South Asian Forum ends on a cautiously optimistic note

Producer: Felix Tan
First broadcast: 6 January 04, Radio Singapore International

The most significant breakthrough in this year's summit was the thawing of tense relations between nuclear rivals India and Pakistan.

Meeting on the sidelines of the 12th summit of the forum, both countries spoke amicably on strengthening bilateral ties and efforts to resolve the Kashmir issue.

So, what has the summit achieved then?

Felix Tan put this question to Mr Agha Sahi (AS), the president of the Islamabad Council of World Affairs in Pakistan:

AS: "It has achieved a great improvement in the atmosphere of India and Pakistan relations. And of course, it has revived SAARC into activity. I think, from that point of view, considering its track record when empty communiqués were issued, I think this time, there seems to be unanimity on trying to make SAARC both meaningful and effective. But very much depends on the implementation that is left to the member countries. But I think, perhaps, it is giving a new start to SAARC."

What do you think is the future of India-Pakistan relations or do you think that the improved ties will be short-lived once again?

AS: "I am a little more hopeful that it will be more than short-lived because there are the new realities that are dawning on both countries. Now, India has remained rigid - it has not made a matching response to Musharraf's offer to be flexible. Musharraf even went to the extent of saying he will put the UN resolution, put them aside, and discuss other solutions or other options. Now, this was a very fundamental concession that Musharraf made because the whole focus-stand of Pakistan depends on the UN resolution. So, therefore, clarifications have been issued by the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to say that this does not mean that Pakistan has abandoned its stand on the UN resolutions. Because those resolutions are the foundation of our stand as a party to the Kashmir dispute. This shows the extent of flexibility that Musharraf is prepared to be ready to accept, provided there is movement on India's part. But its stand remains rigid. Now, I think if there is a dialogue, and I hope that
it will be initiated soon, I think on Kashmir, I think, unless there is a change in India's attitude? And I am afraid, although Mr Vajpayee is a moderate face of the BJP - his ruling political party - but he has extremist elements, ultra-nationalistic elements intertwined in his party and whether he can carry that along, if he wants to come to an equitable settlement on Kashmir with Pakistan - this is the question. So far, the track record has not been optimistic."

Besides Kashmir, what other obstacles, do you think, there will be in any further thawing of the tense relationship between India and Pakistan?

AS: "You see, India aspires to become a world power and it has contracted that kind of tacit alliance with Israel and America. America wants India to be a counter-balancing factor to China. I am not necessarily saying in a military confrontation, but in diplomacy, in ordering the affairs of the world. So, therefore, this position and this kind of weight that has been given to India does effect the Pakistan-India equation. We cannot totally disregard the importance of the military factor in this because international politics are being militarized by the new foreign policy of the United States' of pre-emption, of unilateralism. So, in that aspect, India has embarked on the road of militarization of increasing its military capabilities and that does affect the relationship because, in the last resort, even when you sit down for negotiations, the two parties depend on the weight the military and economic might of each party."

The United States has decided to stay on the sideline, so to speak. Now, what are some of the reasons why the US is so-called consciously staying out of this matter between India and Pakistan?

AS: "For the very simple reason that India does not want it. It has its own kind of implicit doctrine. It does not want any country to facilitate as a mediator or arbitrator in the relations of the people of South Asia. Because India says this must be dealt with bilaterally. In other words, it is an implicit doctrine of creating a sphere of Indian influence extending over the whole of South Asia. It considers itself the successor to the British imperial power, which dominated the Indian Ocean region from Suez right up to the Straits of Malacca. Now, these are the Indian ambitions and aspirations and therefore, it does not want America to come in. And on the other hand, in Pakistan, there is a growing realization that as India is now embraced as a strategic partner by the United States, there is considerable skepticism in Pakistan that if America were to act as a mediator, it would be tilted, it would tilt its way on the side of India."