Manmohan Singh, Pervez Musharraf. PHOTO: FILE
Stirring controversy in the midst of the Indian election, a book written by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s former aide reveals that he wanted to settle the Siachen issue with former president Pervez Musharraf but scaled the efforts back following objection from his defence minister AK Antony.
“The Accidental Prime Minister,” by Sanjaya Baru, who served as media advisor to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh from 2004 to 2008, has stirred a political storm in India by detailing the extent to which the prime minister was handicapped by Congress party president Sonia Gandhi. Such lack of independence meant that ministers saw themselves as drawing their power from Gandhi and reducing the stature of the prime minister.
Despite such political restraints, Singh went out of his way for two things, the Indo-US nuclear deal and relations with Pakistan. While he achieved the former, the latter was obstructed by political developments in Islamabad, terrorist attacks in India and opposition from within his party. This remains his greatest regret, Baru writes in the book.
Singh pursued a four-point formula with General Musharraf to resolve the Kashmir dispute, which would “make borders irrelevant”. He propounded this vision twice in speeches at Amritsar, deliberately in Punjabi as they were also aimed at people across the border.
When in early 2005 General Musharraf wanted to visit India for talks with the excuse of a cricket match, Singh did not have the backing of his hawkish colleagues, with the good excuse of the Indian parliament being in session as a bad time for a high-level Indo-Pak summit. Singh’s foreign secretary Shyam Saran and internal security advisor MK Narayannan disagreed with the idea as they thought Pakistan was not ready to solve disputes.
To surpass this opposition, the Indian prime minister surprised everyone by announcing in parliament that he had decided to invite General Musharraf to watch a cricket match. Members of parliament thumped their desks, indicating approval.
Soon before Musharraf’s visit, the bus terminal in Srinagar from where he along with Gandhi had to flag off the first Srinagar-Muzzafarabad bus the next morning was hit by a bomb attack. Following the attack, all security advisors told him to cancel the visit but he went ahead. Soon, Musharraf’s visit went off well, unlike the fears many had that Musharraf would walk away with a PR coup of the sort he did with Vajpayee in Agra.
The visit marked the beginning of serious back-channel negotiations conducted between Pakistan’s envoy Tariq Aziz and his Indian counterpart Satinder Lambah. These negotiations were kept so secret that when Lambah met Dr Singh in his office, the meetings were not listed in the PM’s official appointments lest the PMO officials and the (Indian) intelligence agencies get wind.
In the book, Baru writes, “While there has been some criticism of Singh’s Siachen proposal in India, the fact is that he pursued this idea only after consulting retired army generals who had actually commanded the troops at Siachen... All of them supported Singh’s decision...”
The Indian prime minister thus felt there would be far more criticism of the Musharraf-Manmohan formula in Pakistan, and suggested to the former president that he sell the idea as the Musharraf formula, owning and making it popular in Pakistan.
Similarly, in India Singh expected criticism only from the right-wing opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), he was surprised to find opposition from within his Congress party, particularly the then defence minister Pranab Mukherjee and his successor in the ministry, AK Antony.
Baru describes Antony as “politically conservative and risk averse”. While he supported a peace initiative with Pakistan, he was opposed to a deal on Siachen. The then army chief, General JJ
Singh, privately made supportive noises but publicly supported Antony, claims Baru. The retired general has refuted these claims.
While Baru does say that many serving generals were opposed trusting Pakistan with Siachen demilitarisation, his claims about Antony are a first. So far, the lack of consensus on Siachen has been blamed more on the military hawks rather than political ones. Baru speculates that Antony’s opposition could have been the voice of Sonia Gandhi, as the Gandhi family may have been averse to a non-Gandhi prime minister solving a mess of Nehru’s making, and thus potentially overshadowing the family. “I felt that she would want to wait till Rahul took over as PM,” he writes.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 14th, 2014.
COMMENTS (31)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Sanjay worked for almost 4 years with Dr Singh, and he claims he has never called on Sonia Gandhi, assuming this to be true, i think this gives a nice account of how to do our job, even when you have no idea how, when, where and with whom it is to be done. it gives a fair idea on how things get messy and at times scandalous when you have multiple power centers and too much of dynamics, especially in a public office.
Excellent narrative, a lot to learn for young officials, who would take up these roles in future.
A plesant read and brings back a lot of memory of events and incidents, look out for witty one liners from Dr Singh.
@Candid1 Please read this link below, till the end. Hatred for India is still widespread among Pakistanis, but it is your country's falsified facts as the Pakistani rulers feared India might try to annex it back. This has lead to "fake history" being taught to Pakistanis since young age via school textbooks to project it as if India is an aggressor, whereas in reality, India does not and never wanted to start any way with Pakistan. (Even in reality, all 4 wars between India & Pakistan were started by Pakistan without any provocation by India). It is one thing to hate someone or some country, but atleast hate with valid facts to back up your anger. Pakistani's ruling elites have destroyed Pakistan enough already while they themselves got incredibly rich. Don't let them fool you anymore; make use of the internet to find out facts (except from Pakistani websites).
http://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2013/deadly-triangle-afghanistan-pakistan-india-d
The scythian had a Bharatiyah Defence minister thank God.Manmohans home is in Pakistan,Scythians.Live as migrant gypsies in this land , but never give us back anything.Thats why UPA wont win this election.And What will Pakistan do with Siachen? or the Indus?.We want our Indus back, Scythians and Parthians should go back to central asia.
@just_someone: We want to shine for our own citizens, not for Pakistanis.
Glad to see that not everyone was asleep at the wheel! Dumbmohan Singh all set to fritter away the gains made by the Indian army!
@just_someone: And yes, that was sarcasm!
