INDIA TODAY    |  HOME

Cover Story | Nation | Columns | Newsnotes | From the Editor in Chief | Editorials | Eyecatchers
   Sports | Voices | Investigation | Diplomacy | Books | Cyberspace | Offtrack | Centrestage  
Issue Contents

Clinton's itinerary indicates that the US policy on South Asia remains unchanged

By Tavleen Singh

When the Big White Chief comes calling it is perhaps natural that us poor little Indians should jump to it. And jump to it we have. From the moment it became clear that Bill Clinton was definitely coming we have not had a day when some new preparation for his visit has not been hastily launched. He may not notice it, but in the cities he plans to visit huge efforts have been made to spruce things up. The award for most outstanding effort goes to Mumbai where the Marine Drive, which has been a tetrapod junk yard for several months now, is suddenly being cleared at the speed of Indian lightning. Five cranes work all day to dump the tetrapods in the sea so that the US president's view from the Oberoi Hotel is not marred in any way. If only, and if only they would do such things for us ordinary citizens.

Our municipalities are not the only ones working overtime -- ministers, businessmen, socialites, hookers worth their salt are busy lobbying whoever they can to ensure an invitation to at least one of the dinners that Clinton will attend. In such an atmosphere I find myself unhappily in a small minority of Marxists and sundry other leftists who are less than enthusiastic about the Presidential visit.

Had I been prime minister I would have cancelled Clinton's visa the day he announced he would also stop over at Islamabad. Clinton explains that his decision to include Pakistan in his south Asian itinerary isn't an endorsement of General Pervez Musharraf's military coup. "But it is a recognition, in my judgment, that America's interests and values would be advanced if we maintained some contact with and communications with the Pakistani Government. And I think that our ability to have a positive influence on the future direction of Pakistan -- in terms of restoration of democracy, in terms of the ultimate resolution of issues in the (South Asian) subcontinent, and in terms of avoiding further dangerous conflicts -- will be greater if we maintain our cooperation."

In which case why only Islamabad? If Pakistan's general is worth maintaining a dialogue with, then why not Osama bin Laden, Muammar Ghadaffi and Saddam Hussein as well? Surely, these gentlemen are as much in need of learning about America's fine values as General Musharraf is?

For Clinton, in the last lap of his presidency, this South Asian visit could perhaps be only a bit of last-minute tourism but by insisting on the Islamabad stopover he may have wasted a major US foreign policy opportunity. Let me explain. As someone who has followed the Kashmir story closely for nearly two decades, I am now convinced that bilateral attempts to find a solution will never work. The Lahore bus ride was India's best and sincerest attempt to find a solution and Pakistan's brutal answer in Kargil was indicative, not of the hubris of one general, but of the impossibility for any Pakistani ruler to accept a solution devised in Delhi. Even Pakistanis who genuinely want peace with India admit that it will never come until the Kashmir issue is resolved, which in effect hands the Valley over to Pakistan. Indians, on the other hand, feel there can be no more redrawing of India's borders and that the best we can offer Pakistan is a soft border along the loc. But, will Pakistan accept?

Not if the solution comes from Delhi but possibly, one day, if international mediators conclude that this is the only way. This is where the US, as the world's only superpower, supercop and supermoralist, has a role to play but whether it gets a chance to do so depends entirely on India. Pakistan, as we know, has been pleading for international mediation because of the misguided belief that a solution will go in its favour.

In trying to find out what chances there were of India ever accepting global mediation in Kashmir I wandered about recently in the corridors of power. Everyone I spoke to said it was out of the question mainly because "we cannot trust the Americans". They recounted the number of instances when the US had played a role in the subcontinent that had clearly worked to Pakistan's advantage. So, what Clinton needed to do on this visit was to give a clear indication that the US had changed its South Asia policy. The best way to do this would have been to avoid that short stop in Islamabad which the Pakistan foreign minister has already said amounts to a state visit.

Clinton has lost his chance and we can only hope that the next US president notices South Asia sooner in his presidency than in its last few months. Meanwhile, we need to recognise that we need international mediation if we are to end a conflict that costs us Rs 7 crore a day in Kargil and Siachen alone. Despite Jaswant Singh's reiteration that Pakistan and India do not need interpreters because we speak the same language, the truth is that we do because they now speak Persianised Urdu and we speak Sanskritised Hindi.

Back | Next

© Living Media India Ltd