Author: T. V. R. Shenoy
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: May 23, 2002
Introduction: India can no longer
be bluffed into inaction
"Fool me once, shame on you," runs
an Arab saying, "Fool me twice, shame on me!" In an age when the most recognised
Arab faces belong to Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Yasser Arafat,
the cadences of Arabic probably grind on an American ear. But that does
not deny the verity of the statement.
The United States was quick to urge
"restraint" on India immediately after the attack on Parliament on December
13 last year. The message, conveyed in the most honeyed terms, was to the
effect: "Give Musharraf some more time to deal with the militants in his
country. If you weaken his position then his successor will be even more
of a hardliner."
Today, Delhi wants to send an unambiguous
message to Washington: "We listened to you six months ago at our own peril.
We have been betrayed by a fellow democracy. Under your shield, and taking
advantage of your benign neglect, General Musharraf is up to his dirty
tricks once again."
So, what exactly has the general
been doing of late? For starters, he has reopened the terrorist training
camps in Pakistan which were shut down earlier to assuage American opinion.
Second, he has supplied several 'volunteer' students - anywhere between
two and three thousand of them - to these schools. Third, under Musharraf's
patronage several former Al-Qaeda and/or Taliban supporters have moved
from Pakistan's border with Afghanistan to its border with India. Fourth,
and this seems to have been part of the deal struck before that farcical
referendum, three of every four militants who were arrested have now been
released.
Is the US unaware of these facts?
Scarcely. American interlocutors have never denied the truth of these data
when confronted by their Indian counterparts. The standard American response
has always been: "In these matters we agree that India's information is
superior to our own." Sadly, this is generally followed by the same sweet
refrain: "But you have to give us more time to work on Musharraf."
I think we have gone as far as possible
along that particular road. The US' promises have proved to be flimsy.
So, what alternatives does that leave for India?
"Exercise all diplomatic options!"
says the Left. As ever, it is delightfully vague as to the details. The
nation best placed to exert pressure on Pakistan is the US. It is not going
to wag a finger by way of reproof. From Washington's perspective, Islamabad's
support is still required to wage the "war against terrorism" in Afghanistan
- no matter how hypocritical that slogan sounds in Delhi.
The US has put aside 28 billion
dollars - a sum comparable to India's entire budget - to the fighting in
Afghanistan. A chunk of it goes to Pakistan under the guise of aid. This
is not a carrot-and-stick policy, it is carrots, carrots, and yet more
Daucus Carota all the way. In essence, the US is prepared to grant General
Musharraf a free hand in Jammu and Kashmir in exchange for his support
in the Afghan campaign.
Is there any other nation which
possesses any leverage in Islamabad? The Arab world is consumed by the
drama in Israel. The European Community is irrelevant. And nobody in India
is going to trust China to play the honest broker.
If diplomacy hits a cul-de-sac,
what are the other options? How about economic sanctions?
Frankly, commercial ties between
India and Pakistan run the gamut between 'minuscule' and 'non-existent'.
That does not mean, however, that India should not take a good, hard look
at the Indus Water Treaty. But the effects on the lower riparian areas
might take a very long time to become evident - which would give ample
time for more murders in J&K and elsewhere.
What does that leave? Cultural relations
and sports? Pardon me, but I doubt that halting cricket matches between
India and Pakistan would concern General Musharraf's Arab mercenaries for
a second!
Practitioners of realpolitik will
probably say that there is another option - to give Pakistan a dose of
its own medicine, in other words, to sponsor terrorism in that country.
It would not be difficult to find secessionists willing to take Indian
arms and money in Baluchistan, Sind, and the North-Western Frontier Province.
But does Delhi have the skill to play that game? I remember how previous
administrations played fast and loose in Sri Lanka, and with what disastrous
results. Anyhow, I think it is bad policy, in the long run, to sup with
terrorists; history indicates that they always end up biting their sponsors'
hands.
The truth is that India has no choice
but to act in a manner that will bring home the consequences of his actions
to General Musharraf. I hope it does not come to that. I witnessed the
consequences of war in 1965 and 1971, and the decades between have done
nothing to dim my memories. So, yes, I hope there is a change of heart
overnight in Islamabad. And yes, I hope that General Musharraf renounces
terrorism as an instrument of state policy in J&K. But, somehow, I
get the impression that the general is still calculating that the US will
come to his rescue.
At the end of the day, it is the
US, and not just Pakistan, which is having a choice forced upon it. It
has already failed the diplomatic test, namely in ensuring that matters
did not boil over in South Asia. Now, it must face the moral test: it must
demonstrate that President Bush was serious about waging a crusade against
terrorism across the world.
Several Americans have condemned
the wanton killing of women and children as terrorism. But are they prepared
to take the logic of these statements to the natural end? If it is a blunt
choice between tackling Musharraf and tackling terrorism, which way shall
the US swing?
In one sense, the answer does not
matter at all. India is not prepared to wait any longer upon the US' decision
after the bitter experiences of the past six months. It will take action,
not against the people of Pakistan nor even its government, but against
terrorism.
If you have read this far, you probably
have one question: shall there be war? My answer: yes.
