Uncle Sam8217;s message

After decades of suspicion, it is understandable that India has yet to come to terms with a sudden, yet perceptible, show of sympathy fro...

After decades of suspicion, it is understandable that India has yet to come to terms with a sudden, yet perceptible, show of sympathy from the US administration. While the Kargil conflict raged, it was that much easier for New Delhi to notch up diplomatic points by citing affirmations of the sanctity of the Line of Control, by pointing to calls for restraint from State Department spokespersons to a bemused leadership in Islamabad.

And while citations from officialdom in Washington and the American media for its 8220;commendable restraint8221; may help in New Delhi8217;s diplomatic war of nerves with Islamabad, there has been considerable unease over US President Bill Clinton8217;s promise to Nawaz Sharif that he would take 8220;personal interest8221; in the Kashmir imbroglio. Is the Indo-US convergence of views limited just to the Kargil conflict or does it mark a qualitative shift in a relationship mired for the most part in mutual wariness that has endured years after the Cold War ended?

The contours of the post-KargilIndo-US relationship will no doubt be evident after Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh8217;s meeting with American Secretary of State Madeleine Albright this weekend. But statements from Washington indicate a new appreciation for India8217;s long-held position on Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, if not for its views on the status of the territory itself.

After this week8217;s heinous massacres in Doda and Poonch, the State Department spokesperson declared that militant groups 8220;with leaders and infrastructure in Pakistan8221; are behind the killings of civilians in Jammu and Kashmir. And in a clear acknowledgement that Islamabad exercises control over militants, he called on the government of Pakistan to 8220;press them towards restraint8221;.

Admittedly, this recognition of cross-border terrorism is somewhat overdue, but Washington must give evidence of its sincerity when cries about violence in Kashmir are next raised in international fora. Just a day earlier, Michael Daley, senior adviser in the State Department8217;s South Asiabureau, claimed that the days of American attempts at evenhandedness in dealings with India and Pakistan were over, that Sino-Pak ties had to be factored into India8217;s strategic concerns. Taken along with Clinton8217;s conversation with Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, calling for a deepening of Indo-US relations, this does point to a more flexible framework within which New Delhi can now navigate.

And yet, proof of the pudding lies in the eating. There are a host of issues, economic and strategic, which India and the US can address to their mutual benefit. The post-Kargil fallout, however, remains the immediate concern. Washington has repeatedly said it will not undertake mediation and that India and Pakistan should return to the Lahore process.

Given its demonstrated influence on an economically beleaguered Pakistan, which is still mulling over an attempt at internationalisation gone ironically awry, it must impress upon Islamabad the inviolability of the Line of Control. India, for its part, must shedsome historical baggage and assess the new understanding that could inform its dealings with the US.