The current visit of British Prime Minister Tony Blair to the subcontinent is not a sudden rush to put out the fire there. The trip was planned long ago, and was meant to discuss terrorism. However, it has become a mission to defuse the precipitous tensions between India and Pakistan.
From the way Blair fielded press questions when he arrived in Bangladesh, his first port of call, it seems that, publicly, he is not prepared to pass any opinion at all as to the rights and wrongs of the dangerous Kashmir confrontation. This is as it should be. What the British premier says in private to the Indian and Pakistan governments is another matter. As the former colonial power, Britain carries a historic responsibility for the mess that is Kashmir. But it will be American influence that will be decisive and the message that Blair carries from Bush that matters.
America is putting strong pressure on President Musharraf to round up Kashmiri militants, who have been sponsored by past Pakistani governments. More than a hundred were seized last month and yesterday 120 more were arrested. India is, however, demanding that named individuals it says were behind the attack on its parliament building be handed over to them. Islamabad has, with reason, called for clear proof before any such surrender of suspects is considered.
New Delhi remains intent on extracting the maximum benefit from the present international political climate and the Bush campaign against terrorism. It has probably calculated that it can break the power of the Kashmiri militants without being obliged to negotiate in any way over the future of Kashmir
Musharraf appears determined to avoid war but no longer seems convinced that US pressure alone can hold the Indian government in check. Hence his visit to Beijing where he has had a sympathetic reception. In the days when India and China were squaring up to each other across their common border, it paid Pakistan to align itself with China’s interests. Today, however, Washington will be most reluctant to see the Chinese government playing any role in the region. If Musharraf is calculating that his Chinese trip will galvanize Washington into more concerted action against New Delhi, he may have made a canny move.
The danger of the conflict spreading in case of a war clearly exists. India’s aggressive tactics, therefore, no longer look so wise. It ought now to be clear to Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee that, if outsiders are going to be drawn into the confrontation with Pakistan, it should be as mediators and not participants. Indeed, with every day that passes, it seems more unlikely that these two countries are going to resolve their differences by themselves. But New Delhi must accept that Pakistan cannot be bullied into complying with all its demands on the militant hand-over. A compromise may lie in the passing of the suspects to a third party, be it a country or an international tribunal, where the evidence against them can be tested.
What the people of India and Pakistan wish is that the two leaders, in one room at the Katmandu conference hall today, will be able to go beyond their public postures and agree to walk away from the brink.
