Shared vision

An Indo-US partnership for peace has a nice sounding ring to it. The term encapsulates many levels of the new relationship between the two...

An Indo-US partnership for peace has a nice sounding ring to it. The term encapsulates many levels of the new relationship between the two countries from partnerships which exist and need to be expanded in trade and information technology to proposed new partnerships in science and international security. The framework is the 8220;vision document8221;, a well-crafted joint communique about a set of values both nations share and on the basis of which Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and President Bill Clinton say a qualitatively different relationship can be developed.

To mark 8220;new beginnings8221; the two governments are evidently determined to concentrate on the positive and either gloss over the negative or, as on non-proliferation, agree to differ. They also manage subtly to emphasise some important things. Thus, the grand opening lines may be read as a well-timed affirmation of the necessity of cultural and religious pluralism and tolerance. The pledge to strengthen the United Nations may be read as affirmation of the principle of multilateralism in international affairs. Well done. But, as they tend to ask in the gullies and mohallas, what does it all mean?

In the liberal spirit of the vision document Indian democracy is seen as a sort of beacon to the nations of the Asian world and it is that rather than any acknowledgement of its nuclear status that entitles it to play a role alongside the US in strengthening global security. This may not be entirely satisfactory for the Vajpayee government but it should be recognised that symbolism apart there can be a positive outcome. The two capitals are setting in place institutions and mechanisms for regular consultations and for working together on security issues including international terrorism. This is bound to have an impact in practical and political ways in the subcontinent and a start can be made just now. Nothing could have brought home to the Americans the almost daily price cross-border terrorism extracts than the massacre of Sikhs in south Kashmir. Clinton acknowledged this and promised to deliver his four proposals for managing the India-Pakistan conflict to Islamabad as well. The question is how Pakistanis to be persuaded to observe the Clinton proposals.

India has been restrained in the face of terrible provocation and Vajpayee said that despite the differences and border clashes with Pakistan, despite the mayhem of cross-border terrorism, there is no threat of war. That should be reassuring to those who have come to regard South Asia as a dangerous place. But some kind of action is more urgent than ever to stop the bloodshed in Kashmir, to prevent the situation there from spinning out of control and to assure increasingly impatient Indians that the killings will stop. Something practical can be done immediately.

The need is to close down the camps across the border from which terrorists strike. The location of the camps and who uses them are known. The Americans should explore in New Delhi and Islamabad ways of denying the terrorists bases in Pakistan. This would be the most meaningful way of contributing to the easing of tensions in South Asia which President Clinton says he is so concerned about.