Author: Dina Nath Mishra
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: May 22, 2002
This week's terrorist attack in
Jammu has once again underlined some inescapable conclusions. A) The US
led-war against terrorism has absolutely no impact on the Pak strategy
of bleeding India through crossborder terrorism. B) Whatever the US may
say, the agenda for global war against terrorism doesn't include Indian
concerns about the ongoing war against India. It may be low cost war or
slow war but war it is. C) India has to deal with this entirely on its
own and, in the process, it has to disregard US sermons of restraint in
the name of larger interest of global war on terrorism. D) Pakistani President
Pervez Musharaf's pledge to fight terrorism smacks of hypocrisy and duplicity.
The General's support to this global
war is halfhearted, even to the US-led forces. Obviously, it excludes cross-border
terrorism against India for the factories that motivates, funds and hires
them by any name, like Laskar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed. They cannot operate
without overt or covert support of Pak military and ISI. E) It should be
clear by now that pro-active strategy of fighting terrorism in J&K
has succeeded partially. Unless pro-active strategy, including bleeding
Pakistan, are not pursued, the fundamentalist agenda of jehad would continue.
One can recall what president Musharaf had said: "Kashmir runs like blood
in the vein of every Pakistani."
As far as the US is concerned, let
us not think that Musharraf or Pakistan are successfully bluffing them.
The US' post-cold war agenda has been to further the umbrella of its supremacy.
Apparently, it wants to continue as the sole military, economic and technological
superpower and ensure that no threat arises to its population and land
mass. It also wants to eliminate any vulnerability to violence and to nuclear
or terrorist blackmail. Its agenda includes restructuring old military
and economic alliances and making them progressively relevant to American
hegemony. The war against terrorism fits perfectly in the US' post-cold
war agenda.
By now, the US may not have finished
Taliban and Al-Qaeda but the Taliban Government has disappeared along with
Pakistan's strategic depth. Pakistan's sovereignty has not only been compromised
but diminished to a great extent. Now, US forces are stationed at various
centres of Pakistan and it seems that it would stay in Pakistan for long.
The geo-strategic location of Pakistan may not have served Pakistani citizens
so much as it has the Pakistan Army and its elite. It is this location
which makes Pakistan prone to military dictatorships. Again, it is this
location, which ultimately landed Pakistan as an Anglo-American client
State with greatly diminished sovereignty. The nuclear capability of Pakistan
may prove to be a liability rather than strength. Nuclear capability of
some of the former Soviet states does not mean anything today.
As far as India is concerned, Pakistan
is not comparable in terms of indicators of national power. India is in
a different league altogether. It is rapidly becoming obvious that India
is a powerhouse like China and would be a world player in the near future.
Also, the economic independence of India distinguishes it from Pakistan.
With the end of the cold war, the days of Indian pontification are over
and India has faced this reality and accepted it. Next, India has finally
realised that "power flows out of the barrel of the gun", but the gun is
held by economic power. With Pokhran-II, India rdefined its relations with
other nations. It did not care for the sanctions and withstood them. The
United States has come to appreciate that in the overall matrix of world
power politics and India would like to cooperate with it. Thus, while Pakistan
is gradually becoming a base for furthering US interests as a client State,
India is fast becoming an independent ally.
It will, thus, be seen that while
Pakistan has to accept the American agenda for survival, India is free
to chart its own journey. Where differences will arise, such as in American
perceptions on Iran and Iraq and North Korea, India's views will be heard
with the same seriousness as those of France, Germany, China and Russia.
Pakistan 'has' to act as per the wishes of America as it has done after
September 11 in the war against terrorism against its own outfit, the Taliban,
and even against its own people.
Pakistan knows it well that by a
full-scale war it cannot annexe Kashmir. Of late, Pakistani terrorist operations
have become the expression of independence also. It is to demonstrate to
the Pakistani masses that the ruling establishment is disregarding US pressure
and pursuing its Kashmir strategy independently. But the message to the
US is different i.e. in the given circumstances, the military Government
is doing its best to curb terrorism. The fact is whatever action President
Mushraf has taken against terrorist outfits; he himself has nullified most
of them. In a situation like this India, has to think of a new strategy
along with continuing the present measures. Bleeding Pakistani terror factories
in PoK has to be thought of. There can be several ways of doing this without
openly attacking training camps in PoK.
In fact, Pakistan is disturbed because
in recent months a record number of terrorists have been eliminated. Their
instrument, the All Party Hurriyat Conference, is on the verge of collapse.
Jammu & Kashmir is going to have free and fair elections. More and
more groups are going to participate in it. Normalcy is returning. All
these factors have disturbed Pakistan and its anti-India fundamentalist
organisations. India has shown maturity in handling terrorism. Some tit
for tat is needed to reciprocate bleeding.
