& 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

BETWEEN THE LINES

A composite dialogue

What is required more than anything is a break from the past. Let politicians and bureaucrats realise this and let peoples on both sides feel it. Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari are the best bet. Were they to take a unilateral step to do away with the visa for visitors from India, they would put pressure on New Delhi. Manmohan Singh, hailing from Punjab in Pakistan, is rearing to take action.

Kuldip Nayar writes from New Delhi
IF I had anything to do with the formulation of a policy on Pakistan, I would have sent a goodwill mission to Islamabad soon after elections. For the first time, after many years, the democratic forces had emerged victorious despite a large-scale rigging, as the report of a European Union team has revealed. That a beleaguered nation, awakened by the lawyers' agitation, asserted itself to choose its own representatives is a great achievement in a country which was tightly controlled by the military. It was a limited democracy, but a democracy nonetheless.
New Delhi could have sent at least a team of artists, academicians, writers and the likes to meet their counterparts across the border Their interaction might have thrown up new ideas, suggested a different approach so far frozen in solutions which were not relevant even when they were conceived.. One such bus load went to Lahore when the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee visited Pakistan and changed the atmosphere for sometime. 'Composite, Dialogue' and 'Confidence Building Measures' are overused phrases that have come in handy to the rulers on both sides. But they have meant the status quo which the people in the countries have seen does not break the mould. Governments at New Delhi and Islamabad are scared or too confused to take steps to sort out even a minor dispute like that of Sir Creek in the backwaters of Gujarat.
Yet, all concede that there is no
better time than the present to seek solution to the problems souring relations between the two countries. Nawaz Sharif, Asif Ali Zardari, Afsyar Wali Khan and Fazlur Rehman are comparatively the most liberal elements in Pakistan that New Delhi can assemble to do business with. All the four want good relations with India and have said so on record. The atmosphere is also congenial with practically no tension between the two countries.
Still there are some real problems hampering result-oriented talks. India has to go through fresh elections because the tenure of the Manmohan Singh government is nearing its end. A new Lok Sabha is dye for constitution^ Fy fvlay 2009. Naturally, the present government cannot bind the next formation to anything new without a public debate and without the approval of opposition parties. For example, the Kashmir problem cannot be settled by the present government, however close the interlocutors behind the scenes are.
On the other hand, the Yousuf Reza Gillani government in Pakistan is yet to settle down. Asif
Zardari's Pakistan People's Party and Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League trying their best to accommodate each other to rule the country. Yet the coalition is going through spasms of uncertainty as the decision to restore 60 judges indicates. There is a host of domestic problems which the two leaders have yet to tackle. Their plate is too full to take on the problems relating to India.
The core issues will have to wait. Nawaz Sharif’s statement that trade and business will have to progress in proportion to the advance made on Kashmir may prove to be a spanner. Suppose Kashmir proves to be intractable, as has been found so far, does it meant that therp should be no trade or business? The two have to be separated.
The real problems are economic ones. They can change the course of history. Kashmir or Kargil are emotional issues and they do not subtract misery from poverty and deprivation in the two countries. True, Kashmir has to be settled but some more time would not matter when we have been grappling with it for the last six decades. Pakistan's fear is that the
rivers allotted to it under the Indus Water Treaty rise from Kashmir and India may divert them. The treaty has served both countries well. But there can be a mechanism where all the six rivers are controlled by both the countries. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said some time ago that India was ready to accommodate Pakistan on the river waters.
From whichever point the Gillani government may start, it would have to take the economic route. Disputes or religiosity cannot engage people who want bread. They are not anti-India, but anti-feudal. Economic cooperation with India arouses new hopes. People-to-people contact is the means,not the ends by itself. The ultimate goal is the uplifting of the common man from the dire conditions he faces.
New Delhi's response has to be unilateral and positive. India is a developed country as compared to Pakistan. For level playing, New Delhi must offer Islamabad concessions in excise and customs. If Indian companies can invest in China, Great Britain and other countries why can't in Pakistan? Islamabad should lift restrictions
so as to allow joint ventures and even direct investments, keeping the interest of its companies in mind. I see a lot of resistance by the vested interests. They have not extended the preferential treatment (MFN status) to India when New Delhi did so to Pakistan a couple of years ago.
Too much time and too much money have been wasted on the issues which the government powers cannot solve but the participation of people can. This participation means the ousting of mistrust and bias that comes into play whenever there is any serious attempt to sort out things. Communal forces jump into the arena even at the hiss of an agiee-
ment-lndia and Pakistan ire ^ill prisoners of history which cannot be rewritten but can be reinterpreted. Both Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari can do it because both are committed to peace and good relations between the two countries.
Their problem may be the military which exaggerates differences to justify its large strength. India does not face this situation because the military is apolitical and is under the control of the government. True, the military in Pakistan has withdrawn to some extent but how far is the question staring at the coalition or, for that matter, the country. To test the waters, the government should change the ISI head, from a military officer to a civilian.
What is required more than anything is a break from the past. Let politicians and bureaucrats realise this and let peoples on both sides feel it. Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari are the best bet. Were they to take a unilateral step to do away with the visa for visitors from India, they would put pressure on New Delhi. Manmohan Singh, hailing from Punjab in Pakistan, is rearing to take action.
But he feels handicapped when Jaish-e-Mohammad, with its headquarters in Pakistan, continues to operate in Kashmir. Militants and the fallout of their activities are irritations which come in the way of cordiality between India-Pakistan. But they also arouse indignant opinion in India — something which can sabotage any reconciliatory effort.
Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist