Lahore legacy

Much to the dismay of purists, two sets of bilateral differences overshadowed the regional agenda at the meeting of SAARC foreign ministe...

Much to the dismay of purists, two sets of bilateral differences overshadowed the regional agenda at the meeting of SAARC foreign ministers in Sri Lanka. The Lahore Declaration, suitably hailed by all the delegations and in so many words by President Chandrika Kumaratunga as the foremost development in the region since the last SAARC summit, fell foul as usual of political-bureaucratic wrangles. Few people outside the rarefied atmosphere of South Asian diplomacy will be able to understand why mention in SAARC documents of peace moves between India and Pakistan required so much effort off-stage to reconcile the language of the text. The uninformed would be mistaken to assume that a good thing ought to be recognised by all when it happens in the neighbourhood and that is that. Apparently for SAARC to take cognisance of bilateral agreements is as unacceptable as SAARC taking note of bilateral disputes. It all boils down to New Delhi8217;s hyper-sensitivities.

Thus, regardless of Prime Minister Atal BehariVajpayee8217;s assertions during his bus trip about discussing Kashmir with Pakistan, the endeavour is to ensure that nothing is said at SAARC which can be construed to mean the same thing. This is bordering on the absurd. But for the Jaswant Singh-Sartaz Aziz communique on more steps to normalise India-Pakistan relations, the diplomatic bus would be spluttering badly.

The second bilateral issue touches the very heart of the SAARC agenda which is the furtherance of a South Asia Free Trade Agreement. It was a delicious irony for SAARC ministers to meet in Nuwara Eliya, an area that boasts some of Sri Lanka8217;s finest tea estates. No other venue could have been better designed to drive home the point that New Delhi was reneging on its free trade agreement with Colombo reached during Kuma-ratunga8217;s recent Delhi visit. That was a landmark deal which meant a major boost to SAFTA and created a compelling example for other countries, notably Pakistan, to follow. By establishing a give-and-take basis for trade, withIndia prepared to be more generous because of its overwhelming economic size, it advanced India8217;s diplomatic interests in the region. Among the tariffs on Lankan goods that India agreed to remove were those on tea and rubber. Subsequent difficulties with Indian industry on this count suggest that New Delhi did not do its homework. It is now caught between a rock and a hard place. If it goes back on its agreement with Colombo it is going to complicate bilateral and SAARC negotiations on free trade. It is hypocritical to treat the matter as a mere irritant while stressing that it is the spirit that counts. The whole thing is wrong in letter and spirit. It is virtually impossible to envision a compensatory deal which Kumaratunga, who ran into flak at home for the original one, will be able to sell as a satisfactory alternative to Lankan business and industry. One way or another the issue should not be allowed to fester. A great deal is riding on this first free-trade agreement in the region, including the fateof a common South Asian front at the WTO.