Prometheus
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,942
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
It was at a dinner hosted in honour of Pakistan Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir at the high commissioners residence in Delhi. The talks with Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao had ended without any concrete result.
I asked Bashir whether Kashmir had figured in their discussions. He said yes, but his most significant remark was in reply to my query of whether the ground covered behind the scenes would have to be covered again. He said, We will resume from the stage already reached.
I thought Id mention this important conversation once the dust had settled. I did not want to bring up Bashirs remark at that time, when tempers were frayed in the wake of talks that took the two countries nowhere.
Since Kashmir is the litmus test by which Pakistan judges Indias sincerity, behind-the-scenes channels can be reactivated without difficulty. They can resume their efforts from the point reached before the terrorist attack on Mumbai, when the composite talks broke down. Obviously, Islamabad would have to bring the perpetrators to book quickly because New Delhi seems to have put this precondition on any further dialogue.
If reports on the work done on Kashmir through back channels are reliable, then 80 per cent of the job is said to have been completed. I was present at the New Delhi reception where the then Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri declared that a settlement on Kashmir had been reached and only a formal announcement remained.
Only recently, Kasuri repeated to an Indian television channel that the solution had been found and would have been signed but for the diversion of the Pakistan governments attention to the situation created by the lawyers agitation. Kasuri told me more or less the same thing when I last met him, after the polls in Pakistan, but did not disclose the contours of the settlement.
If the two countries had reached the stage of agreement, they now have only to cross the ts and dot the is. They should do this soon so that the dispute is cleared up. The state-to-state relationship between the two countries at any particular time also sets the tone for talks that the back channels conduct.
My reading, however, is that Kashmir is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is the mistrust which, if not removed, will simply give birth to some other Kashmir. Even so, the present imbroglio has to be sorted out since Pakistan considers Kashmir the main irritant. Yet steps to remove mistrust are equally important because solving Kashmir alone may not normalise relations.
Islamabads contacts with different groups of the Hurriyat are not to New Delhis liking, which finds them affected by what the rulers in Pakistan feel at a particular time. This is not necessarily dependent on developments in Kashmir.
Apparently, Islamabad is not happy over Kashmirs domestic politics which have attained some equanimity. It is alleged that the pace of infiltration from Pakistani soil into Kashmir has increased. This may be to put pressure on New Delhi to initiate talks on Kashmir or part of the strategy to keep the pot boiling. Whatever it is, talks between the two countries cannot be held hostage to this for a long period.
Meanwhile, Pakistan has brought up the water issue. Pakistanis are bound to be agitated about a problem that relates to their daily life. My impression is that Islamabad is indulging in rhetoric more than reality. Pakistans Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi indicated recently that India was not to blame in terms of water.
The Indus Waters Treaty has withstood many pressures, including wars. The rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were allotted to India and the Chenab, Jhelum and Indus to Pakistan. Neither country can violate the sanctity of each partys exclusive use of its three rivers. Disputes, if not resolved mutually, have to be referred to the World Bank which negotiated the agreement signed in Karachi by Jawaharlal Nehru and Gen Ayub Khan.
Some disputes have arisen over the use of water in Kashmir. The Indus Waters Treaty does not allow a drop for Kashmirs own use, however justifiable. Even the generation of power by harnessing the run of water, allowed by the treaty, is dependent on Pakistans approval.
The Salal project built in Kashmir had to get Zulfikar Ali Bhuttos nod. The Baglihar dam, which generates only power, had to be changed in design: Islamabad referred the matter to the World Bank which appointed an expert and New Delhi had to modify the project accordingly. There is an uproar in Pakistan over the proposed Kishanganga project in Kashmir which is still at the discussion stage, and cannot go through until Pakistan gives its concurrence. Therefore, the criticism of India taking unilateral steps is incorrect.
However, the fact remains that water in all the rivers is lessening. Climate changes are affecting India and Pakistan as they are the rest of the world. The water problem cannot be solved by politicising the issues. Perhaps both countries should think of jointly developing the entire Indus basin on an integrated basis. In a way, all six rivers will then belong as much to India as to Pakistan. This is a distant prospect but it may be worthwhile for the governments and the people of both countries to seriously consider it. Unfortunately, this cannot be done until the politics of hatred are eschewed and the two countries sit down across the table to tell each other that enough is enough.
America has now become a mentor for both countries, each of which is trying to assess how much Washington has tilted in the others favour. On their visit to Washington, the prime ministers of India and Pakistan reportedly told President Obama to use pressure to convince the other, but did not feel the need to discuss the same point themselves. This is the state of India-Pakistan relations. We have already wasted more than 60 years; lets not waste more.
