Author: Sudha Ramachandran
Publication: Asia Times Online
Date: February 2, 2002
Three weeks after Pakistan's President
General Pervez Musharraf made his historic speech distancing himself from
religious extremism and announcing steps to crack down on terrorist groups
in his country, India remains unconvinced that he has taken concrete action
to curb cross-border infiltration of terrorists into Indian-administered
Kashmir.
New Delhi maintains that the general
has yet to match his words with action on the ground. Consequently, it
has firmly rejected calls for dialogue and the pulling out of its troops
deployed along the border with Pakistan. Indian and Pakistani troops have
been massed along the border in an eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation for
over a month now.
Since the December 13 assault on
India's parliament, which New Delhi blamed on Pakistan's intelligence agency,
the ISI, relations between the two neighbors have dipped to an all-time
low. In a bid to put pressure on Islamabad to crack down on terrorist groups
operating from Pakistani soil, India adopted a range of diplomatic and
other measures, including massing of troops along its western border. With
the armed forces of the two countries in a state of heightened alert, tension
has been high. And although the danger of a military confrontation has
substantially receded, the war of words continues unabated and the troops
remain deployed.
India has, in fact, repeatedly rejected
Islamabad's calls for dialogue. On Tuesday, Pakistan put forward a proposal
for talks to de-escalate tension through a phased withdrawal of troops
along the border, to be followed by a dialogue on Kashmir and other issues.
Pakistan's foreign ministry said that Islamabad was willing to restore
air, road and rail links between the two countries, which were severed
on January 1.
Earlier, Musharraf proposed a no-war
pact and denuclearization of the region. To all these offers, India's response
has been: Stop cross-border terrorism and infiltration, and hand over the
20 criminals and terrorists based in Pakistan who are wanted in India.
Musharraf's speech and his crackdown
on extremist groups have won him praise from the United States, Britain
and several other western countries. However, India remains unimpressed.
Is India justified or is it just being difficult?
Reports from Pakistan justify the
Indian position that little has been done on the ground to stamp out terrorism
directed against India. Reporting from Lahore, Amir Mir writes in the Indian
news magazine Outlook: "Musharraf's critics have already started pointing
out that the government's decision to ban the Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad
are mere cosmetic measures, primarily aimed at appeasing the international
community." A former Pakistani Air Chief told Mir that had Musharraf "actually
been sincere in uprooting the state-run jihadi centers, he would have ...
banned Markaz Dawa Wal Irshad, headed by the former Lashkar chief Professor
Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, and which is the parent body of the Lashkar".
According to Mir: "Renamed Jamaat-e-al-Dawah
last month, the Muridke-based markaz [center] is seen as the nursery of
Kashmiri freedom fighters and boasts the largest jihadi network in Pakistan.
Following the US ban on Lashkar, this group announced it was shifting base
to Indian-held Kashmir. But, in reality, Muridke, 45 kilometers from Lahore,
remains its base and the hub of its jihad machine. Spread over 200 acres,
the complex has teaching and residential facilities, besides farms, mosques,
fish-breeding ponds and stables. Similarly, the Kashmir desk of the ISI
is still patronizing the Markaz, where over 2,000 students are presently
enrolled. As the ex-air chief points out, 'If Musharraf actually wants
his announcements to be turned into reality, he should immediately disband
the ISI's Kashmir desk besides banning the Markaz ... It is their support
which has enabled the Lashkar to become one of the most active militants
groups working inside Jammu and Kashmir, with operations based on the Pakistani
side of the border'."
Mir goes on to point out that the
government's crackdown has been largely directed on sectarian outfits.
Of the 2,500 arrests affected since January 12, more than 1,900 belong
to outfits that are engaged in sectarian violence in Pakistan, he said.
That would mean that only 600 activists engaged in terrorism in Kashmir
and elsewhere in India have been arrested.
Few in New Delhi therefore believe
that Pakistan is genuine in its offers of peace with India. It might want
a de-escalation of tension along the border, but there is little to indicate
that Islamabad has renounced cross-border terrorism against India as an
instrument of state policy.
Says an official in the Indian Ministry
of External Affairs: "The proposals Pakistan has put forward for defusing
tension clearly indicate that it is not serious about dialogue. Why else
would it suggest measures that have never worked in the past? If it is
genuinely committed to fighting terrorism, why is it not doing something
about it?"
The proposal Islamabad put forward
on Tuesday suggested that the UN Military Observers Group on India and
Pakistan [UNMOGIP] should be beefed up to credibly monitor the Line of
Control. An editorial in the Indian Express says: "Pakistan could hardly
be serious about its own proposal for strengthening of UNMOGIP. The redundancy
of the group has been in evidence since the ceasefire line was converted
into a line of control by a mutual agreement at Simla three decades ago
where the UN had no role. In reality, it is time the Observer Group was
wound up and at least some money saved for the cash-strapped UN."
Indeed, as an editorial in the daily
newspaper Deccan Herald put it, since Musharraf's January 12 speech "there
has been only more empty rhetoric, reiteration of old positions and offers
of unworkable proposals emerging from Pakistan."
"There is just no basis on which
India can resume talks with Pakistan," said Brahma Chellaney, a defense
analyst. "Unless our basic objective of eliminating cross-border terrorism
is met, Indian troops should stay put at the borders."
However, calls for dialogue are
growing in India. The Deccan Herald editorial points out that while the
massing of troops on the border served to put pressure on Musharraf, "it
might have outlived its efficacy". It continues: "The indefinite deployment
of troops at the border will end up being counterproductive not only in
terms of the economic costs involved but also with regard to its negative
impact on India's image abroad, if India clings to this strategy indefinitely."
C Raja Mohan, a leading strategic
affairs analyst, writes in The Hindu: "India must not forget that irreversibly
ending cross-border infiltration is its central strategic objective. All
else is secondary. Ending infiltration either through unilateral actions
such as the use of improved technologies to monitor the Line of Control
or getting Pakistan to stop it through diplomatic and other pressures will
let India get the upper hand over terrorism in Kashmir. Even if Pakistan
trains the best terrorists in the world, they are not of much use if it
cannot get them across the Line of Control. The strategic emphasis on infiltration
should not be lessened by other issues such as the list of terrorists.
India is right in insisting on clear evidence on the ground of a comprehensive
reduction in cross-border infiltration before de-escalation of the confrontation
with Pakistan, but it will be unwise to leave the initiative entirely to
Pakistan. Instead of the passive approach, India must propose talks between
the Directors-General of Military Operation of the two armies to negotiate
specific cooperative arrangements for ending infiltration across the border."
Indeed, with international opinion
and the diplomatic advantage on its side this might be the right time for
India to call for dialogue toward putting in place verifiable technological
measures to monitor the Line of Control. To defer talks could fritter away
the gains made so far.
