 |
||
|
||
|
||
BLOWING hot and cold in politics is bad enough but it is dangerous in uneasy situations. Things go out of hand. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has said that "there are certain elements bent on destroying peace in India." He has even gone to the extent of naming them: "It is none other than Pakistan." He has also said that Pakistan is behind the Lashkar-i-Tayyaba which has threatened to attack his office.
Such charges are hurled when a country is approaching war, not cooing peace. If they are correct and Islamabad is seen as a saboteur, how long will the ceasefire hold good and of what use it is even if it does? Pakistan has denied that it had anything to do with the Red Fort incident, where three persons died in the firing by militants. Islamabad has also denied its involvement in the Lashkar-i-Tayyaba threat. But if New Delhi's perception is that Islamabad is in any way connected with the incidents, how can the two countries reach any understanding, much less conciliation even if the talks take place?
Even though, belatedly, Islamabad has denied its hand in the Lashkar-i-Tayyaba threat, there is no denunciation of its threat to Vajpayee. Assuming Islamabad has no control over the outfit, it should have at least condemned the Lashkar-i-Tayyaba which flaunts its headquarters in Pakistan. This is no response of a country from whose soil the threat has come.
A ceasefire does not mean stopping guns alone. It means a change in the mindset. It paves the way for a better atmosphere. People begin to look for normality. Pakistan's initiative to stop firing across the Line of Control (LoC) and thinning of troops from there was a positive step. Indeed, peace prevails now. But General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan's Chief Executive, should have followed Vajpayee's example: announcing a ceasefire, forthrightly and categorically. It would have had a dramatic effect. Musharraf was all prepared for it when I met him at Islamabad some six months ago. But then he fell silent.
Probably, Musharraf had a second thought because of the fundamentalists' opposition. It is apparent that he tends to lean on them in the absence of any political support. Vajpyee faces no less pressure from his Hindutva families. Still he has shown the courage. It shows that the prime minister has realized that a ceasefire may set into motion a process which may end senseless violence and force Islamabad to respond.
Musharraf could have turned the tables on India by announcing an overall pause in training, arming and pushing the militants into Jammu and Kashmir. Probably, he believes that he can edge out New Delhi to a position from where it may find it difficult to retrieve itself. This will amount to tactics, not a desire to bury the hatchet.
That the cross-border militancy has decreased indicates Pakistan's graded response. But a complete stoppage would have been better. The cross-border militancy has been rationalized by its envoy in New Delhi in a TV interview. He has explained that "some people were getting so worked up over violations of human rights in Kashmir" that they go out of control and cross over. Though not a convincing defence, it is still an admission of sorts. What he wanted to convey was that all militants were not under Islamabad's control.
Could the Red Fort incident and the Lashkar's threat be the handiwork of those militants who were beyond the pale of Pakistan? Were Musharraf to say so, he would sound more convincing and more credible. This admission would have gone down well not only in India but also in the world. It would have shown his helplessness, not a deliberate support. But is the supposition correct? Islamabad condemns terrorism in general terms but never mentions the militant organizations by name. There is always a feeling Pakistan is equivocal in its replies.
The White Paper on the ISI activities, which Home Minister L.K. Advani promised to publish, would have corroborated the extent of Pakistan's involvement. Even after one and a half years of his promise, there is no sign of the White Paper. Do we know too less to make a convincing case or do we know too much to make Pakistan suspect that India has authentic sources of information?
Whatever the truth, people are wary on both sides. They have felt relieved that the two countries are groping towards peace. On their part, they want a settlement so that they can go about their business in a normal way, something which has eluded them since partition. There is also a desire for joint ventures and inter-country trade and business. But that has a long way to go.
What do people do in the meanwhile? On the one hand, they see the two countries inching towards the negotiating table. There are positive steps for them to applaud. Leaders of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference are on their way to Pakistan before returning for talks with New Delhi. On the other hand, people suspect that acts of violence have some father. How do they square up the efforts at peace with instances of killing or threats to kill?
Islamabad has to put its act together. It cannot allow the Lashkar to operate from its territory and at the same time expect accommodation from New Delhi. True, Pakistan is driven to the wall by the fundamentalists. But they are a desperate lot which is guided by fanaticism, not human considerations. Religious frenzy makes them blind and they cannot see what is good for the country and people. No government can allow them to dictate because their agenda is hatred and hostility. However, it is a pity that Musharraf has consecrated their militancy by giving it the name of jihad.
There is no doubt about the growing Talibanization in Pakistan. More than 17,000 madrassas churn out three lakh of mullah-type fanatics annually. They are not only contaminating ordinary people but also many in the armed forces. The process in the military began within a few years of Pakistan's creation. The Rawalpindi conspiracy case was an attempt by fanatic military officers - the first in a series of many which were to follow - who believed in their own 'religious order' and their apparent holy duty to overthrow an elected government and rule in its stead. This was their way to punish the liberals. Once Urdu poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz was also tried for 'conspiracy'.
One editor of a Pakistani daily told me in Lahore that if the 10 million people in Afghanistan could destabilize 150 million in Pakistan, it was a matter of time before the two together would pose a danger to India. The situation in our country can be really dangerous because our fundamentalists are not from one religion. Those among the Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians would destroy everything meaningful in India if they were to have their way.
This is all the more reason why
the relationship between New Delhi and Islamabad must normalize. The hostility
between the two communities and the countries can set on fire the entire
region. People should sense the danger and pull all their weight on the
side of peace. Sometimes, I feel that liberals in Pakistan should be more
articulate than they are now. At least, they should speak out because the
present opportunity may not come for a long time to come. And it is anybody's
guess what can happen once the peace efforts fail.
|
||
|
||
|
||