Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
archive: Their Feudal Lords

Their Feudal Lords

Surendra Munshi
The Telegraph
June 28, 1999


    Title: Their Feudal Lords
    Author: Surendra Munshi
    Publication: The Telegraph
    Date: June 28, 1999
    
    Just before his visit to India, the foreign minister of Pakistan,
    Sartaj Aziz, said in Islamabad that while his country had always
    respected the line of control, India had always violated it. He moved
    a resolution in Pakistan's national assembly that was unanimously
    adopted. It condemned the "unprovoked" shelling, rocketing and air
    intrusions by India into Pakistan's side of the LoC. The resolution
    also deplored the repression that was unleashed on the people of
    Kashmir, and it reiterated the continued political, moral and
    diplomatic support of Pakistan to the struggle of the Kashmiri people. 
    
    And then came the handing over to India of mutilated and disfigured
    bodies of six Indian soldiers who were held captive by Pakistan for a
    month. When India decided to show restraint and to go ahead with the
    scheduled talks between the two foreign ministers, Aziz came to India
    and refused to acknowledge any role in the intrusions that had taken
    place in Kargil. He saw in these intrusions Kashmiri mujahedin
    fighting their own war. Believing in the "sanctity" of the Shimla
    agreement, he asked India to halt heavy shelling and air-strikes to
    defuse the tension in Kargil.
    
    India had already released by then the transcript of telephone
    conversations between the Pakistan army chief and his deputy that were
    believed to have taken place on May 26 and 29. It is clear from these
    conversations that the military establishment has kept the Pakistani
    prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, the foreign minister, Aziz, and the
    foreign secretary, Shamshad Ahmed, in the picture, laying down the
    course of action and expecting Aziz to act as dictated.
    
    His brief was to keep the option of dialogue open without giving any
    commitment on the military situation. He was not to even accept a
    cease-fire. As far as the LoC is concerned, doubts were raised to the
    advantage of Pakistan and the dispute was given the colour of an
    Indian attack on their side of the LoC. Did the Mi-17 helicopter fall
    in their area? "No, sir," said Lieutenant-General Mohammed Aziz to his
    chief. 'This has fallen in their area. We have not claimed it. We have
    got it claimed through the mujahedin". He had said earlier that "the
    scruff (tooti) of their [militants'] neck is in our hands".
    
    The story about Pakistan's deception and doublespeak goes back to the
    earliest days. Tribal raiders invaded Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 for
    whom Pakistan refused to own any responsibility till its involvement
    and the direct participation of its regular army could no longer be
    denied. The brutality of that period is still remembered in Kashmir,
    as is the sacrifice of the local hero, Sherwani, in resisting the
    attack. Even M.K. Gandhi, the apostle of peace, could not overlook the
    role of Pakistan, nor deny the responsibility of the Indian army in
    defending Kashmir from external attack.
    
    A ceasefire line came into being under the direction of the United
    Nations in early 1949. Pakistan honoured it by continued violations.
    In 1965 infiltrators were used yet again in an attempt to take over
    Kashmir. When this too failed, the CFL was restored by the Tashkent
    accord of the Indian prime minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and the
    Pakistani president, Ayub Khan.
    
    In 1971, during the Bangladesh war, Pakistan again opened the front in
    Jammu and Kashmir and it proved costly for it. After the surrender of
    Pakistani forces in Bangladesh, a ceasefire was declared. This led to
    the Shimla accord that was signed in 1972, incorporating an LoC. This
    line was drawn on maps and defined in words, duly agreed upon and
    jointly signed. Both countries resolved by the accord to respect each
    other's territorial integrity and sovereignty and to abstain from
    interference in each other's internal affairs. Both sides further
    agreed to respect the LoC and to refrain from threat or the use of
    force in violation of the line. Pakistan has abused this accord in
    many ways all these years.
    
    Yet Pakistan has been able to get away with all its doublespeak. It is
    only now that it finds itself exposed internationally. Overwhelming
    evidence points to its direct role in the undeclared war in Kargil
    that has required much advanced planning. The Pakistani army appears
    to have admitted after weeks of denials through its spokesman,
    Brigadier Rashid Qureshi, that its soldiers have been involved all
    along in the battle. It has owned up to what has been aptly termed,
    its "great Kargil lie".
    
    Statements from Washington, Moscow, Cologne and Berlin indicate that
    Pakistan has not been able to sell its story this time. The United
    States president, Bill Clinton, has asked Sharif to pull out of
    Kargil. There are reports the US may go public with more evidence of
    the direct involvement in Kargil of the government of Pakistan, its
    army and intelligence services. That the Kargil crisis is the creation
    of the mujahedin has not been accepted.
    
    Why has Pakistan indulged in this adventure? It has been argued that
    the Pakistani game plan is to open the whole question of the
    territories so that the LoC may be altered. Through the appearance of
    a positional dispute an attempt is being made to raise a territorial
    dispute. Other reasons that have been noted are gaining strategic
    locations, controlling the important Srinagar-Leh highway, blocking
    Indian access to Siachen and creating a new route for infiltration
    into the Kashmir valley. Yet another reason noted is that an attempt
    is being made to bring back Kashmir as an international issue, all the
    more important in view of the normalcy that has been returning to the
    valley.
    
    All these reasons are plausible. Yet this move has to be seen in its
    proper context. It will be a mistake to consider this undeclared war
    as a replacement for the proxy war Pakistan has been carrying out in
    the Kashmir valley. It has to be emphasized that this war is meant to
    bolster that proxy war, primarily through the infusion of fresh
    mercenaries with more advanced weapons.
    
    These are then two wars that Pakistan has waged against India over
    Kashmir. It has systematically tried to keep the proxy war alive by
    sending infiltrators from outside and also by creating terrorists from
    within. The act of creating terrorists within has been carried out by
    terror and temptation, thus acting on the primary instincts of fear
    and greed.
    
    It is for anyone to see how weapons and money are flowing into the
    valley. Pakistani strategists understand well that a situation of
    terror breeds terrorism, and this has been exploited in provoking
    retaliations from the Indian forces. Moreover, systematic attempts
    have been made to introduce the ideology of Muslim fundamentalism from
    outside, an ideology that is alien to the culture of Muslim saints who
    have flourished in Kashmir.
    
    Pakistani compulsions are the compulsions of an oligarchy dominated by
    the top brass of the armed forces which rules in its own interest and
    over which the people exert hardly any influence. This oligarchy has
    learnt since the time of Ayub Khan to use democracy as a household
    drudge to be dismissed at will. It has also learnt to use Islam as an
    instrument of central power. This is an oligarchy of aggressive
    Punjabis who constitute the dominant ethnic group of Pakistan and who
    look upon other ethnic groups, including Kashmiris, with contempt. It
    is in the interest of this oligarchy to keep the conflict with India
    alive so that the prominence and privileges of the armed forces may be
    protected.
    
    Pakistan spends on military expenditure by way of percentage of gross
    national product more than double of what India spends, while its
    record with respect to expenditure on health and education is much
    worse than that of India. Its finance minister, Ishaq Dar, has stated
    that the defence budget may be further increased beyond the announced
    10.9 per cent increase in the 1999-2000 budget, keeping an eye on the
    existing scenario at the LoC.
    
    To this oligarchy the Islamic state of Pakistan constitutes its
    ideological justification and the Indian secular state a threat of
    negation. Here are the true successors of the two-nation theory whose
    greatest misfortune would be if India were to hand over Kashmir to
    them on a platter. For then they would have to find other sources of
    conflict to keep themselves in power. 
    
    
    (The author teaches sociology at the Indian Institute of Management,
    Calcutta)
    



Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements