Author: Shyam Khosla
Publication: Organiser
Date: May 11, 2003
URL: http://www.organiser.org/11May2003/p7.htm
Introduction: Beware of Pakistan's
duplicity
Islamabad's response to Prime
Minister's peace offensive is dubious. It took Pakistani Prime Minister
Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali 11 days to call up Atal Behari Vajpayee to appreciate
latter's speech at Srinagar and in both Houses of the Parliament. The two
leaders talked about several issues of common interest in a general way
in briefly over telephone. Those who ought to know say it was an initial
discussion on how to move forward on the stalled bilateral relations. Jamali
is said to have talked about Vajpayee coming over to Pakistan for resumption
of talks and if that was not was feasible, he (Jamali) would be willing
to fly to Delhi. Since there was no formal invitation, there is no question
of either accepting or rejecting it. As things stand today, there is no
point in having a summit meeting in the near future. Ground realities remain
unchanged. Islamabad has not taken any concrete step to create an atmosphere
conducive for meaningful talks. Far from dismantling the infrastructure
of terrorism and refraining from sponsoring cross-border terrorism, Pakistan's
response to Vajpayee's hand of friendship was an attack on the Srinagar
station of Doordarshan and AIR.
Pakistan's assertion that it is
opposed to terrorism even while continuing to lend support to low cost
proxy war in J&K is nothing but double speak. President Pervez Musharraf's
much-hyped speech on January 12, 2002 during which he warned extremist
of firm action against them for using Pakistani soil for hostile activities
against other countries turned out to be a hoax. For the record, a few
terrorist outfits were banned and their leaders were taken into custody.
They were released a few weeks later and the banned outfits resurfaced
under new
banners while the Government looked
the other way. In an obvious bid to hoodwink world opinion and to equip
Jamali with the necessary answers, a high level meeting was held hours
before Jamali spoke to Vajpayee. Pakistan Interior Minister Faisal Saleh
Hayat, who presided, administered a "warning" to terrorist outfits that
stern action would be taken against them and that banned outfits would
not be allowed to operate under new names. It is futile to expect Pakistan
to behave unless she is made to pay heavily for its misadventure.
On the international level, Islamabad's
response to Prime Minister's hand of friendship is to revive the issue
in the UN. Immediately after assuming the office of president of the Security
Council for a month as a non-permanent member of the Council on May 1,
2003, Pakistan announced that it would call a special meeting of the Council
on May 13 to discuss Palestine and Kashmir. It is yet another manifestation
of lack of a sincere desire on the part of Pakistani rulers to bilaterally
resolve disputes with India. It is constantly harping on third party intervention.
Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasturi recently told BBC that if India
were to agree to hold bilateral talks with Pakistan, Islamabad would not
bring any third party in. Meanwhile, Pakistani leaders have "leaked" the
reported statement of a US functionary to suggest that President Bush was
determined to resolve the "Kashmir dispute" by the end of 2004. The message
they seek to send across is, "Talk to us or US would intervene". What is
it, if not blackmail?
New Delhi offered joint patrolling
by Pakistani and Indian forces to check infiltration across the LoC. Islamabad
declined saying it would not do given the mistrust between the two countries.
It wants international observers to cross check Indian complaint of infiltration
of terrorist from Pakistan and PoK. Pakistani Foreign Minister has identified
seven countries that should be requested to jointly monitor LoC. He didn't
say whether he had sounded these countries but didn't hesitate to announce
their names. These are France, Russia, UK, US, China, Saudi Arabia and
Iran. We have extremely unhappy memories of third party intervention in
our disputes with Pakistan. Even the friendly erstwhile Soviet Union forced
us to vacate Haji Pir that we had regained at a heavy human cost in 1965.
There is no question of accepting third party intervention. All pending
issues, including Kashmir will have to be resolved bilaterally.
It is not for the first time that
Atalji has shown magnanimity to give peace a chance. He went to Lahore.
Pakistan's response was Kargil. He invited the dictator to Agra only to
hear him talk about "freedom struggle" in J&K. Atalji has, once again,
offered a hand of friendship to Pakistan. Lest this should be seen as a
sign of weakness, the Prime Minister let it be known that peace could return
to South Asia only if the infrastructure of terrorism was dismantled and
Pakistan stop sponsoring cross-border terrorism. Pakistan is never tired
of reiterating, "Talks anywhere, anytime at any level", but is unwilling
to end the proxy war. International community is not interested in judging
our case on merit. Powerful nations have their own axes to grind. India
will have to fight its own battles. National will to defeat the enemy must
manifest itself in words and deeds.
The "Candle light brigade" is happy
with the turn of events. It wants the Government to go an extra mile to
win over "our brother" Pakistan. NDA Government, one hopes, will not repeat
the past mistakes. Let us make a small beginning. Let bureaucrats of the
two countries talk and prepare a base for a meaningful dialogue between
political bosses. Let us wait and watch to see if Islamabad is willing
to make amends. Let us engage the international community to put across
our case. But let us make it clear that no third party intervention is
welcome. India is not Iraq.
