Misreading Mandela

All Pakistani leaders have competed with one another in boring the world. Benazir Bhutto, not surprisingly, took the cake — or the kebab, if that sounds more apt — in spending nearly a fifth of her second reign travelling abroad to “raise Kashmir,” personally seeking the intervention of the heads of 132 states including Croatia and Ireland.

So far so good. But what has been our own record lately? If we introspect just a little bit it would be quite obvious that this peculiarly Pakistani disease seems to be infecting us as well. Nothing underlines it better than the way we were all knee-jerked into such outrageous overreaction to poor Nelson Mandela’s reference to Kashmir at Durban. Our indignation was certainly compounded by two factors. One, that we believe that Mandela and his ilk ought to be eternally grateful to us for the support we extended to him in his anti-apartheid campaign. Two, that he did this at NAM, which we consider our very own playground. But did we pause a momentto understand what Mandela was saying? Or were we so consumed by outrage as to have misread an opportunity as a threat?

Depending on how imaginative we are willing to be in our diplomatic responses, it was possible to see his statement as interventionist or helpful. That we so quickly made the first and the obvious choice confirms that we too are succumbing to that old Pakistani affliction on Kashmir. This applies equally to our diplomacy, political leadership cutting across party lines and even the media particularly the leader writers. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight now, please think how we could have looked at it differently. All we had to say, while reiterating our “Kash-mir is an inseparable part of India” position, was that we appreciate Ma-ndela’s concerns and share them as the worst sufferers of cross-border terrorism. We do believe that the larger Kashmir issue must be solved purely at the bilateral level, we are talking to the Pakista-nis, etc, but would Mr Mandela, meanwhile, alsoimpress upon the Pakistanis the prudence of desisting from playing the destabilisation game in India?

This would indeed have been very much in keeping with the approach we have followed in our Kashmir diplomacy for nearly a decade. We have had cabinet ministers and special envoys make the same appeal to sundry Assistant and Deputy Secretaries in the US State Department. Surely, Mandela’s word on this would have carried more weight. But we did not pause for a moment to formulate a new approach. We preferred instead to leap out of the trenches, screaming the old “Kashmir is a bilateral issue” war cry and kicking in the shins Nelson Mandela who is not only an old friend of India but also the tallest international statesman today. If this is not a symptom of the `elephant and Kashmir problem’ syndrome, someone tell me why.

There is a larger issue involved here. We talk endlessly of a proactive approach to counter terrorism in Kashmir. In the same breath, we also underline our limitations on that approach.Hot pursuit would lead to war. Any counter-subversion inside Pakistan would weaken our international moral position and in fact “internationalise” the Kashmir issue, etc. But for some reason this option of proactive diplomacy on Kashmir has been formally, and firmly abandoned, except for that one flirtation when J.N. Dixit, in his last weeks as foreign secretary, produced a series of audacious non-papers, including one on Siachen.

It could be argued until a couple of years ago that such an approach was not a practical one. The pressure of militancy in Kashmir was intense. The ISI’s tail was up and our diplomacy had to focus more on keeping the pressure off on issues like human rights violation. This was done with a great degree of success and is one of the many achievements for which poor Narasimha Rao is not given any credit. But today the pressure in the Valley has lessened a great deal. The urban centres are back to near normalcy. It is almost impossible to find a seat on either Indian Airlines or JetAirways flights to Srinagar. The Kashmiri people are tired of insurgency and terrified of the Taliban-type rabble which has now taken over the campaign. Could there be a better opportunity for proactive diplomacy that would put Pakistan on the defensive internationally?

A serious and fundamental rethink is necessary. What we need now is a bit of diplomatic jujitsu whereby you use your rivals’ ostensible strengths against him. For example, when the Pakistanis repeat their classic position that Kashmir is a possible — and likely — nuclear flashpoint and so the world should intervene, why must we respond with the usual no-no-no approach? The heavens won’t fall if we said, yes, Kashmir is a likely nuclear flashpoint. Yes, the world must intervene. It should persuade Pakistan to enter serious, open-minded negotiations and refrain from sponsoring cross-border terrorism. It would throw the Pakistanis off-balance a bit and would also help us get rid of this abominable no-man image we unfortunately seem to beacquiring in international forums.

What India needs more desperately now is a new national debate and consensus on what we want to see in Kashmir and on our equation with Pakistan five, and then ten, years from now. On the record, and least of all in Parliament, no political leader would dare to budge from the well-rehearsed old line on Kashmir. But deep down, most of us understand that a solution is only possible along the Line of Control. Would we then devise a long-term diplomatic approach with that, or any other consensual objective, in our minds?

Diplomacy as trench warfare is not an idea that worked at any point in the history of nations. There is no reason why it should now, in such a rapidly changing and impatient world. That is why it is vital that we must avoid the `elephant and the Kashmir problem’ syndrome. Only then we — including the media — would acquire the openness of mind to see and exploit the opportunity that Nelson Mandela provided us with. Wouldn’t it be a lot better thanpillorying and alienating the man who represents two highly endangered species on the world stage — statesmen and friends of India?