• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Will summit mean better trade?

Kuldip Nayar

IT IS understandable that New Delhi could not have continued with a rigid attitude towards Islamabad for long. It is also understandable that India could not have kept the door permanently shut when Gen Pervez Musharraf came knocking. But what cannot be understood is why the Prime Minister, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, had to go overboard in welcoming Pakistan's Chief Executive when he was donning a sherwani over the khaki. Mr Vajpayee should not have gone out of his way to greet Gen Musharraf as ``Mr Presi dent'' several hours before he appointed himself to that position. Even Gen Musharraf had to point out to him that he was not President. Should New Delhi have gone to the extent of requesting the President, Mr K. R. Narayanan, to send greetings to Gen Mu sharraf on the assumption of the presidentship? The presence of India's acting High Commissioner at Gen Musharraf's oath-taking ceremony would have been enough.

Democratic India is an oasis in a large desert where people live denied of their rights under dictatorships and autocracies. The Pakistanis too want to rule themselves. They were unfortunate they got political leaders who failed them. Following the death of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, and the assassination of his successor, Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan's political situation developed in such a manner that the country was given to the armed forces on a platter. They dug in.

Gen Musharraf is obviously the key man for a meaningful dialogue as he now controls Pakistan. Mr Vajpayee, even though an alliance Prime Minister, has the support of the whole nation in the initiative he has taken. The coming dialogue has generated so mu ch optimism in the two countries that Gen Musharraf and Mr Vajpayee cannot afford to fail. Both will have experts to advise them. But their own instincts are better.

Most experts, on either side, are hawks who turn into doves with the climate. Foreign Office hands, retired top brass and senior government servants, who did their damnedest during their careers to scotch even small efforts at conciliation, are now their advisers. They have seen to it that the two countries stay apart. Had they not come in the way of easing visa restrictions or of allowing the exchange of newspapers, books and cultural groups, the climate would have been different.

Pakistan's deteriorating economic conditions have spurred the desire to make peace with a country that has a large market. Forty years ago, I suggested that Pakistan-produced goods be let in free of duty. Had that been done, the Pakistanis would now have developed a vested interest in their ties with India. The Most-Favoured-Nation status, that New Delhi has extended to Pakistan, is likely to be reciprocated by Islamabad during Gen Musharraf's visit. But had trade relations been established 40 years ago , it would have come in handy in solving political problems. Even now it is not too late.

True, foreign powers have fished in the troubled subcontinent. Through arms and economic assistance, they have stoked the fires of enmity. Either to preserve their ``areas of interest'' or to maintain what they consider the ``balance of power'' in the re gion, they have been following policies aimed at keeping the people of the subcontinent divided.

Left alone, the subcontinent can find its own destiny according to its own genius -- provided the people are allowed to look within, and not without. With time, they may forget their quarrels. As Mohammad Ali Jinnah once said: ``Some nations have killed millions of each others and yet, an enemy of today is a friend of tomorrow. That is history''.

The change is dependent on how soon economic prosperity comes to the subcontinent so that people can forget religious differences and set themselves the task of improving their standards of living. This is not impossible because three countries in the su bcontinent -- India, Pakistan and Bangladesh -- are now committed to social justice and democracy.

The idea of an economic common market may not mature for a long time because India is a developed country compared to the other two. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, then Pakistan's head, said after the Bangladesh war: ``We will have to see whether we can mutually b enefit, but, in principle, I think, as far as a common market is concerned, we are not ready for such an arrangement. Europe also was not ready for it. It took time for Europe as a whole to get the advantage of a common market. Today we are basically pro ducers of primary commodities. We have had some industrial progress but we have not reached that standard of industrial development where there can be a grand collaboration in industry because these things are very difficult to arrange; and even Europe i s finding it difficult regarding agriculture commodities.''

However, there is no doubt that trade between India and Pakistan will grow once the barriers between the two go. According to one estimate, if India and Pakistan were to have even normal trade, there would be a turnover of Rs 2,000 crore every year. Whet her the two will exploit the opportunity, which they have lost in the past five decades, is the question.

If the gas pipeline from Iran to India through Pakistan is possible, why not full-fledged trade? Islamabad is willing to give the guarantees required for the safety of the pipeline. This breakthrough can make the fast flow of goods between the two countr ies possible. Then the money spent on the armed forces and armaments can be saved for economic development and the people's well being. Both Mr Vajpayee and Gen Musharraf are now talking about the welfare of the poor. If they succeed in making the summit fruitful, they may be giving concrete shape to what they are talking.