Walkie talkie in New York Come end September and New York it shall be as Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf touch down on the UN Headquarters for yet another handshake, this time on neutral territory, sans the trappings of an exotic locale. Agra witnessed a baffling see-saw between the two leaders, at the end of which it was difficult to fathom whose feet were off the ground-Mr Vajpayee's or General Musharraf's. The General returned to tell his people how he resolutely pursued the Kashmir agenda at Agra even as Mr Vajpayee returned to business in New Delhi with the assurance that Kashmir would remain an atut ang of India. Subsequent post-mortems of the failure of the two leaders to sign a Joint Declaration suggested both extremes. In New Delhi one heard Mr Vajpayee had refused to ink a text that reeked of the General's obsession with the K word while ignoring India's core concern over crossborder terrorism. Across the border it was heard that the General had sacrificed the Joint Declaration in the larger interests of the Kashmiri people. In effect, before domestic criticism could mount on the "failure" of the Agra summit, both leaders had convinced their national constituencies that the result of the summit was a direct commentary on the prioritisation of their respective national interests. Admittedly, for the Indian Prime Minister, not giving in on the Kashmir issue was as much a recommendation as keeping it in the forefront was for the Pakistani President. The defence came in handy for both Mr Vajpayee and General Musharraf when confronted with the question: What transpired in Agra? In the weeks following Agra the strident posturings on both sides of the border conveyed the impression that the two leaders would take a while before meeting one-on-one again. For those who felt engagement was the only solution to outstanding bilateral differences, the posturings portended ill for the future of Indo-Pak relations. After all, they said, General Musharraf was India's best bet. For those who continued to believe that Islamabad, especially under a military dictator, is not worth engagement, words on either side seemed to contain a told-you-so element. To the surprise of both quarters, much like his decision to invite General Musharraf to India in May, Mr Vajpayee did the unanticipated at a Press Conference in Lucknow on Sunday when he announced his desire to meet the General in New York, a wish the latter could ill-afford to ignore. It is therefore now decided that the two, unlike last year, shall indeed walk some distance together in the UN corridors. The question is: Will their conversation replay the Agra tape or will the talks carry the negotiations forward? The former seems the most likely though the latter is what is fervently hoped for. For the past 54 years India and Pakistan have engaged each other at different levels-simply talking, talking back, talking about each other, not talking at all. For the first time however the relationship is curiously poised on a battle of wits between Mr Vajpayee and General Musharraf, both experimenting with a novel way of communication: Talking at tangents while reiterating their commitment to improved bilateral relations. Agra may not have showcased two deaf men talking to each other, but the Summit certainly conveyed the impression that the two leaders all along kept talking without really connecting with each other on a "common ground", the middle path that five decades of political interaction has eluded India and Pakistan. Therefore it was "all issues including Kashmir" for India as much as it was "Kashmir first, then the rest" for Pakistan. The Agra summit clearly sent the message that Mr Vajpayee and General Musharraf are adept at talking for hours on end without conceding even a centimetre to the other, their dialogue more like a couple of simultaneously heard monologues. In fact, all through the summit the only factor both sides were overwhelmingly conscious about was domestic opinion. Pakistan's violent reaction to Information & Broadcasting Minister Sushma Swaraj's comments during the summit that all issues were being discussed between the two leaders, only reflected how strongly Pakistan felt about the impression the media back home would gather about the General's parleys with Mr Vajpayee. Clearly, General Musharraf could not be seen discussing "all issues" here, a position he made public during the now-famous breakfast meeting with Indian editors right in the middle of the summit. Arguably however, for the benefit of those who desire the two should continue talking, both leaders unambiguously expressed their desire for "improved" bilateral relations, the need to keep negotiations going, and a promise to meet at a later date. New York therefore it is. However, given the refusal on either side to climbdown on the Kashmir issue, New York may be a little too soon for the two to meet since General Musharraf's cavalcade drove out of the Jaypee Palace Hotel in Agra amidst high drama on the night of July 16. It hardly bears reiteration that Agra and the six weeks thereafter will provide the context in which Mr Vajpayee meets General Musharraf later this month. And, the Pakistani President's remarks as late as Thursday indicate his mental make-up for the forthcoming meeting only too clearly. Admittedly, the absence of a "structured dialogue" took its toll in Agra but if the only structure General Musharraf can consider is resolution of the Kashmir issue and India's acknowledgement of the matter as a "dispute", it takes little to guess what the New York talks will be all about. To that extent, credit must rest with the Government here for attempting to broadbase the relationship with Pakistan, a relationship that reaches beyond the political to the economic and social, and creates the requisite interdependence that holds the key to civilised bilateral interaction the world over. This form of diplomacy however is alien to the Pakistani mindset because it threatens a national identity that has been carved out of eternal opposition to India. If indeed Pakistan is in earnest about improved relations with India it must come around to the view that in diplomacy the world over, even between nations with conflicting political interests, relations must not be held hostage to a single issue. Many policy makers are of the firm opinion that in international diplomacy, trade contacts go a great distance in either ironing out political differences or at least pushing them backstage. It has often been suggested that the lack of trust that pervades India's neighbourhood can only be countered