Author: Kalyani Shanker
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: October 12, 2001
How is the sacking of three important
hardliners in Pakistan, including the Inter-Services Intelligence chief,
going to affect India? The Pakistan President, General Pervez Musharraf,
perhaps at the prodding of the United States, has got rid of the ISI chief.
One has to wait and see how the Pakistani army reacts to this development.
It must be remembered that what
happens in Islamabad and Kabul has always had an echo in India. With the
United States waging war against terrorism, what happens to the Taliban
is of great interest to Delhi. Past history favours General Musharraf's
getting away with the sackings. If one looks at the history of Pakistan,
that country has never had any revolt within the army. However, the current
scenario strongly promotes an anti-Musharraf alliance between disaffected
military leaders and mullahs in Pakistan. If so, only God will be able
to save General Musharraf. A bigger problem for him would to handle the
swelling Afghan refugees who have joined the fundamentalists. The General's
remark, that the American campaign in Afghanistan will be short, has been
sharply refuted by no less than the US President, Mr George Bush, himself.
He has pointed out that it is going to be a long haul.
What is India's strategy? For the
time being it has no role to play except to adopt a wait-and-watch attitude.
There is a section in India such as the Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister
Farooq Abdullah and some hardliners in the BJP and the RSS, who think that
this is the time for New Delhi to become proactive and attack terrorist
hideouts. If one were to go by this, there will be two crucial questions
to be answered: One, Are we ready, militarily, to face a full-scale war
with Pakistan since the camps are in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK)? And,
two, Can India afford the diplomatic cost of waging such a war and risk
being branded as an irresponsible and "anti-US" country? When Kargil happened,
New Delhi won appreciation from all around for the restraint it showed
despite maximum provocation from Pakistan.
This time Pakistan is the main ally
of the United States and the latter will be beholden to Pakistan if the
coalition could claim a reasonable success. So if the US has to take sides,
it would see India as the aggressor and turn the world opinion in favour
of Pakistan. There is another section which would like to adopt a cautious
attitude and wait until the current crisis blows over. By and large, the
Government too is adopting this stance.
However, India should ensure that
it has a say in the post-Taliban period in Afghanistan, if the attack succeeds.
India has to look at its priorities. The first is to limit Pakistan's influence
and also to ensure a full say in the post-Taliban scenario. General Musharraf
has gone on record saying that the US has assured him that the new government
would be friendly to Pakistan. New Delhi has to project its view to Russia,
Iran, the US and the new head of Afghanistan. After all, India is one of
those countries which has recognised Northern Alliance and also has good
relations with King Zahir Shah, whose return is being talked about as the
head of a new coalition in the strife torn country.
The second, but equally important,
priority is to ensure that Pakistan does not succeed in classifying Kashmiri
militants as jihadis. Military intelligence claims that since September
11, there has been no let up on the Kashmir front even after the US declared
war. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and if there is no reduction
on the scale of violence, it would only mean that there has been lip service
and nothing more from Pakistan.
For the first time, General Musharraf
has described the October 1 attack on the Kashmiri legislature as a "terrorist
act". Will he continue to think so or will he harp again on the jihadi
theme? If attacks on civilians carried out by Pakistan-supported militant
outfits are considered as "terrorist" ones, then how can the same organisations
be considered "jihadis"? It is important that the Indian Government publicises
the General's stance and points out the ambiguities in his statement.
New axis between Congress and Samajwadi
Party: A new axis seems to be developing between the Samajwadi Party and
the Congress. Eyebrows were raised at the presence of the Samajwadi party
leader Amar Singh at a Rajiv Gandhi Foundation function recently. If this
develops further, it will have repercussions on the Uttar Pradesh Assembly
elections. One can hear a collective sigh of relief from Congress insiders,
that at last things are beginning to take shape as many were working for
a patch up between the Congress and the Samajwadis. The axis seems to be
part of a game plan of the Left parties. The Left parties, particularly
CPI(M) leaders Harkishen Singh Surjeet and Somnath Chatterjee, who were
playing the mediators between the warring SP and the Congress, have been
using their influence with both for a compromise. As a result of their
efforts, the two parties at least did not work at cross-purposes during
the monsoon parliamentary session.
The Left is keen to ensure that
the BJP becomes the common enemy so that the anti-BJP votes remain intact.
That is why it is trying to build bridges between the Congress and the
SP. The Samajwadi Party is hoping to emerge as the single largest party
in the UP Assembly after February or March 2002. Since Mr Amar Singh is
perceived as the main hurdle in the patch up, Ms Sonia Gandhi probably
tried to make up to him by inviting him to the function. Mr Amar Singh
accepted the invitation, possibly because Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav wants
to keep the door open for a possible alliance with the Congress in case
the Samajwadi Party falls short of a majority.
The idea is to ensure that the BJP
is defeated in Uttar Pradesh Assembly, which will be possible only if SP
becomes the single largest party. In that event, it may even be possible
to install Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav as the next Chief Minister. Even if the
Congress does not go along with the SP-Left Front, there could be some
understanding for a post-poll scenario that the Congress could support
the SP. All the actors are strictly focused on short-term gains.
Another interesting aspect is that
by cosying up to Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mr Amar Singh, the Congress
has opened its cards too soon. It may now drive the Bahujan Samaj Party
to the lap of the BJP without any qualms. Of course, the BSP is currently
saying it will go alone, but in the post-poll scenario both the BJP and
the BSP would not be averse to helping each other. After all, they were
strange bedfellows once. More over, BSP leader Ms Mayawati's personal animosity
towards Mr Mulayam singh Yadav would make it impossible for the BSP to
be on the same side as the Samajwadi Party.
All political players in Uttar Pradesh
want to prove that politics is the art of the possible. Therefore, there
can be no permanent friends or permanent enemies.
