archive: India gains in stature, Pakistan sinks in the mire
India gains in stature, Pakistan sinks in the mire
Kanchan Gupta
Rediff on Net
June 29, 1999
Title: India gains in stature, Pakistan sinks in the mire
Author: Kanchan Gupta
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: June 29, 1999
It has been a weekend of Le Carre-ian suspense in New Delhi. Did US
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Gibson Lanpher fly in with a
Washington-brokered "safe passage deal" to end the battle for Kargil,
a deal that would offer a "face-saving" and "honourable exit" to Mian
Nawaz Sharif from what has turned out to be a bloody mess for
Pakistan?
To add to the suspense, former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik
flew in, literally in the cover of darkness, and flew out the next
morning. Niaz Naik is a member of the track-two diplomacy gang that
junkets around the world preaching utopian people-to-people
friendship, ignoring hostile realities. But the fact that he flew in
on a special aircraft and met Principal Secretary Brajesh Mishra (and
not Inder Kumar Gujral), is ample evidence that he was playing Nawaz
Sharief's emissary.
Did he reiterate the "safe passage" formula that would allow the
Pakistani army regulars and the Islamist thugs who have
surreptitiously occupied Indian positions to escape a premature
journey to jahannum?
The government has been quick to clarify that Mr Lanpher was here to
merely brief our people about the discussions he and the C-in-C, US
Central Command, Gen Anthony Zinni, had had in Islamabad. And that Mr
Naik had indeed come here with a message from Mr Sharief, but was told
that the Lahore peace process could be revived only after Indian
territory is vacated of Pakistani intruders and the sanctity of the
Line of Control is restored. In other words, as the slang goes,
thanks, but no thanks.
Ever since a trusting India was caught on the wrong foot by the
massive incursion by Pakistani army regulars (this is no longer a
refutable fact) and Islamist thugs on the payroll of the likes of
Osama bin Laden, the government has been consistent in its stand. A
hostile act of aggression has been committed by Pakistan, violating
the letter and spirit of the Simla Agreement and the Lahore
Declaration. India will not rest till the aggressors are evicted from
its territory -- the Pakis will have to leave, dead or alive.
Meanwhile, India will engage nations across the world in pro-active
diplomacy so that nobody has any doubts about who is the real culprit.
This consistency has paid rich dividends. The Vajpayee government has
demonstrated that it is resolute in both peace and war, that it can
exercise extreme restraint in the face of extreme provocation, that
unlike in 1947-48, 1965 and 1971, this time around no mercy shall be
shown to those who have violated our motherland.
The Pakistanis can forget the picnic they had when they took over the
Hazratbal shrine during Congress rule. But this firmness has been
demonstrated with the civility that befits a responsible nation and a
nuclear power.
On the other hand, the Pakistanis have responded in the only manner
known to a rogue state. Such is their desperation, they have embarked
on a suicidal route that could well end with the final decimation of a
country that was doomed from birth.
Mohammed Ali Jinnah's "moth-eaten Pakistan" was halved in 1971. The
remaining half is now threatened: Not necessarily by a nuclear strike
by India but by starvation and worse if the IMF decides to spurn
Islamabad's begging bowl.
India's response to the Pakistani aggression, in marked contrast to
the wheedling reaction of the past when victories won by the armed
forces on the battlefield were squandered by Congress leaders on the
negotiating table, has not been without success. The international
community, barring those known for harbouring rabid opinion, has
unequivocally held Pakistan responsible for instigating the Kargil
clash and has, equally unequivocally, pinned responsibility on
Pakistan to end the crisis.
For the first time since Jawaharlal Nehru's disastrous decision to
take the Kashmir issue to the UN, a decision taken against the sage
advice of Sardar Patel and for which he did not take his colleagues
inside and outside government into confidence -- the only other person
who knew of the decision, indeed, who is believed to have influenced
the decision, was Lord Mountbatten -- the West has taken a balanced
view of sub-continental affairs.
Till now, the West, especially the US, leaned heavily towards
Pakistan, ignoring Indian interests. This time, to quote an American
official, the US is "leaning heavily on Pakistan" to undo the wrong it
has committed. Compare what Robin Raphael said with what her
successors are saying, and you will know the difference.
In a sense, Indian diplomacy has come of age with the Kargil conflict,
leaving behind the naïve adolescence of the Congress era when nitwits,
living in a make-believe world, would strike self-righteous postures
and end up offending the whole world.
If truth be told, Kashmir was, to use the quaintly sub-continental
expression, "internationalised" when Pakistani intruders ran riot in
October 1947 in what was Pakistan's first attempt to smash and grab
Kashmir. Nehru took the issue to the UN. Having done that, you cannot
keep on harping that it is a bilateral issue and that you will not
countenance any third party interference.
Yes, Kashmir is an issue to be settled, ultimately, between India and
Pakistan. In fact, in each of their statements, governments across the
world, both collectively and individually, have reiterated this point.
This by itself indicates a larger, global acceptance of the Indian
position (Pakistan has all along maintained that Kashmir is more than
a mere bilateral issue and raised it at every available multilateral
forum).
But what if a recalcitrant and petulant Pakistan refuses to settle the
issue in a civilised manner? It is quite like dealing with your next
door neighbour. For example, your neighbour's dog turns rabid but your
neighbour refuses to put it down. Wouldn't you seek the help of others
to achieve that objective?
In Kargil -- or, for that matter, over Kashmir -- you are not dealing,
at the moment, with a rational, thinking regime but with rabid dogs
that are beyond the pale of civilisation. You can kill the dogs with
your army and your air force, but to wipe out the virus, you need the
help of others.
That is the reality. The sooner we accept it, the better it shall be,
not only for the people of India but for the peoples of the
sub-continent. Now that we have international opinion favouring us, we
should take the Kashmir issue to its logical conclusion -- both
militarily and diplomatically. India has not yielded an inch ever
since the battle for Kargil began. On the contrary, by playing the
game according to the rules and acknowledging realities, it has gained
in stature.
For the first time, the realities of the battlefield have been
acknowledged and the full force of our military might unleashed, but
it was limited to the express purpose of evicting the intruders.
India's success on the Kargil front is a tribute to our soldiers and
officers. Those who have been lampooning the government for not
crossing the LoC or opening another front, are thankfully not in
power.
Similarly, for the first time, realities of global power politics in
the post-Berlin Wall era have been taken into account and a diplomatic
initiative crafted to harness international opinion in India's favour.
This is in sharp contrast to previous governments in Delhi
successfully turning international opinion against India. Credit for
our diplomatic success goes to Principal Secretary Brajesh Mishra and
Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh.
Meanwhile, Pakistan is welcome to continue to be belligerent and
provide fodder to a certain Ms Sonia Gandhi who decided to hurl
charges against the government of India at a rally in Mhow instead of
attending the all-party meeting on Kargil called by Prime Minister
Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Just shows how priorities differ from party to
party, person to person.
Back
Top
|
