& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Something concrete must emerge from contacts

Kuldip Nayar writes from New Delhi
IT is sheer coincidence that the Chinese Premier Wen Jaibao and the Pakistan President Parvez Musharraf are visiting New Delhi within the space of four days this month. One leaves India on April 12 and the other arrives on 17. In a way, both are coming for the same purpose: to firm up the right on the Indian territory they claim.
However, the difference between the two is that Beijing has created congenial conditions for an agreement, establishing trade routes and economic ties with New Delhi. Islamabad, on the other hand, has yet to offer New Delhi the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status that India gave Pakistan some years ago. Islamabad concedes it has no other option because of the obligation under the WTO charter but doesn't know how to cope with hostile domestic lobby.
There is yet another big difference. China froze its claim on the Indian territory so as to move ahead in other fields. Both sides concurred not to disturb the status quo, although it tilted towards China. The result is the confidence the two have built to take up the
prickly border question.
Pakistan wants even the 56-year-old Line of Control (LoC) to break up like a glass, as Musharraf put it in his latest statement. He does not favour implementing the confidence building measures (CBMs) until there is a settlement on Kashmir. The threatening attitude by Islamabad has not undergone any change over the years, unlike that of Beijing which has been cooing peace for some time.
It has reportedly offered to exchange the territory it has claimed in Arunachal Pradesh in the west with India's recognition of China's possession of Aksai Chin area in the east. New Delhi has come a long way since this is more or less what China had suggested to India as a solution before the 1962 war.
It may sound comical but New Delhi used to treat Beijing in the same manner as Islamabad does New Delhi. India's stance then was not to hold any dialogue with China until it returned the territory it had occupied in the 1962 war. New Delhi has taken almost 25 years to face facts: one, what it claims may
not tally with the reality on the ground; two, it is in no position to take back the lost territory forcibly. In adopting this line, the successive governments at the Centre have gone even against Parliament's unanimous resolution to recover every inch of Indian land under the Chinese occupation.
Pakistan may have to traverse the same path to come to the conclusion that the LoC cannot be changed nor can Kashmir settled
J
through ultimatums or wars which, in any case, the two countries have fought four times in the last 50 years. The situation does not look like changing even after Pakistan's acquisition of F-16s which at best can fuel the arms race. This happened some 35 years ago when America gave Pakistan the Patton tanks. At that time also, Washington had assured New Delhi that Islamabad would not be allowed to use the Patton tanks against India. But America could not do anything when Pakistan introduced them in the 1965 war. F-16s are worse because they are the carriers of nuclear weapons. If hostilities are ruled out, then why F-16s are any
other weapons?
Washington knows all that. But it has to sustain its armament factories which have many US Congressmen and senators in their pocket. It is no secret that the Lockheed Martin that produces F-16s was about to slash its workforce because it had no orders. The supply to Pakistan will keep the plant going and if India follows the Pakistan's example, the Lockheed Martin may need to
expand its business.
That the Us is willing to give India more sophisticated weapons only complicates the situation, making Pakistan feel more insecure and taking the normalisation between New Delhi and Islamabad farther. Dictatorship and democracy mean the same thing to America when its own interests are involved.
This is the reason why 'China resents the role of the Us in the Asia-Pacific region', as secretary of state Condoleezza Rice ruefully realised when she was not occupying the position. Understandably, Beijing does not want Washington to poke its nose all over the world,
definitely not in the area that China believes is close to its frontiers. It is also worried over the proposition that America may "build India into a world power to counter China". This may well explain why Beijing is keen on burying the hatchet with New Delhi even on the boundary question.
Otherwise also, the hostility with India does not pay China which has realised that the democratic system it resented during Jawaharlal
Nehru's days is not expansive in its policies. Nor is it difficult to live with such a country. In fact, Beijing wants to correct the impression that the communist China cannot live as a friend with the democratic India. The Chinese premier told Prime Minister Manmohan singh in Laos recently that "the handshake between you and me will catch the attention of the world". This is also meant to convey the Us a message of sorts.
China is, therefore, keen on India and Pakistan finding a peaceful solution to their problems. This, Beijing believes, will keep America out of the region. China is as much talking about 'a strategic alliance'
with Pakistan as America is talking about India. But what Washington and Beijing really want is to suck India and Pakistan into their scheme of things.
Alas, both New Delhi and Islamabad are still not focused on their region. Why don't they come together to constitute another centre of power, from Iran to Myanmar. They are culturally akin to one another and command resources and markets which can excel other economic and military arrangement. They are talking about everything except an economic union. Were they to concentrate on forging alliances they would have America at their door, not the vise-versa.
People in India and Pakistan have shown that they want to live in peace. They have discovered that both hit it off well. They should freeze their territorial disputes, as China has done, till they have built enough confidence in each other to take up even the most intractable problem like Kashmir. New Delhi and Beijing have walked far through the trade way. This does not mean that Kashmir should be put on the back burner. The process of Kashmiris talking among themselves that began at Kathmandu should gain momentum. They should be allowed to meet freely. something concrete may emerge from these contacts. India and Pakistan can pick up the thread from the Kashmiris let it off.
Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.
***People in India and Pakistan have shown that they want to live in peace. They have discovered that both hit it off well. They should freeze their territorial disputes, as China has done, till they have built enough confidence in each other to take up even the most intractable problem like Kashmir. New Delhi and Beijing have walked far through the trade way. This does not mean that Kashmir should be put on the back burner. The process of Kashmiris talking among themselves that began at Kathmandu should gain momentum.***