Author: Anil Athale
Publication: Rediff on Net
Date: March 14, 2003
URL: http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/mar/14anil.htm
The bomb blast on the suburban train
in Mumbai on March 13, ten years and one day after the 1993 bombings in
Mumbai, has again focussed attention on the shadowy war the two countries
have been fighting for over two decades.
Pakistan, the initiator of this,
feels it is a 'cheap' and no risk option to de- stabilise India, its long
term goal since 1947. The war began in the 1980s when Pakistan exploited
the short sighted politics of Indira Gandhi and the socio-economic problems
in Punjab to launch the Sikh separatist movement. Later, emboldened by
the success in Afghanistan, it began to meddle in Kashmir as well. The
proxy terror network was then expanded to cover India from Coimbatore to
Mumbai and Guwahati to Ahmedabad.
The rulers of Pakistan, more importantly
its military rulers, find the clandestine operations an attractive option
in the face of the massive Indian superiority in conventional forces. Like
every action the reaction to this Pakistani game plan resulted in making
Karachi a 'killing field' and heightened the Shia-Sunni cycle of violence.
Pakistan did achieve a degree of
success in Kashmir when in sheer terror, 300,000 Hindus were forced to
flee the Kashmir valley. But overall, the proxy war failed in its mission.
Kashmir is still firmly in Indian control and the Punjab insurgency is
dead. One lesson that all ought to have learnt from the Mukti Bahini campaign
in erstwhile East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) or the survival of Najibullah
in Afghanistan for years after the Soviets left is that ultimately for
a regime change there is no substitute to open intervention by the armed
forces. The Americans are learning this lesson in Iraq and are therefore
poised to invade and occupy Iraq.
Neither India nor Pakistan are such
fragile States that terrorist bombings can effect major changes. The institutions
of State and civic support is sufficiently strong to withstand these shocks.
All that this continuing war has done is to inflict misery on countless
innocent civilians in both countries and a slowdown of economic activity.
Even after 23 years of its campaign neither is Pakistan anywhere near the
goal of breaking India up nor has India been able to disintegrate Pakistan.
The 9/11 terrorist attacks on the
US has brought home another disturbing reality. The Frankenstein's monster
of terrorism once created can turn on its creator. Criminal gangs and smugglers
are the 'foot soldiers' of this war. Sooner than later they will begin
to affect the society of the host State. Anarchy, gun culture and drugs
that have come to dominate Pakistan are a direct outcome of its patronage
of criminal gangs.
The adventurous course followed
by the terror NGOs in attacking the Indian Parliament, Indian army soldiers'
families or train passengers in Godhra led to the conflagration in Gujarat.
The victims have been innocent Indian Muslims. If Pakistan claims to be
the 'homeland' for the subcontinent's Muslims then this course has only
heightened the miseries of Muslims.
If there has been no strategic gain,
why does Pakistan continue with this option? The answer may well be that
this is the only means by which the 'real' rulers of Pakistan, the army
oligarchy, can control Pakistani purse strings and heart strings! What
is claimed as the 'national interest' is actually the army's interest.
We live in dangerous times. With
America fully engaged in Iraq and North Korea, unlike in December 2001,
this time around it may not have the inclination or ability to pressure
India to desist from a punitive action. In such a situation, even without
the nuclear threat, the Pakistani army may well meet its Waterloo on Pakistani
soil. A defeated army has very little chance to rule... Unlike Kargil,
this time around it may be difficult to hide defeat from an enraged civil
population.
Curbing cross border terrorism appears,
on this logic, in the interest of the Pakistani army itself. But will a
ruler with a 'company commander' mentality that equates tactical victory
with a winning policy realise this? The future of peace in the subcontinent
thus hinges on one man's understanding or lack of it! Such is the stuff
history is made of.