Author: M.V. Kamath
Publication: The Free Press Journal
Date: May 23, 2002
How many more people need to be
killed in Jammu & Kashmir by Pakistan-sponsored jihadists, how many
more times need railway coaches have to be torched and the Indian Parliament
itself brought under attack before the Government of India resports to
meaningful action? The calculated attack on family members of Army personnel
in the Kaluchak Cantonment in Jammu the day US Assistant Secretary of State
Christina Rocca arrived in Delhi was obviously well-planned and intended,
on the part of the jihadists, to show their utter contempt for the United
States.
What that attack indicates is either
Gen. Musharraf's complicity in the matter or his utter irrelevance. It
is no secret that Musharraf is an active supporter of Kashmiri separatists;
indeed, he has never made any bones of his "moral support" to the jihadists.
Are we to presume that the United States wants to go down in history as
his behind-the-scene backer? The United States can't have it both ways:
either it takes firm action against him or it surrenders to his tactics.
Firm action involves stoppage of all economic aid and isolation of Pakistan.
It also involves taking complete charge of Pakistan's nuclear capabilities,
so that it can't even dream of mounting a nuclear attack against India.
The United States must make it clear
to the General that either he delivers on his promise to control terrorists
or he quits. We have it from Bruce Riedel, a Director on the Clinton Administration's
National Security Council that Musharraf has been wanting to "humble India
once and for all". He is welcome to make his attempt. But in that case
the United States must withdraw its Armed Force and its American personnel
in its Embassy at Islamabad without further ado and leave it to India to
handle Pakistan as it thinks fit. To keep saying that India and Pakistan
must get back to the negotiating table is to make a mockery of human suffering.
What is there to negotiate? India cannot and will not - give up Jammu &
Kashmir. Indeed, it had every right to take over what now is Pakistan Occupied
Kashmir. And it should pursue it in right earnest. This is not a matter
for negotiations. Chief of Army Staff, General S. Padmanabhan put it straight
when he said: "It's time for action now. The more we talk, the less we
will act. We should not play to the gallery any more." And he said for
all to hear: "As far as I am concerned, I'm ready for any kind of action".
In other words, the Indian Army is only waiting for the order to march
into POK. If necessary, into Pakistan itself.
A war against Pakistanis, to put
it plainly, 'dharma yuddha', except that one does not proclaim it from
the housetops. Even if it is conceded that the Pakistan Army, too, is ready
for battle, the time and place for waging it must necessarily have to remain
a secret. This is best left to the policy makers in the Armed Forces. We
are told that full-scale war is not an option. Four reasons are adduced
in support of inaction. One, that the United States is opposed to war as
that would undermine some core U.S objectives. Two, that unleashing war
against Pakistan would mean that U.S. troops presently stationed in Pakistan
would have to be withdrawn summarily to which Washington is opposed. Three,
that India will have to reckon with the possibility of Islamabad unleashing
a nuclear attack on Indian cities and four, that Indian military machine
may not quite be in a position to acquire a decisive edge over Pakistan
inside a week.
To be effective, it is claimed,
India will have to wind up military operations within ten days at the maximum.
As against this we have Gen Padmanabhan's assurance that on his part he
is ready "for any kind of action". One would presume that he knows what
he is saying. And one would imagine that the Indian Armed Forces are ready
to face any contingency. Or why would it have been moved to the border
and maintained there all these weeks? The point to remember is that every
day's delay gives Pakistan time and space to strengthen its position and
make it that much harder for India. There is no such thing as a 'calibrated
response' to Pakistan. Gen. Musharraf plainly wants a war.
For the United States two options
are open: To give an ultimatum to Musharraf and force him to fight the
jihadists in toto or to itself take over the administration of Pakistan
and face a revolt. If it cannot execute either, then it must let India
have its way and even help Delhi in its mission to subjugate Islamabad
- and thereafter the jihadists.
The NDA government is meanwhile
being inundated with unsought advice. It is told, for example, "to resist
the political temptation to opt for even a limited military strike against
Pakistan". The presumption is that the United States will force Musharraf
to rein in his terrorists. That is some hope. The United States can do
nothing of that sort. It has not even been able to locate bin Laden, the
most wanted criminal in Afghanistan and Pakistan, for the simple reason
that the Pakistan Armed Forces are giving him shelter. Musharraf will hum
and haw; he will give endless promises but in another few weeks one can
be sure that Pakistan jihadists will repeat another Kulachak and we will
again go through the meaningless cycle of threatening action but stopping
short of doing anything. How long is this theatre of the absurd to continue?
Let us face it: the Rocca Mission
to Islamabad has been a total failure. One can't expect anything better
from Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's visit either. What faith
can one put in the United States when under its guidance, the World Bank
is processing a $ 500 million loan to Pakistan? Is that support to be a
friendly gesture towards India? Musharraf must be laughing in his sleeves
at America's naivete. He is having everything his own way. If Ms Rocca
is to be believed - and she is on record - Pakistan is a friend of the
United States. This must be the oddest, quaintest friend the United States
has had in its two hundred year history.
India has NO option. It has to bring
Pakistan to book. What it has to brood over is how to do it. And let it
be stated clearly: time is not in its favour. The longer it takes to come
to a decision, the faster it enables Pakistan to martial its forces. America's
argument in support of Musharraf is that if he is deposed someone even
worse than him may assume power. That is a risk one must take. Besides
it must be remembered that unlike India, Pakistan is a state by grace and
favour of the United States and the European Union. Should that favour
be withdrawn nobody can service in Islamabad. If American forces are withdrawn
from Pakistan and if Washington refuses any kind of military assistance
(even second hand through Saudi Arabia), Islamabad can be brought to its
knees. And that is what India's aim should be. Washington may frown at
it but the best solution to the Kashmir problem is the break up of Pakistan
and the setting up of India-friendly states of Sind and Baluchistan. Then
the Hurriyat in Kashmir will get the message.
The United States may not consider
this to be in its interests but it must be told firmly that it cannot run
with the Indian hare and hunt with jihadi hound. Washington is taking Delhi
for a ride with sweet words and no action. This kind of tomfoolery has
to stop. Of course it will cost India a lot. For the last war India fought
against Pakistan the citizens had to pay dearly for almost a decade. But
how long are we to suffer Pakistan- inflicted indignities and to what end?
For a smile from the White House? For a pat on the back from the anti-
Semetic European Union? Unless the entire Pakistan jihadi apparatus is
smashed for good, India will never be left in peace. That is for sure.
Musharraf is not a man to be trusted
on his own record. In his speech soon after he assumed power in October
1999, he conjured up a vision of a modern Islamic state like Turkey; he
promised, among other things, state control of madrassas through various
measures, documentation of the economy to prevent tax evasion; signing
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), a general sales tax on retail
trade and curbs on smuggling on the Afghan route. He has reneged on all
promises. After having a few hundred known and suspected jihadis arrested,
he had most of them quietly released and few are any wiser for it. His
backtracking on measures to curb jihadi culture is the talk of the town
in Pakistan. Either he can't change Pakistan or he doesn't want to. Either
way he is a menace not just to India but to the entire world. And if the
United States wants to shut its eyes, God alone can help Washington. But
that doesn't mean that India must look on helplessly.
The Indian Government has confirmed
information of 75 training camps for terrorists in operation on the Pakistani
side of the border. Delhi is also aware - and the information has been
shared with Washington - that about 3,000 Al Qaida militants of different
nationalities have recently shifted base from Afghanistan to Pakistan.
In the face of all this, is India expected to sit back with folded hands
and wait for Doomsday? Meanwhile within Indian borders a warning should
be sent to Congress President Sonia Gandhi who has been making the most
irresponsible statements. She has been quoted as saying that "the fault
lies entirely with the Government". The fault, she must know was originally
that of Jawaharlal Nehru; that fault was further compounded by Indira Gandhi
at Simla. Sonia Gandhi should be told that criticising the government at
this juncture would be an unpatriotic act. The nation has paid enough for
the Nehru-Gandhi shortsightedness in the past. And enough is enough.