The writer is a senior journalist based in Delhi.
DAWN.COM | Columnists | Enough is enough
I asked Bashir whether Kashmir had figured in their discussions. He said yes, but his most significant remark was in reply to my query of whether the ground covered behind the scenes would have to be covered again. He said, We will resume from the stage already reached.
I thought Id mention this important conversation once the dust had settled. I did not want to bring up Bashirs remark at that time, when tempers were frayed in the wake of talks that took the two countries nowhere.
Since Kashmir is the litmus test by which Pakistan judges Indias sincerity, behind-the-scenes channels can be reactivated without difficulty. They can resume their efforts from the point reached before the terrorist attack on Mumbai, when the composite talks broke down. Obviously, Islamabad would have to bring the perpetrators to book quickly because New Delhi seems to have put this precondition on any further dialogue.
If reports on the work done on Kashmir through back channels are reliable, then 80 per cent of the job is said to have been completed. I was present at the New Delhi reception where the then Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri declared that a settlement on Kashmir had been reached and only a formal announcement remained.
Only recently, Kasuri repeated to an Indian television channel that the solution had been found and would have been signed but for the diversion of the Pakistan governments attention to the situation created by the lawyers agitation. Kasuri told me more or less the same thing when I last met him, after the polls in Pakistan, but did not disclose the contours of the settlement.
If the two countries had reached the stage of agreement, they now have only to cross the ts and dot the is. They should do this soon so that the dispute is cleared up. The state-to-state relationship between the two countries at any particular time also sets the tone for talks that the back channels conduct.
My reading, however, is that Kashmir is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is the mistrust which, if not removed, will simply give birth to some other Kashmir. Even so, the present imbroglio has to be sorted out since Pakistan considers Kashmir the main irritant. Yet steps to remove mistrust are equally important because solving Kashmir alone may not normalise relations.
Islamabads contacts with different groups of the Hurriyat are not to New Delhis liking, which finds them affected by what the rulers in Pakistan feel at a particular time. This is not necessarily dependent on developments in Kashmir.
Apparently, Islamabad is not happy over Kashmirs domestic politics which have attained some equanimity. It is alleged that the pace of infiltration from Pakistani soil into Kashmir has increased. This may be to put pressure on New Delhi to initiate talks on Kashmir or part of the strategy to keep the pot boiling. Whatever it is, talks between the two countries cannot be held hostage to this for a long period.
Meanwhile, Pakistan has brought up the water issue. Pakistanis are bound to be agitated about a problem that relates to their daily life. My impression is that Islamabad is indulging in rhetoric more than reality. Pakistans Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi indicated recently that India was not to blame in terms of water.
The Indus Waters Treaty has withstood many pressures, including wars. The rivers Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were allotted to India and the Chenab, Jhelum and Indus to Pakistan. Neither country can violate the sanctity of each partys exclusive use of its three rivers. Disputes, if not resolved mutually, have to be referred to the World Bank which negotiated the agreement signed in Karachi by Jawaharlal Nehru and Gen Ayub Khan.
Some disputes have arisen over the use of water in Kashmir. The Indus Waters Treaty does not allow a drop for Kashmirs own use, however justifiable. Even the generation of power by harnessing the run of water, allowed by the treaty, is dependent on Pakistans approval.
The Salal project built in Kashmir had to get Zulfikar Ali Bhuttos nod. The Baglihar dam, which generates only power, had to be changed in design: Islamabad referred the matter to the World Bank which appointed an expert and New Delhi had to modify the project accordingly. There is an uproar in Pakistan over the proposed Kishanganga project in Kashmir which is still at the discussion stage, and cannot go through until Pakistan gives its concurrence. Therefore, the criticism of India taking unilateral steps is incorrect.
However, the fact remains that water in all the rivers is lessening. Climate changes are affecting India and Pakistan as they are the rest of the world. The water problem cannot be solved by politicising the issues. Perhaps both countries should think of jointly developing the entire Indus basin on an integrated basis. In a way, all six rivers will then belong as much to India as to Pakistan. This is a distant prospect but it may be worthwhile for the governments and the people of both countries to seriously consider it. Unfortunately, this cannot be done until the politics of hatred are eschewed and the two countries sit down across the table to tell each other that enough is enough.
America has now become a mentor for both countries, each of which is trying to assess how much Washington has tilted in the others favour. On their visit to Washington, the prime ministers of India and Pakistan reportedly told President Obama to use pressure to convince the other, but did not feel the need to discuss the same point themselves. This is the state of India-Pakistan relations. We have already wasted more than 60 years; lets not waste more.
The writer is a senior journalist based in Delhi.
DAWN.COM | Columnists | Enough is enough
