Author: A Surya Prakash
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: February 22, 2003
The recent arrest of some Kashmiri
activists and the evidence of complicity on the part of Pakistan High Commission
officials, including the Deputy High Commissioner, in the funding of terrorist
groups are only the latest in what appears to be a never-ending saga of
dubious activity by Pakistani diplomats in India.
According to Delhi Police, these
officials were funding the All Party Hurriyat Conference for stepping up
militancy in Jammu & Kashmir. The police named Pakistan Deputy High
Commissioner Jalil Abbas Jilani in the FIR after the two arrested Hurriyat
activists told them that they had received more than three lakh rupees
from him for separatist groups.
These developments come within 13
months of certain other measures taken by the Government in the wake of
the Pakistan-sponsored assault on Parliament on December 13, 2001. Following
this attack, India stepped up the diplomatic offensive against Pakistan,
recalled High Commissioner Vijay Nambiar from Islamabad and scaled down
by half the strength of the High Commissions in the two countries. It also
banned Pakistani flights over Indian airspace, cancelled bus and air links
between the two countries and imposed restrictions on the movement of Pakistan's
mission staff. These decisions were taken because it was the considered
view of the Government that Pakistan was not taking steps to curb cross-border
terrorism and there was no indication of it acting on the Indian demand
that it clamp down on the terrorist outfits Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba
that were behind such incidents. Foreign Minister at the time, Mr Jaswant
Singh had described Pakistan's token responses to the attack on our Parliament
as nothing more than an attempt to "dupe the international community".
Some months later, after further
terrorist strikes including the one at Kaluchak, the Pakistani High Commissioner
was asked to leave India.
But none of these actions produced
the desired results. Old habits, it seems, die hard. Even though the Pakistani
High Commission's strength was reduced from 110 to 55 and restrictions
were imposed on the movement of the mission staff, Pakistani diplomats
are unable to resist the temptation to interfere in India's internal affairs.
India has now responded with the expulsion of a few more Pakistani High
Commission officials.
This piecemeal response of the Foreign
Office is inexplicable for two reasons. First, because it is too weak and
inadequate when weighed against the crime perpetrated. Second, it is in
dissonance with the shrill and unambiguous statements made by India's political
leadership about Pakistan's continued complicity in the activities of terrorist
groups.
The daring strike on Parliament,
symbol of our secular democracy, was an assault on all the values we hold
dear. We should never forget those who sponsored this attack and, if we
value our constitutional well-being, not forgive them. Such was the anger
in the country after December 13, air strikes against terrorist camps in
Pakistan-held Kashmir appeared imminent. The Prime Minister heightened
the expectation when he hinted this time round decisive steps would be
taken to deal with the problem. Nothing of the sort happened, because strategic
experts concluded that strikes against these camps would not end the problem
of cross-border terrorism.
A year later, India's top political
leaders are again drawing the global community's attention to the continued
support Pakistan offers to terrorist groups. Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani
has been talking about Pakistan's continued support to cross-border terrorism.
He told a gathering in Singapore recently that jihadi terrorism, intolerance
and hegemonism posed a grave threat to development and global security.
In recent days, the Prime Minister
has dwelt on this issue more than once. He told the Chief Ministers' Conference
on Internal Security that Pakistan continued to promote cross-border terrorism
and was trying to create new hubs in Bangladesh and Nepal. In his view,
the most disconcerting aspect of terrorism is that "it is sponsored, supported
and funded by Pakistan as a matter of state policy".
Again, last week, Mr Vajpayee warned
that it would be dangerous for the global community to practice double
standards in fighting terrorism. Referring to the loss of 60,000 lives
in cross-border strikes, he said his Government was determined to stamp
out terrorism in all forms and manifestations. He concluded his remarks
by saying, "We have to take decisive, tough and forceful action against
terrorists." This is a strong indictment of a neighbouring state and the
foreign-policy establishment must be well acquainted with the background
and the evidence that has prompted the Prime Minister to make these remarks.
But how are these words to carry
weight if they do not get reflected in foreign policy? The NDA came to
power in 1999, and yet the foreign policy establishment, which had adjusted
its sails to the Congress and, particularly, to the Nehru-Gandhi family
for decades, still seems out of sync with India's new rulers. The BJP has
been in power since 1998 and the last five years have been witness to some
dramatic events. India went nuclear a few months after the BJP first came
to power. Thereafter, the Government worked relentlessly to bring Indo-American
relations on an even keel and to improve India's equations with the European
Community. These initiatives have borne fruit.
However, strangely, when it comes
to Pakistan, India's foreign policy is devoid of both clarity and purpose.
If we could shake off the muddled thinking on the nuclear issue and on
the issue of better ties with America, why are South Block mandarins so
tentative and circumspect when it comes to dealing with Pakistan?
Our Prime Minister says that, for
Pakistan, terrorism "is an instrument of state policy". Can there be a
more damning indictment of a country? No Indian citizen has reason to disbelieve
Mr Vajpayee specially after December 13, 2001, Kaluchak and Akshardham.
Yet, there are no signs of the Prime Minister's considered judgement translating
itself into military or diplomatic initiatives. Those who are clued into
strategic affairs see little merit in air strikes against terrorist camps
in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. There is a strong argument against such adventure.
This could well be so but why are we pussy-footing on the foreign policy
front as well and maintaining "diplomatic relations" with a state that
uses terrorism as an instrument of state policy? This disjunct between
the opinions of the political leadership and foreign policy needs to be
attended to at the earliest.
Secular India must approach the
problem called Pakistan with much greater clarity. Given our social, cultural
and demographic reality, and given the regularity with which diplomats
from this Islamic republic mess around in our internal affairs, why don't
we just close Pakistan's diplomatic shop? Ever since independence there
has been a "Lahore Club" in Delhi, which tends to get excessively sentimental
and nostalgic about Pakistan. Though a hopeless minority, this club has
wielded extraordinary clout in our political and foreign policy establishments
and prevented New Delhi from taking tough decisions vis-a-vis Pakistan.
Strangely, members of this club overlook the fact that, unlike India which
is built on secular foundations, Pakistan is an Islamic nation. Second,
they expect New Delhi to "promote" democracy in that state.
There is very little we can do to
cure Pakistan of its congenital maladies. It is a nation that was carved
out in the name of Islam and, therefore, from the word go has been ill
at ease with democracy, secularism and liberalism that constitute the bedrock
of independent India. This is the truth and we should not allow a few nostalgic
Lahorites to obfuscate it.
India's foreign policy must be aligned
to the views of its Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister and, more
important, to its core constitutional values- democracy and secularism.
Pakistan is a rogue state. We must call it that and cut off diplomatic
relations with it.
