Kashmir: The end of the road

Author: M.V. Kamath
Publication: Organiser
Date: October 6, 2002

Introduction: For all the lies uttered by Bush, Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. Pakistan has. Saddam Hussain has not threatened anyone with a nuclear attack. Musharraf has. Saddam Hussain has not given shelter to terrorists. Musharraf has. Iraq has not conducted any nuclear tests. Pakistan has. Iraqi terrorists are not attacking any neighbouring country, be it Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Pakistani terrorists are attacking India in Kashmir, day in and day out.

So far as Kashmir is  concerned, for India, it is the end of the road. In future it can expect nothing from the United States which is concerned with its own selfish interests and it can expect nothing from Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf who is frightened of his own shadow. What kind of negotiations can India possibly have with a man who says: "No leader, no government of Pakistan, can leave or abandon the issue of Kashmir. Nobody can do it. He'll be eliminated. He'll be out of government. He'll be defeated." So what does Gen. Musharraf expect India to do to save him from being 'eliminated'? Hand Jammu and Kashmir over to him? India has now made its position clear. Addressing the media in New York, Brajesh Mishra, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and National Security Adviser bluntly said that "if provoked to act against unabated cross-border terrorism, India will not wait for any go- ahead from the United States. If we are compelled to take action, it doesn't matter who is supporting us". Let us face it: The United States' hypocrisy is too blatant to be ignored. Every charge that the United States makes against Iraq can be made against Pakistan. Every charge made against Saddam Hussain can be made with even greater force against Pervez Musharraf. There is no democracy in Iraq; neither is there any democracy in Pakistan. For all the lies uttered by Bush, Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. Pakistan has. Saddam Hussain has not threatened anyone with a nuclear attack. Musharraf has. Saddam Hussain has not given shelter to terrorists. Musharraf has. Bin Laden is not hiding in Iraq. He is living comfortably, with his gangsters of al Qaida, in Pakistan, protected by Pakistani terrorists who themselves are under the protective arm of the Pakistan Army. Saddam Hussain is not supporting terrorists. Pervez Musharraf is, whether the United States cares to notice it or not. Iraqi terrorists are not attacking any neighbouring country, be it Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Pakistani terrorists are attacking India in Kashmir, day in and day out. The United States reserves its right to bomb Iraq to dust but is advising India to hold its peace even when, day following day, Pakistani terrorists are playing havoc in Kashmir. How long has India to hold back when ghastly murders are daily being perpetrated, the latest to fall to terrorist bullets being Kashmir's Law Minister Mushtaq Ahmad Lone. Would the United States have held back its hand if Colin Powell or Armitage were shot dead by al Qaida men. How many more Kashmiris have to be killed before India wakes up to Washington's proven hypocrisy? Musharraf as Vajpayee rightly pointed out, is practising nuclear blackmail. Saddam Hussain is doing nothing of the sort. The United States is trying to keep up Pakistan's morale by giving liberal economic aid whereas the people of Iraq who have done no one any harm are suffering untold horrors for lack of everything from food to medicine. Bush has promised "unrelenting war" against terrorists. He can start with Pakistan, the biggest terrorist nation on earth. Addressing the United States from Ellis Island on the first anniversary of September 11, Bush said that the United States will not relent in the on-going war against terror "until justice is done and our nation is secure". The reference, of course, is to the United States, not India. India can continue to reel under Pakistani terrorism, but Bush will take no notice of it. He is plainly a hypocrite-and no friend of India. He cannot be under the present circumstances. So what should India do? First and foremost it must see that the election in Jammu and Kashmir are concluded at any cost. Then it must demand that the entire Pakistani nuclear armoury is disbanded. If all 15 members of the UN Security Council can demand that Iraq must once again accept UN Inspectors, why can't they demand with equal force that Pakistan accept UN monitors and close down Pakistani nuclear armoury? What is right by Iraq should be right by even more legitimate standards by Pakistan as well. Iraq has not conducted any nuclear tests. Pakistan has. Pakistan has further made a total mockery of all political norms and, as Prime Minister Vajpayee sharply pointed out in his UN address, is practising nuclear blackmail. It must be called to order immediately and with no further delay. It may not meet American interests, but Pakistan must be dubbed as a terrorist state. The elections in Jammu and Kashmir should mark a turning point. That so many Kashmiris have shown open willingness to vote, that so many former secessionists have dared to stand for elections, go to show that the tide is running in India's favour. But before India can take any stern action against Pakistan, it must wait for the final election results. It would then be time to issue a stern warning to Pakistan that enough is enough. India must call off Pakistan's nuclear bluff once and for all. There is no way India can hold talks with Musharraf. The man does not represent anybody but a small Army junta. He is afraid even to address a public meeting. This is the man who is talking about democracy. All the world knows that there is no democracy in Pakistan. None exists in Pakistan occupied Kashmir. None exists whether in the North West Frontier Province (where Islamabad's rule doesn't exist), nor in Baluchistan nor in Sind. If South Asia is to be saved from disaster-and Musharraf is pushing India to it-then the United States must get rid of the General. If Zia could be conveniently killed, even if that meant sacrificing the US Ambassador travelling with him, Musharraf can also be got rid of. The United States does not need to be told how to control the Pakistan Army. What is now clear is that India has come to the end of the road. Very soon it is going to be now or never. If South Asia is to have peace, Pakistan's nuclear armoury must be destroyed, even as the US is doing just that to Iraq's fighting forces. There cannot be one rule for Iraq and another for Pakistan. By his statements Musharraf has shown that he is getting desperate. He is desperate on his own admission. Nobody can negotiate with a desperate man. For Pakistan's own good it must give up its obsession with Kashmir. If Musharraf can make a U-turn on al Qaida and the Taliban, he surely can give up his claim to Kashmir and live in peace with India. When he was asked whether he was willing to accept the Line of Control (LoC) as the international boundary his reply was that he is not a beqoof (fool). With all respect to him, he is behaving like one. He should ask himself which is more preferable: a needless and devastating war with India or a future of peace and prosperity, with due acknowledgement of the LoC as an international boundary. The choice is narrow. It is getting narrower still. The patience of the Indian people is getting exhausted. If Washington does not understand that, it understands nothing.
 

Back                          Top