Author: I D Swamin
Publication: The Hindustan Times
Date: November 17, 2001
Introduction: The West will be investing
in a future tragedy if it turns a blind eye to Pakistan's wrong-doing.
Pakistan should stop harping on
that out-worn theme 'the will of the people' for the purpose of pursuing
political terrorism, for capturing Indian territory. UN Secretary General
Kofi Annan and former US President Bill Clinton have ruled against plebiscite
in Kashmir. Yet, Pakistan continues to harp on this camouflaged and out-worn
catch-phrase for waging a proxy war against India.
No grievances - ideological, political
or religious - can justify the killings of innocent persons. In any case,
terrorists are not the best people to cry for 'the will of the people'
or to espouse the cause of human rights. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee
has made it amply clear to General Musharraf that "Kashmir is at the core
of Indian nationalism". If Pakistan's intention is to wrest Kashmir from
India, it is pursuing a problem that has no solution. In that case, the
problem will ever remain with Pakistan and Kashmir with India.
The two nations have remained at
a stand-off for long. The reason is that the national politics of Pakistan
is completely focused on a 'hate-India' theme. If Pakistan can stop terrorist
violence across the border, most of the troops of the two nations can go
back to their barracks. Friendly relations can be fostered, opening trade
doors, facilitating cultural exchanges. Both nations then have a lot to
gain. Whoever could imagine that better Russian-American ties would be
a reality today?
The problem with Pakistan is that
it links everything to events of the past, on which the present has no
control. That not only makes their present miserable but also its future
uncertain. We in India are ready to go in for 'hot pursuit of peace', ready
even for proactive action - crossing the LoC for destroying the fortress
of hatred located in Pakistan - provided that Pakistan is prepared to shun
the path of terrorism and walk the high road to peace with India.
The Indian refusal to see Kashmir
as 'central' to normalisation of relations between India and Pakistan arises
not from any blinkered approach to bilateral relations but from genuine
reasons explained in clear terms by the prime minister. The world community
should not forget the fact that Indian Muslims are the second largest group
in the world and they are not an alienated group in India. They enjoy democratic
freedom much more than their co-religionists in many other countries.
Pakistan, after failing in direct
conflicts with India, resorted to proxy wars using mercenaries. Inciting
and arming local dissidents to wage campaign of terror was the method employed
by Pakistan in Kashmir. Their most heinous terror methods include booby-trapped
transistor sets to trigger simultaneous explosions in 19 targets, including
economic symbols in Bombay in March 1993 and a symbol of democracy in Srinagar
on October 1, 2001. The Seshnag and Doda episodes serve to reinforce the
point that the militants are totally devoid of scruples and basic concern
for human values.
For effectively countering terrorism,
good and effective democratic governance is necessary. As is obvious, democracy
is a thing not well-known to most Islamic countries. The international
community, particularly the more powerful nations, should not succumb to
the temptation of using religions or sectarianism for purposes of their
foreign policy interests. Nor is it helpful to have differentiated standards
for democracy and human rights for different countries.
Helping anybody to achieve anything
through terror methods is most dreadful, even if the desired goal is desirable
and justifiable. Making concessions to terrorists is dangerous. That will
encourage them to resort to such methods in future for solving problems.
Also, political legitimacy should never be bestowed on those who seek to
achieve it through acts of terrorism.
The US once supported and armed
the mujahideen who later turned on the US. Encouraging and arming Pakistan
to its teeth is dangerous. Memory tends to fade as time passes; and the
saying goes that those who do not learn from history are often condemned
to repeat it.
The global support now extended
to the US is for fighting terrorism everywhere - from New York to New Delhi,
from Washington to Srinagar and everywhere else. The definition of terrorism
should neither be defined according to expediency nor on consideration
of who is the perpetrator and who is the victim.
It will be illogical to regard violence
against the citizen of one country as terrorism and the same against the
citizen of another country as 'freedom struggle'. If cross-border terrorism
sponsored by Pakistan is not included within the ambit of this anti-terror
war, that will be a blatant act of rewarding a terrorist-sponsoring nation
for consistent bad behaviour.
India's right to protect its people,
property and territory cannot be undermined in any circumstances. This
right is exercisable without selective application by all nations, big
and small. When this right is threatened by terrorists, the State has the
right to strike before getting battered. If the cause for striking Afghanistan
is Taliban's involvement in destroying the symbols of economic and military
power in the US, similar causes exist for India too.
But India is a country that exercises
maximum restraint. India could also have punished Pakistan for all their
affronts. But Indians believe in peace and its leaders aren't trained in
war games. They have therefore chosen to exercise maximum restraint even
when desperately provoked. But it is wrong to presume that India's patience
is unlimited. The prime minister has already said that there is a limit
to our patience. "Beware the fury of a patient man," said Dryden. Pakistan
would do well to listen.
World powers will not want us to
quietly suffer at the hands of terrorists supported by a nation wanting
to capture territory in the name of religion. How long should we exercise
restraint for the sake of not complicating problems between the two nuclear
weapons States? The US has paid a very heavy price for not taking pre-emptive
proactive action in the past. India too has paid a very heavy price for
not taking pre-emptive action in the past.
When the State conducts operations
against terrorists, it is inevitable that some innocents too will die but
that is not deliberate and cannot be described as State terrorism. But
terrorists target innocents indiscriminately. Today the world community
does not consider action against the Taliban as State-sponsored or world-sponsored
genocide.
When Muslim fundamentalists strike
the US, they try to tell the world that they are fighting imperialism,
capitalism and an oppressor. When they strike against India, then they
say it is jehad and for upholding the will of the people. No sane person
can describe these as justifying reasons to unleash terrorism against the
US and India. In any case, terrorists need no particular cause. Their causes
are almost always perceived ones.
Time has come for the world community
to ostracise nations sponsoring cross- border terrorism. We have no quarrel
about the US setting a criminal to catch a criminal for bringing 'justice
to criminals' or 'criminals to justice'. We also know that it is not prudent
to tell the criminal that punishment to him will follow immediately after
accomplishing the task of catching the other criminal.
Necessity may be the mother of invention.
Pakistan may be a necessary evil in this war against terror. But care should
be taken not to create a bigger evil capable of committing far greater
crimes than those committed by the evil-to-be-destroyed. The world community
will be investing in a future tragedy if it turns a Nelson's eye to all
the goings-on in Pakistan.
(The writer is Union Minister of
State for Home Affairs)
