Author: Editorial
Publication: Dawn, Karachi
Date: June 14, 2000
COMING precisely one
year after the Kargil operation when he himself was prime minister, Mr
Nawaz Sharif's statement in Attock on Monday must cause consternation at
home and arouse interest abroad. The points he has raised are important,
for they have a bearing on a crucial politico-military issue that brought
Pakistan and India to the brink of a full-fledged war. Even though Kargil
served to rivet the world's attention on the Kashmir issue, its consequences,
nevertheless, have been disastrous, as results of all failed military adventures
always are, for the post-Kargil developments not only cost Mr Nawaz Sharif
his prime ministership, the country itself has suffered in terms of diplomatic
discomfiture and a derailment of the democratic process. The fact that
the country is today under a non-constitutional, non-democratic dispensation
and the former prime minister in appeal against a life sentence owes a
lot to what happened on the heights of Kargil about this time last year.
The gist of the deposed
prime minister's statement seems to constitute an indictment of the army
for its alleged mishandling of the Kargil operation. The statement acquits
the naval and air chiefs of any culpability by accusing the army of keeping
the other two services in the dark. Not only that: the statement seems
well-crafted to zero in on the person of Gen Pervez Musharraf by alleging
that the "ill-planned and ill-conceived operation" was kept secret not
only from the prime minister but also from the corps commanders. He had,
Mr Sharif claimed, "irrefutable evidence" that the prime minister was not
aware of the operation. The statement claims that Pakistan suffered heavy
casualties - a highly controversial point, since the international media
and India's own sources admitted it was the Indian army that had received
the beating - and that talks with President Clinton were started "in consultation"
with the Chief of the Army Staff. It was the general's "desire," he said,
that "Pakistan should involve the USA in the issue." More dramatic, and
emphatic, was Mr Sharif's disavowal of any involvement with the Kargil
operation, for he called as "shameful" and "a sheer lie" the present government's
claim that the prime minister was fully aware of the Kargil operation.
Repudiating the former
prime minister's claims, the government has claimed that Mr Sharif was
responsible "for all policies and political decisions taken" and that he
had participated in several meetings held in connection with the Kargil
issue. While the spokesman for the Inter Services Public Relations called
Mr Sharif's statement "shameful," the government spokesman said it was
the prime minister's decision to visit Washington and "seek protection"
from President Clinton. He had also, said the spokesman, paid tributes
to the martyrs and heroes of the Kargil operation and given them awards.
While one must await
history's judgment on precisely who was responsible for what happened on
the Himalayan heights in the summer of 1999, it looks most extraordinary
that a prime minister claiming "a heavy mandate" should be unaware of what
was going on in the realm of foreign and military affairs. While he was
prime minister, Mr Sharif had claimed several times that he was very much
in the picture, and that no decisions about war and peace could be taken
without his consent. If the prime minister really did not know what the
khaki was up to along the Line of Control, then it is a moot question whether
Mr Sharif deserved the office of the country's chief executive. Mr Sharif
did indeed go to Washington for talks with President Clinton and committed
himself at the White House to a withdrawal by the Mujahideen from Kargil.
But now he said he had gone there because this was the COAS's "desire."
How could a prime minister be guided in matters of such import by a general's
"desire" even if that general was army chief? What were his foreign minister
and the mandarins of the foreign office for? More important, what was he
himself for if he did not exercise control over the nation's defence and
foreign policies and take decisions about war and peace?
We could not agree more
with the former prime minister when he says that a commission be set up
to investigate the Kargil episode to let the nation know the facts that
even after one year remain confined to the realm of secrecy. This nation
has the right to know whose brainchild the Kargil operation was, who were
the military and political personalities involved or not involved in the
operation, and who should be held responsible at the bar of history for
starting a military operation that ended without any tactical, strategic
or diplomatic advantage to Pakistan.
