India has known very little about President Asif Ali Zardari. His best credentials have been that he is husband of the late Benazir Bhutto.
Even when he was elected Pakistan's President, Zardari was a distant figure, un-profiled and undefined. Since the time he has been at the helm of affairs, Indians have wanted to know where he stood on many questions which have beleaguered the two countries since independence. A few days ago he provided some answers.
This was at a video-conference, part of a Leadership Summit hosted by local English daily. Zardari's appearance may not have been for more than half an hour in the two-day-long conference but he stole the show. There was a spontaneous applause for him. He is now a much talked about person in the country. Suddenly, he has emerged a familiar and friendly person who wants to do business with India.
What was most striking about Zardari's speech was his statement that his country would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict with India.
This categorical assurance is a departure from the Pakistani stand which is short in conventional weapons and long in nuclear devices. I recall when I interviewed Dr A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan's bomb, he said that they would use the bomb in a war against India from the beginning because Pakistan could not match India's prowess in conventional arms.
Zardari's observation has embarrassed the bureaucracy in Pakistan. They have said 'no' whenever New Delhi has sought in the past an agreement of no-first use. Their rationalisation is that the nuclear weapons give Pakistan parity with India. They have reacted unfavourably, calling Zardari's observation as an "off-the-cuff remark" or "ill-informed statement." However, Foreign Offices on both sides are quiet although the statement has created confusion.
No-first use policy
Whatever the stand the Pakistan establishment may take, Zardari looks like sticking to what he has said. There is no contradiction from his side. In days to come, New Delhi would seek to pursue Zardari's observations since there is a doubt that he may not be able to make the promise good. As has been seen in the past, the army and the bureaucrats have the last word on such matters in Pakistan.
Asked if his country would adopt the no-first use as a policy, Zardari said he would work with his parliament towards that. But then he turned back to ask whether Indian parliament would do the same.
It was a legitimate question since Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, after the Pokharan blast, said voluntarily that India would not use the bomb first. There is no reason to believe that our parliament would not convert Vajpayee's promise into a pact. However, politics in India has become so divisive and fragmented that what is good for the goose may not be good for the gander.
Zardari's other observations also suggested that he was trying to break the shackles which have restricted normalisation. His remark on elections in Kashmir was at variance with those of Pakistan's Foreign Office. He said that his government did not interfere in the internal matters of other states. He was replying to a question whether India could expect peaceful elections in Jammu and Kashmir.
But his Foreign Office had said earlier that polls in Jammu and Kashmir did not reflect "authentic expression of the real aspirations of the people of the state."
The reaction by the Foreign Office objecting to these remarks is understandable. But to say "it is in Pakistan's own interest to play a role in the region" smacks of superiority complex.
In fact, Islamabad has always brought in Kashmir whenever there is any attempt by New Delhi to have agreement on trade or travel with Pakistan. Former Prime Minister Inder Gujral told me that he and the then Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, had finalised at Male a barter deal of goods till the Pakistan commerce secretary intervened to say: "Mian Sahib, what about Kashmir?" The deal never went through.
Kashmir realities
Zardari is right when he says that the region belonged "to the Kashmiri people." But the Kashmiris too should feel that they belonged to "the region" which has to take certain realities into account.
Kashmir is getting more and more entangled as the days go by. Its solution would neither be easy nor quick. Should both countries suspend all dealings of trade and business till there is a solution acceptable to Kashmir, Pakistan and India?
This is the best time to expand the movement of goods and have joint ventures because the financial meltdown has made foreign currency expensive. The two can have a barter trade keeping in mind that India is far more economically advanced than Pakistan which would need some concessions.
All said and done, Zardari has set the ball rolling. The Congress-led government still has six months and it can pursue his suggestions. The two countries have wasted 61 years in mutual recriminations and in pursuing hostile policies. They must work in tandem to oust poverty as well as terrorism. Zardari has given India an opening.
Kuldip Nayar is a former Indian High Commissioner to the UK and a former Rajya Sabha MP.
Send us your comments
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Gulf News may edit comments for length and clarity but will not change the tone of the message. Comments will only be accepted if all fields (including name) are filled correctly and the message isn't abusive, defamatory or offensive. The Gulf News website will only print your first name along with your comment. Please state in the message if you wish to remain anonymous. All comments sent may be forwarded for use in the Gulf News newspaper.
