archive: A test of friendship
A test of friendship
T.V.R. Shenoy
The Indian Express
June 4, 1999
Title: A test of friendship
Author: T.V.R. Shenoy
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: June 4, 1999
December 7, 1941 - the day Japan raided Pearl Harbour - has gone down
in American history as the "day of infamy", one of the lowest points
in the life of that country's armed forces. If I were to single out a
date when Indian diplomacy hit rock-bottom, I would choose a day
precisely 30 years from Pearl Harbour -December 7, 1971.
The Bangladesh War was going on. It was, whichever way you look at
it, a just war. NATO makes much of the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and
the subsequent refugee crisis; but the problems in East Pakistan 28
years ago were greater by degrees of magnitude. Up to a million
Bengalis were butchered, perhaps more. Eleven million -five times as
many as the Kosovars today - sought sanctuary in India. Yet India did
not declare war on Pakistan until General Yahya Khan, then Pakistan's
dictator, lost his head and sent planes to bomb India on December 3,
1971.
Yet did any of our beloved brothers in the Third World, all those
members of the Non-Alignment Movement whom India had wooed so
assiduously, even try to understand why Indian soldiers were shedding
blood?
On December 7, 1971, the issue was discussed by the United Nations
General Assembly. (In the Security Council, the Russians had vetoed
an American proposal for, an immediate ceasefire and withdrawal of
Indian forces.) So the United States took it to the larger body-and
had its way by 104 votes in favour to just 11 against. There were
some abstentions, but the stark fact is that the vast majority of the
so-called Third World re-fused to back India.
The moving finger stands still for no-body, and much has changed in 28
years. Once again Pakistan has chosen to stage an unprovoked attack
on India. But this time there are significant changes in the
disposition of the major powers. In 1971, the United States had sent
the U.S.S. Enterprise-- an aircraft carrier bristling with nuclear
weapons - into the Bay of Bengal, and the Chinese were making rumbling
sounds on the other side of the border.
Today, The Chinese are conspicuously silent. The change in the
American stance is even more remarkable. Permit me to quote Kari F.
Inderfurth, the US Assistant Secretary for South Asia: "Clearly she
Indians arenotgoingtocedeth6 territory that these militants have
taken. They have to depart, and they will depart, either voluntarily
or because the Indians take them out." That is a sea-change from
Richard Nixon's infamous "tilt" toward Pakistan in 1971!
Part of the reason lies in the satellites monitoring South Asia ever
more assiduously since Pokharan II. Those eyes in the sky saw the
slow Pakistani build-up over the months. The same satellites also
clearly reveal that the fighting is going on for bunkers that were
built and constructed by the Indian Army, all clearly on the Indian
side of the Line of Control. With the facts before them, it was
possible to brush aside moth-eaten fibs - as for instance when the
United States openly rejected the story that Indian planes 6ad
trespassed into Pakistani territory.
(The question arises, of course, as to why Indian intelligence - in
every sense of the word! - failed to predict the on-coming conflict in
Kargil. The fact that the Pakistanis found unmanned bunkers in that
sensitive sector are proof that somebody was sleeping on the job. As
soon as the cleaning-up operation is over, a thorough investigation
must be held.)
Let me return now to the reactions from the rest of the world. Where
the major powers-NATO. Russia, China-have been remarkably
understanding, our 'friends' in the Non-Aligned Movement have been
less so. Not all of them, of course, but a substantial number
nevertheless.
External Affairs Ministry officials who attended a briefing to explain
India's position to some of these 'allies' are still shaking their
heads in disbelief at some of the illiterate reactions.
One envoy wanted to know whether Kargil could actually be considered
disputed territory. Couldn't it be, he suggested, that the Pakistanis
were a confused lot who mistakenly thought that they were entering
their own territory? After all the lines on a map couldn't be seen on
the ground, so it was possible to make a mistake, and what is a small
difference of 20 miles here and there? (I am not at liberty to name
the gentleman; let us just say that he represents one of the pioneers
of the Non-Aligned Movement.)
Another envoy came up with an even more remarkable suggestion: why not
concede the ceasefire line as the international frontier? In other
words, permit Pakistan to swallow Jammu and Kashmir slice by slice -
staging sudden attacks at their leisure and then refusing to let go of
their ill-gotten gains. (He represents a country for whose sake the
late Rajiv Gandhi once threatened to snap ties with one of India's
friends.)
Once you get over the shock, it must be admitted that the fault is not
entirely with them. It is also India's failure, at least to the
extent that we failed to present them with the facts. And, let us
face it, they may have had reason to wonder whether India is really
serious about defending those Himalayan heights.
In 1965 and again in 1971, the Indian Army had conquered strategic
positions. Yet, on both occasions, the Indian governments of the day
decided to vacate what the Indian Army had conquered. In the treaties
of Tashkent and Simla, India renewed its commitment to honour the Line
of Control. It is Pakistan which-has broken its word. But that
hasn't really been made clear to our friends in the Non-Aligned
Movement.
Yet that is no excuse for swallowing rubbishy tales about tribals
spontaneously crossing the border, a story first used in 1947.
Tribals certainly wouldn't have the long supply lines revealed in
satellite photographs. (Speaking of 1947, an American member of the
UN team that negotiated the first armistice was Secretary of State
Madeleine Albright's father; perhaps that is why the United States is
taking a relatively fair stance today.)
As I said, there are a lot of questions to be answered once the
invaders are kicked out, and it shouldn't be just the defence
establishment that must be forced to answer. So should our diplomats,
many of whom continue to mouth shopworn rhetoric on non-alignment. It
should be made very clear to all our dear friends in the Third World
that support is a two-way street. If they refuse to see the facts
today, there is no need for us to bend over for them tomorrow.
Back
Top
|
