Author: Tavleen Singh
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: December 28, 2003
The end of the year seems always
to bring either war or peace between India and Pakistan. This time it is
a hesitant, nervous sort of peace that appears to be breaking out. We talk
of cross-border trains and flights, instead of terrorism, and hear words
like 'bold and flexible' from the General across the border. Even hints
that other words like 'plebiscite' should be dropped from the terms of
dialogue. That was before the two attempts on Pervez Musharraf's life which,
who knows, could have been inspired by his ostensible (dare we hope) desire
to end his Kashmir jehad. Clearly, even his own government was worried
or his Prime Minister would not have had to deny his remarks almost instantly.
How ironic that the General who has used terrorism as his main instrument
of foreign policy on the sub-continent should now be in danger of becoming
its victim.
India knows better than anyone the
price of that foreign policy. Think of that other December, two years ago,
when the attack on Parliament brought us to the verge of war and that Christmas
just before the millennium changed when IC 814 was hijacked from Kathmandu
to force the Indian government to release two of the most vicious terrorists
known to mankind: Omar Sheikh and Masood Azhar. Sheikh went on to plan
the inhuman, unforgivable murder of Daniel Pearl and Maulana Masood continues
to spread the wickedest kind of terrorist Islam through organisations like
Jaish-e-Mohammad. When Jaish and Lashkar get onto American State Department
terrorist lists they reincarnate themselves under new names that are announced
on the internet. This would not happen if the General was serious about
abandoning terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy and it would not
happen if the United States understood that its policy on the Indian sub-continent
needs to go beyond backing one, shaky General. It needs to acknowledge
that said shaky General is fully aware that the Pakistan government, specifically
the Pakistani Army, is deeply involved with the promotion of terrorism
and militant Islam.
It needs also to acknowledge that
Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb, would not have been
able to sell nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea without the sanction
of the Pakistani government. But, Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman
Masood Khan says, ''There are indications that certain individuals might
have been motivated by personal ambition or greed,'' and Musharraf continues
to be counted a trustworthy ally.
We in India understand him better
and understand better the nature of the Pakistani state but our problem
is that it is becoming increasingly hard to tell where the state ends and
what V S Naipaul called 'a criminal enterprise' begins. Where does the
ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) fit in? And, if Musharraf is the modern,
Islamic leader he would like the world to believe he is then why were Sheikh
and Masood not immediately jailed when they crossed from Afghanistan into
Pakistan? Why is there such a strong nexus between the ISI and terrorist
groups in Kashmir that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between
them?
The foreign policy experts who sit
in South Block believe that democratic Pakistani leaders are better. Whenever
Pakistan has a democratically elected Prime Minister in charge, they like
to say, peace becomes more possible. Really? It happens that when Benazir
Bhutto was in Delhi a couple of weeks ago I was at Sri Sri Ravi Shankar's
ashram in Bangalore and came upon a clip of one of the speeches she made
on Kashmir as Prime Minister. In a voice hysterical with hatred she shouted
abuse against India and urged her Islamic brethren to rally to the defence
of Kashmir because the Kashmiris were Muslims 'like us' and like us descendants
of those who fought in the Prophet's armies. It was a more racist speech
than any Musharraf has made. Let us please remember that it was Benazir's
Kashmir policy that caused such terrible violence in the Valley that more
than 300,000 Kashmiri Hindus fled for their lives in the worst instance
of ethnic cleansing the sub-continent has seen.
The fact that, despite a Hindutva
government in Delhi, these desperate people continue to live in makeshift
camps in Jammu is disgraceful and even more disgraceful is the fact that
no human rights group in India takes up their cause. All those of you who
have been so passionate in defence of Muslim victims in Gujarat where are
you when it comes to Kashmiri pandits? And, Benazir do you remember your
speeches? Do you remember that it was under your government that the so-called
Kashmir jehad began?
So if democracy in Pakistan will
not bring peace either what is the solution? Personally, I believe we need
to make a distinction between the Pakistani people and the Pakistani state.
We need to encourage ordinary Pakistanis to come to India because it is
only when they come here that they realise that its reality is very different
to the lies and propaganda they have been bred on. We need to encourage
trade, even if we take unilateral measures, because it is another way of
getting ordinary Pakistanis to travel to India and build up a vested interest
in peace.
Peace with Pakistan was the first
item on Atal Behari Vajpayee's foreign policy agenda when he became Prime
Minister. It remains there right at the top as he enters the last year
of his government. It may not be possible to achieve in a year but what
is possible is to lay the foundations for it by making it easier for Pakistani
civil society to discover that it has much more in common with India than
it has with its own military government. Unilaterally making the visa system
easier would be a good first step.
