believes that a strong, stable, prosperous and moderate Pakistan is in the interest of India and entire South Asia. We are sincerely committed to the prosperity, unity, development and well being of Pakistan”.

Yet this firm and clear offer, crafted with care, well nuanced and stated in black and white, evoked but positive response across the countries, more particular in these two troubled neighbours. The reason during the past some years despite continued support to insurgency in Indian Kashmir by Pakistani establishment, there had been productive efforts at several levels. Leaders and senior diplomats have often met and discussed the issues that bother the two governments. Results, though small like revival of bus services and rail links and more frequent travels, are all cheering. India and Pakistan not fighting is a big story by itself. If they are talking and taking small steps towards peace is still a bigger story. Track II diplomacy and efforts of other nations, particularly the ones that encouraged hostility has played no insignificant role.

The constituency of peace is now very large and there are political dividends available to the pleaders in the sub continent. Therefore reactions at the political plane and comments across the spectrum of newspapers only echoed the broader public mood for peace.  The statement evoked right response in Pakistani establishment and media.  BBC described it;” The Indian prime minister's latest peace overture seems to have struck a favourable chord with Pakistani officials.”

Most Indian newspapers lost mainly in the resignation of Sonia Gandhi from parliament were late to recognise the significance of the offer. Nevertheless, north India’s leading newspaper, The Tribune had a signed editorial on frontage by its eminent editor H.K Dua conceptualizing clearly the significance of the offer.  “The Prime Minister knows that peace-making is not easy and there are bound to be hurdles on the way. That is why he seemed to be recommending a step-by-step approach. He visualised the possibility of settling issues like Siachen, Sir Creek and Baglihar and making efforts to leave behind “the animosities and misgivings of the past”. The process could ultimately culminate in a “Treaty of Peace, Security and Friendship”.

  A look at the statements shows how responses were affirmative. Pakistani foreign ministry spokesperson Tasnim Aslam drew parallels between his ideas for making the Line of Control [LoC] irrelevant with those of Pakistan's President, Pervez Musharraf. She said the Pakistani leader had repeatedly suggested steps to break the status quo with the aim of making the LoC irrelevant. Eventually, she said, the peace process must lead to the resolution of the dispute over the status of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan seems to be competing to garner space on the peace platform and it is good for house of peace. Dawn, the leading English daily wrote, “The Indian prime minister’s offer of a treaty of peace, security and friendship with Pakistan is a step forward in the on-going composite dialogue-taking place between India and Pakistan… Now is the time for Pakistan and India to use back channel diplomacy to explore the areas where progress could facilitate further negotiations. As a first step they should seek to lower the level of militarization in Kashmir to defuse the tension in the state. It would also be worthwhile for Pakistan to explore what the friendship treaty would entail. Negotiations on intricate issues as the one that divide India and Pakistan do not necessarily follow in a straight line. An agreement in one area may be followed by discords in another. But that is how a dialogue process often moves and very often results in an agreement.”

 News from the Jang group was more forthright. “ Successive Pakistani governments, both civilian and military, have traditionally held the issue to be the cynosure of any peace process in the past -- therefore, the current process, by virtue of progressing at a tempo that has caught unparalleled international attention and acclaim, is problematic for the Kashmir-first camps in Islamabad.”

News did not hesitate to warn, “Wavering, in any way, from the process would mean instant discredit in Pakistan's already precarious standing on the international stage. Further exacerbating the situation is the fact that the Indian establishment understands this very well.”

 Indian Prime Minister’s speech born of positive conviction clearly meant that “time for indistinct and obscure politics is slowly running out, and a difficult, yet inescapable, decisions beckon.”

It is rare in human history where bloodshed is too common a phenomenon to get opportunities for peace and friendship. Need for the two countries is to seize this opportunity, enter into serious dialogue and forget the bloody past and   some lasting deals.