E D I T O R I A L

Kathmandu, Monday February 10, 2003  Magh 27,  2059.

Tit-for-tat ‘diplomacy’

The South Asian region, home to over one billion people, has never really lived in peace in the true sense of the word ever since the British left the sub-continent in 1947. Without having to beat about the bush, the two arch rivals, India and Pakistan, despite their common history and heritage as well as living styles, have been virtually at war against each other.

The issue of Kashmir, which has provoked three wars in the past, has taken a much wider dimension now. The international community has been consistently favouring a dialogue between the two sides, so that diplomacy could defuse the prevailing level of tension. The current move by both the countries to expel their diplomats in a reciprocal manner has come as a matter of shock and worry for the international community in general, and South Asia in particular.

Where diplomacy fails, war becomes a larger possibility. The prospects of war between two nuclear countries at a time when major initiatives are being taken to stall war on Iraq would be more tragic and disastrous. For Nepal, it is more a matter of concern because the alleged use of Nepali soil by Pakistan’s ISI is being raked by India in the background of tit-for-tat expulsion of diplomats by India and Pakistan.

Nevertheless, this is not the first time that such allegations have been made nor, to be sure, will this be the last. But such accusations do create unnecessary tensions among the people of the accused country, especially when there seems to be scant evidence to back up the charge. Nepal-India relation should be viewed in a context different from the Indo-Pak relation. If the open border is a problem as alleged terrorists and criminals cross the border and take shelter on the other side, the issue needs to be thrashed out at the joint foreign secretary level meeting and consequently take an appropriate decision. But the manner in which Nepal has to silently suffer the indignity of being freely accused of letting its territory be used for anti-Indian activities must be put to an end, bilaterally and free of elements determining the Indo-Pak relationship. The two relations are not at all comparable.

But on a much larger side, the two countries need to exercise utmost restraint, and downsizing the diplomatic initiatives would mean undermining international concerns. Hawkish moves in India have even suggested to end all diplomatic relationship with the western neighbour at the moment. Peace between India and Pakistan is vital for the peace and collective prosperity of South Asia. That is only possible when diplomacy, and not war, determines the relationship between the two neighbours. No-first-use of nuclear weapons doesn’t guarantee the collective peace and prosperity of the region envisaged by the SAARC. Restoring current diplomatic strength and filling the posts instantly could be a good start in such a bitter backdrop.