Fail
For any deal with Pakistan an Indian PM would have to carry his cabinet, party, parliament, defense services, professional opinion, and people. Can anyone see that happening, Pakistan being what it is? " .... the fact is that he pursued this idea only after consulting retired army generals who had actually commanded the troops at Siachen… All of them supported Singh’s decision…” If it is that much of a "fact" why aren't the names of these generals given? Why aren't they given now? This same Baru would have us believe that Singh has been a weak PM. Then how are his plans being projected as near-misses? A weak PM never had any hope! Every Pakistani should get his perspective clear where Indian thinking is considered - peace in the region will be ensured only so long as Pakistan fears war!
@Asfandyar Khan: Pakistan was undo in 1971 if you have read your history.
@Candid1: Pakistan neither had the military capability or the political will to attack anyone
But military incapability nor lack of political will nor even common sense has ever deterred the mard-e-momin Pakistani Army from attacking anyone. Ever wondered why they never won a war they started
@Asfandyar Khan: "i meant to say"? saying who? a paki? top failed state?
@Candid1: "@BruteForce: Which fantasy novel do they teach in Indian schools as history books? " You are so far divorced from reality that one wonders which fantasy novel do they teach from in Pakistani schools as history books? @ABCD: ".Why should any human being live in such harsh climate when everyone wants peace?!! Lets leave these conflict mongers alone on Siachen and not let them play with the lives of the brave soldiers!" This is what is surprising that wise Pakistanis like you who wonder ".Why should any human being live in such harsh climate when everyone wants peace?!" do not just shut up because still wanting Siachen runs against their common sense. For whatever reasons, perhaps irrationality included, Indians don't see anything wrong in living in such harsh climate. For the same reasons, perhaps they don't want peace because price of peace is much too high for them.
@Candid1:
It looks like fantasy novels are written and taught by Pakistan’s military rulers to Pakistani’s. Indian history is longest, oldest and the only continuous history in the world. Pakistan’s is only 67 years old without truth and full of concocted lies.
Pakistan always will be wasteland between India and Afghanistan and a vassal of China
Great to hear both defense ministers did their jobs well.
Who would trust Pakistan, other than the few who were born in undivided India and whose birth place happens to be in Pakistan. They have the fantasy of a federation.
@Gratgy:
Dr WHO was simply taking the chapter from the European history which after having lost millions in 30years plus war, and trying to make the borders drawn between India and its neighbours meaningless without altering them. The lady in the congress refused to have a peace agreerment with Pakistan.
Rex Minor
So in essence we can say that establishment of both sides are the same. they won't let any problem resolve.
@BruteForce: Which fantasy novel do they teach in Indian schools as history books? Neither Siachin, nor Kashmir are India's "own" territory, refer to United Nations description of their status.
Nor did Pakistan attack India in 1948 or 1965. In 1948, unlike India, a newly independent Pakistan neither had the military capability or the political will to attack anyone, and it was India that invaded Kashmir with its military on the pretext of expelling a few hundred tribesmen. In 1965 it was India that attacked across the international border, not Pakistan. Just like you have said, Pakistan was deploying its troops in its own territory in Kashmir in 1965.
1971 was not Indian retaliation, it was naked aggression followed by years of unsuccessful terrorist campaign to tear Pakistan apart. Siachin in 1984 was similar Indian aggression, when Pakistan was pre-occupied with the occupation of Afghanistan by Indian ally, the USSR.
India's historical aggression against Pakistan is well documented, and no amount of prevarication by you will change these facts, so stop trying to re-write history.
There is absolutely no need for India to vacate any of its forward positions. The nation that can stare the longest without blinking wins. Pakistan hardly has the economic wherewithal to keep this up for very long. The strain is already showing. Somewhere along the line there will be the last straw.
@asfandyar khan. The leaks are embarrassment to congress than a plus. It showed how remote controlled was our pm in hands of Italian madam sonia. This has made indians more angry and more anti congress the way right paths and good economic sensible decisions were diverted to continue scams and corruption while our pm turn a blind eye to it for ten years.How's that good news and stooping to any level for power than loose power ? Its book launched by a person who's critical of political party not supporting it.
@dude: You meant to say way way below right. I can understand your frustration. No power on earth can undo PAKISTAN
Why don't we just put the individuals who are opposed to a settlement on Siachen alone ON Siachen and leave them there for a few months. If they survive and still maintain their same stance of conflict, lets leave them there for a few more months....Why should any human being live in such harsh climate when everyone wants peace?!! Lets leave these conflict mongers alone on Siachen and not let them play with the lives of the brave soldiers!
Global WARM enviornment may force India to change its eternal stance on Siachen, in future. Glacier is melting,Both countries need to resolve this issue before it is too late.They should spend their budget for their people.
@Candid1:
When did deploying troops in your own Territory become a crime?
Per the agreement in 1948, Siachen falls into Indian territory.
http://www.asianconversations.com/SiachenGlacier.php
After Pakistan attacked India in 1948 and in 1965. India retaliated in 1971. Then again having learned the lesson, India made sure troops are stationed in strategically important posts.
India was reminded of how good a decision it was when Pakistan took over Kargil heights.
But, thankfully, on all these attempts, India has come out better. Thank God for that.
This shows the threat Pakistan faces from Indian machinations. It was the Indians who sneaked into Siachin and occupied it, and then they talk about trusting Pakistan? The entire Siachin issue would not have been there, had the Indians not betrayed Pakistan's trust by occupying it in 1984. Pakistan would be stupid to trust India on anything.
@Asfandyar Kha: but we are way above than pakistan
Another political stunt for votes. Indians will slide down to new low for power anytime
Thank God! Atleast the defence minister had some common sense.
I am glad he did. I don't want another repeat of Kargil where our troops were removed for the Winter and they were occupied by the "Freedom Fighters", who for some reason had Pakistani Army Identity cards with them.