Author: M. V. Kamath
Publication: The Free Press Journal
Date: June 19, 2003
So much has been said and written
about settling the Jammu & Kashmir issue once and for all but the general
public has not a clue as to what is happening on that front. Talks at various
levels have been held. Prime Minister Vajpayee has met many world leaders
who have given lip service and praise to India. His Adviser Mishra has
met US senior officials and has even been received big deal by President
Bush right in the Oval Room itself. And now Deputy Prime Minister L. K.
Advani, too, has had the opportunity to meet them all. But across-the-border
terrorism hasn't stopped and India is practically where it is a continuing
target of Pakistan-supported jihadists.
Pakistani promises of stopping terrorism
has become quite a joke. And top American officials obviously do not realize
that Musharraf is thumbing his nose at them. Either they have no control
over the Pakistani leader or they don't want to exercise it. Either way
India has no option but to go on its own to handle the situation. Meanwhile
India is being badgered by some of its own pseudo-intellectuals to agree
to make compromises.
No one had yet spelt out the nature
of these compromises. What is India supposed to do? Hand over Jammu &
Kashmir to Pakistan on a golden platter? It is necessary to remind everyone
that at the instance of the then Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao, the
Indian Parliament had unanimously passed a resolution claiming Pakistan-
Occupied Kashmir as part of India. There is no way India can now backtrack
on it unless Parliament itself moves a second resolution to that effect.
That must be clearly understood. Nobody on earth can force India to give
away even a square centimeter of what legitimately belongs to it. So what
is the compromise that India is supposed to make? Alternately, what are
the possibilities open to India at this stage?
Consider these:
India refuses to make any kind of
compromise and demands the unconditional return of land presently occupied
by Pakistan. India concedes the overlordship of Pakistan over the territory
it currently occupies and demands that it agree to accepting the Line of
Control as the international boundary. India agrees to the trifurcation
of Jammu & Kashmir, takes over Jammu & Ladakh and grants full autonomy
to the Vale. India demands that all of Jammu & Kashmir (including Pakistan-
Occupied Kashmir) be reconstituted as one state with its own constitution,
flag and parliament while retaining control over the state's foreign policy
and defence. India agrees to hold a referendum in Jammu & Kashmir under
United Nations auspices to let the people decide whether they want to be
a free and independent state or remain part of (a) Pakistan or (b) India.
The question of independence has never been mooted in the past, though.
India decides to maintain the status quo as of now and warns Pakistan and
the world that any attempt to change it through terrorism will be adequately
met. India warns Pakistan that if it continues to give support to terrorists
whether overtly or covertly, it will have to face the inevitable consequences
even if that ends in a nuclear conflict. India and Pakistan agree to form
a South Asian confederation in which a neutral but reunited Jammu &
Kashmir will be separate but an integrated part. Instead of insisting that
there is no dispute, India concedes that there is one, and Pakistan agrees
not to press it in all sincerity for the next 25/35/50 years. Pakistan
realises that partition of India in 1947 was a ghastly mistake and that
in the larger interests of peace and prosperity it would do well to rejoin
the parent country. India conspires with the United States to wage a short
but terminal war against Pakistan with the United States locking up Pakistan's
nuclear arsenal before India strikes. India is willing to make some minor
adjustments in favour of Pakistan if that can close fifty years of confrontational
politics.
Ingenious political pundits, no
doubt, can suggest even more imaginative alternatives but the point is
that the Indian people should know what is going on. As of now they are
lamentably in the dark. Statements and counterstatements are being issued
almost on a daily basis by Indian and Pakistani officials that lead us
nowhere. On June 5, for instance, Pakistan's Prime Minister Zafrullah Khan
Jamali made it plain that the Kashmir "dispute'' cannot be resolved by
converting the Line of Control into a ``permanent'' border. As he put it:
``A peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue could not be as simplistic
as recognising the Line of Control as a permanent border''. Even earlier,
the Pakistani Information Minister, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed had said that the
``struggle'' of the last 55 years would be futile if Islamabad were to
agree to conversion of the the LoC into a permanent border. So where do
we go from here?
Should Pakistan remain adamant and
refuse to come to terms with India, then Delhi will have no other alternative
but to take such measures as will contain Pakistan-aided terrorism. But
then these will now have to be ruthless. India has put up with enough aggression
all these years with patience and fortitude, but should talks finally break
down, then it should feel free to turn the heat on Pakistan in many ways.
Pakistan will have to be weakened
to the point when it will finally have come to terms with India on Indian
terms. India missed out a golden opportunity at Simla when Indira Gandhi,
under the guidance of her advisers gave in to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's importunities.
India not only agreed to free some 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war but
was over generous in giving back land India had taken. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
took India for a ride. India never learnt a lesson from Pakistan's perfidy.
In an excess of zeal Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee made a trip to
Lahore even as Pakistani forces were secretly taking possession, of hills
in the Kargil Sector. And the man who was organising the aggression was
Pervez Musharraf. How can India ever trust this man? And how can the United
States ever ask India to trust him? We have been shown to be a naive nation
thrice before.
Believing that we will get justice
from the UN Security Council, Nehru took the Kashmir case to that world
body only to be neatly trapped. India has paid for that monumental folly
since 1948. Are we still going to trust the United Kingdom and the United
States both of which were fully responsible for dragging India into the
Kashmir mire for over half a century? If Pakistan wants to be treated as
an enemy India should grant it that privilege and fashion its reaction
on that basis.
For over a decade Pakistan hoped
that by administering ``a thousand cuts'' India could be brought to its
knees, considerably weakened. India should now return the compliment and
learn to administer a thousand cuts on Pakistan. Indian militiamen must
carry out continuous raids across the international border to `liberate'
Sind. And just as the ISI is supporting rebel movements in India's north
east, India must reciprocate in equal measure by supporting independence
movements in Sind and Baluchistan.
In her book `Pakistan: In the Shadow
of Jihad and Afghanistan', Mary Ann Weaver, a former correspondent of The
New Yorker quotes Mir Ghaus Bux Bizengeo, a distinguished Baluch leader
as saying that Baluchistan wants autonomy. According to him Baluch students
want independence for their state. He told Ms Weaver: ``The students, the
young people, they're frustrated and angry and have become increasingly
vocal of late''. Another leader told Miss Weaver: ``Baluchistan, especially
Makran, could become another Afghanistan, another Beirut''.
India has a deliberately exploit
such a situation. If Pakistan thinks it can deliver a thousand cuts to
India, India should reciprocate the favour with equal zeal. It is in Indian
interests to weaken Pakistan. And the United States has hardly any right
to complain. In past decades it has given full aid and comfort to Islamabad
in its evil deeds. If Baluchistan is on the verge of revolt, so is Sind.
When Ms Weaver asked G.M. Syed why the Sindhis are so angry with Islamabad
he had told her bluntly" ``Because we are dominated by Zia's Punjabis''.
This was said many years ago. But Sind remains essentially alienated from
the rest of Pakistan.
In his idealism Atal Behari
Vajpayee has extended his hand of friendship to Pakistan. It is a futile
gesture. Pakistan wants everything and will not be satisfied with compromises.
It wants all of Jammu & Kashmir and will not be satisfied with anything
less. It wants India to give and it will be happy to take. Compromises
with Pakistan will not work and will never work. Meanwhile the people have
a right to know what is going on behind their backs. It is all very well
to say that negotiations cannot be carried on in full public view and diplomacy
calls for a certain amount of secrecy. Up to a point, yes. But it would
be unwise for any government to take the public by surprise or hoist an
arrangement on it without its approval. The government stands warned.
