On June 25, I got to see President Pervez Musharaff and listen to him address a select gathering organized by the US Institute of Peace, Washington, DC. I had been eager to see the man who has been so prominent in the news lately. I have to say that the impression I had formed of him, from the numerous audio-visual bites on television I have seen over the last three and a half years, remains essentially unaltered after this meeting. His formal speech was followed by over half an hour of fielding questions from the audience. This was a free-for-all with no sign of any stage-management. He took questions about a variety of topics from a variety of people regarding an assortment of concerns and problems that Pakistan has had to deal with. The one question he refused to discuss was the relationship of Pakistan with North Korea. He simply said that it was a closed chapter and remained tight-lipped on that topic after that. Musharaff, the man, did not disappoint me, although I must confess that I had hoped that he would turn out to be a more dynamic person. He is not an eloquent speaker, but then is there a political leader nowadays who is? Musharaff’s statements were as lack-luster and cliché-ridden as are L. K. Advani’s, or A. B. Vajpayee’s, when the latter reads his in English.

I will not weary the reader with all that Musharaff had to say about how he saved the beloved Pakistan which was all but an officially declared failed-state, on the verge of bankruptcy, divided, a pariah state, its people in despair and without hope, at the time he was “compelled by circumstances to take over”. In three years he had turned it around completely, he said. What he said about Pakistan’s relationship with India was ominous. He admitted that the confrontation in Kashmir is a heavy drain on Pakistan’s resources that could be better utilized for the development of its economy and for providing better education and health services to its people. Therefore, he was all for a meaningful dialogue with India for a step-by-step resolution of all “outstanding issues”. He accepted that India was a bigger country. He did not say it was a stronger country. He felt that as a bigger country India is to be expected to be a bit more magnanimous and resilient than it is. Pakistan, a sovereign and proud country, would then certainly respond in a positive manner, so long as neither its sovereignty nor its security was compromised. This is by no means an unfair position. But then discussing the issue of Jammu and Kashmir he minced no words. He reiterated that this was the only issue, a “central and core issue”, that is the cause of the dispute between India and Pakistan. Pakistan, he proclaimed, will never accept a status quo of the existing situation. A questioner asked him to clarify this point by asking whether he was willing to accept the present line of control as the international boundary. His answer was unequivocal. The present line of control, he asserted, is the issue over which the two countries have fought “three” wars. So how can that be a solution to the problem, he asked with all the emphasis he could invoke. A contentious issue cannot be resolved by agreeing to the situation that was in dispute to begin with, he persisted in arguing.

Frankly, I am perplexed. My recollection is that not all the wars were fought over the present line of control. Certainly, not the first war in 1947/48. This was fought over the legitimacy of Kashmir Maharaja’s accession of the state to India. More serious is Musharaff’s insistence that the acceptance of the existing line of control, unchanged for 50 years, as the new international boundary is absolutely out of question. This is an uncompromising stand. Does he seriously expect that India would be magnanimous enough or is in a position, even if it is, to cede the whole of Kashmir to Pakistan? Is such a stance conducive to the holding of any kind of meaningful negotiations? Am I missing something here? Perhaps some of your very perceptive and well-informed readers can enlighten me on this matter and also indicate what other conceivable solutions are possible, given that Kashmir is the one and only issue of dispute between the two countries.