Can India choose not to talk to General Pervez Musharraf? Nawaz Sharif has suggested that India should stop talking to Musharraf. “It’s up to India to see whether it wants to talk to a dictator,” he recently said. “He is a man who has no standing in Pakistan. I would like to ask who he represents, does he consult Parliament, does he take the people of Pakistan into confidence?”
Should India help build democracy in Pakistan?
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main31.asp?filename=Ne300607Goods_PRO.asp
GOOD NEIGHBOURS
Can India choose not to talk to General Pervez Musharraf?
Sankarshan Thakur
DEMOCRACY IS a noble pursuit, dictatorship inarguably a thing to eschew. But beyond the notion of good and bad, there is a real world there to deal with, and very often it does not afford preferences. The former, and exiled, Pakistani prime minister Nawaz Sharif has been suggesting that India is wrong to have been dealing with General Pervez Musharraf all these years because he is a dictator and, in his opinion, does not represent that country’s people. “It’s up to India to see whether it wants to talk to a dictator,” he recently said. “He is a man who has no standing in Pakistan. I would like to ask who he represents, does he consult Parliament, does he take the people of Pakistan into confidence?” Quite right. General Musharraf became President Musharraf through a coup. In the years since, he has done much — dubious and deliberate — to perpetuate himself. Chances are, he will continue to subvert any return of a people’s democracy to Pakistan. What is India to do about that?
There are several problems with Nawaz Sharif ’s counsel to New Delhi. First and foremost is the idea that India should be in a position to choose who it deals with in Pakistan. The very suggestion should be repugnant to Pakistanis for it suggests an Indian say in who governs Pakistan. Of course, India celebrates democracy and remains principally committed to backing the idea globally. That does not, however, mean that India is also committed to imposing democracies. Intrusion is not intrinsic to India’s foreign policy, non-interference is. India would prefer a democratic Pakistan but India considers itself in no position to ensure or impose it. That is a task for people like Nawaz Sharif.
It is not unreasonable to ask what he has done in that regard. He cut a deal with Musharraf as soon as he realised he might have to go through the inconvenience of waging a long battle from prison. He escaped to Saudi, where he has lived these past years in relative comfort. The story of his political adversary, Benazir Bhutto, is much the same. Notwithstanding her repeated promises/threats to return home “at any cost”, the closest Bhutto has come to home from her London base is Dubai. Is there something here that defines differences between Indian and Pakistani politicians? The majority of India’s politicians chose prison when Indira Gandhi imposed Emergency in 1975; the Pakistani political elite prefers to escape.
To expect New Delhi to shut the window and await the return of Pakistan’s truant democrats is to expect the ridiculous. Pakistan is India’s most important neighbour, the relationship can’t be put in freeze. Even when diplomatic ties have been suspended, there has always been the palpable sense of a relationship on either side. India must deal with whoever is in saddle in Pakistan. Just who is in that saddle is for Pakistanis themselves to decide.