through enhanced trade and economic ties, be it with Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal or Sri Lanka. It was probably this intent that dictated Mr Vajpayee to head a representative delegation to the Agra summit with all his major Ministers. The Pakistani President on the contrary thought it fit to travel light, pointing out the need to solve the core issue before venturing into other areas of cooperation. That the General has done little soul-searching on this count was evident during the Pakistan Commerce Minister Razzak Dawood's visit to India last week. Mr Dawood's comments to the Press indicated that the atmosphere of "trust and confidence" that Pakistan views as a starting point for economic and trade cooperation with India is far from ready. It is another matter that if Pakistan displays even an iota of inclination to grant India the Most Favoured Nation status in trade, it would generate the desired confidence India wishes to gradually put in place for smooth bilateral relations. Mr Dawood not only dismissed the MFN issue as "pointless", he in fact emphasised that "the world is not purely economics. To that you have to add the political and social dimension." Clearly, the politics of Kashmir looms large on the Pakistani establishment's psyche. For the moment therefore, India and Pakistan are left "talking", even if it is only about differences, with each waiting for the other to blink first. 17.9.2001 Shobori Ganguli The Pioneer

What kind of 'democracy' will US endorse? General Pervez Musharraf wants a direct role for the military in governance through the National Security Council over which he will preside. He has laid the foundations for a houseful of lackeys in the provincial and national assemblies through local body election of nazims, who will operate with the blessings and directions of corps commanders. Would this constitute "genuine democracy" in American eye? Amir Mateen writes in News from Washington: "The immediate US concern will be the American reservations about the electoral plan announced by President Musharraf. As the removal of sanctions (under Section 508) is conditional to democratic restoration, both sides may have related queries on the issue. Pakistan would like to know what would constitute democracy for Washington. Will the holding of elections be enough? "The US side has some obvious reservations. The feeling in Washington is that the Musharraf government can hold elections and still keep the political system hostage to its dictates. State Department spokesman Phil Reeker expressed concern in no uncertain terms on the eve of foreign secretary Inam's visit. "While welcoming Gen. Musharraf's commitment to return of democracy, he sought more details: 'We want to know whether the elections will be party-based and what is the role of the President and his relations with the government'. "The Americans are curious to know what the office of President and its extension in the form of National Security Council holds in store for democracy in Pakistan. They also worry about Gen. Musharraf, like his khaki predecessors, reneging on promises. The spokesman did not reject the notion when asked if the State Department was concerned about Gen. Musharraf backing out from his commitment - 'given the recent history of statements of Pakistani officials that are then contradicted hours later'." Hasan Akhtar writes in Dawn: "The US administration is reported to be close to withdrawing sanctions on India and to resume military and economic cooperation sometime next month. A similar American action regarding the sanctions on Pakistan is stated to be in considerable doubt. Pakistan suffers from sanctions both on account of having carried out nuclear tests as well as because of the overthrow of the constitutional democratic order by the military on October 12, 1999." Meanwhile, Dawn reports from Peshawar: "The Awami National Party urged the government on August 15 to announce immediate elections instead of holding them next year, and leave the issue of constitutional amendments to Parliament. " 'Why should we wait till the last date given in the Supreme Court judgement? If elections are possible for the local bodies now, then why do we have to wait until next year for general elections?' ANP president Asfandyar Wali Khan told the daily. "Commenting on the roadmap for democracy announced by President Musharraf on August 12, Mr Asfandyar said: 'The maximum time that the government needs for holding general elections is 90 days. The roadmap for democracy is vague'. "The ANP chief questioned the authority of the Election Commission. 'Allegations made during the recent local bodies elections have reinforced the demand for an autonomous and financially independent Election Commission. It is imperative that the next general elections are held under an autonomous and financially independent Election Commission, otherwise results will be questioned in the same manner as they have been after the local bodies elections'. "He asked the government to lift ban on political activities so that they can make preparations for elections. He maintained that announcing the roadmap for democracy without allowing political parties to resume their activities is meaningless." Tariq Butt analyses in News from Islamabad: "The contour of the new constitutional package is amply clear to discerning people. The script writer and the mastermind is the same aging but mentally alert and brilliant guru, Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, who was the author of the controversial Eighth Amendment in 1985. He guided Zia about how to keep the elected Prime Minister and Parliament under his thumb. "Even a naive person will not dispute that under the new scheme of things, the National Security Council (NSC) will be constitutionalised as a super body, armed with powers over and above the Prime Minister and his (or her) Cabinet. All the Services chiefs will sit on this all-powerful forum to be headed by the President. The NSC is likely to be empowered to advise the President on the sacking of the Prime Minister. "Gen. Musharraf has so far left the question of his own election as President (indirectly as provided in the Constitution or through a public referendum or by the district nazims) open, although there is no gainsaying that he will retain this office. The safest means for him is through referendum as Zia had done and later got validation from Parliament as part of the Eighth Amendment. To get himself elected from the new assemblies will be a precarious process that Gen. Musharraf is unlikely to resort to." ADNI By the pioneer