Western leaders and a small club of swadeshi Pak-lovers are once again mounting pressure on Prime Minister Vajpayee for resumption of dialogue with his Pakistani counterpart and to keep up the facade of cordiality with that terrorist state and its people.
Troubled by the public sentiment that favoured an all-out war with Pakistan following the dastardly assault on the very soul of our secular democracy, many commentators have been cautioning government against any vengeful response to December 13. They argue, and rightly so, that India is not America and Pakistan is not Afghanistan and that therefore we cannot adopt the "wild west" approach to settle scores with our neighbour. Indian leaders across the political spectrum are acutely conscious of this reality. That is why India has preferred a calibrated diplomatic offensive to carpet bombing of terrorist camps in Pakistan.
Yet, there are domestic "opinion makers" who do not want even a diplomatic offensive against Pakistan and who want India to behave as if everything is hunky dory.
It is not as if our government and foreign office are bereft of wise men and women and that it is God's will to stack all wisdom in a few television anchors, a couple of members of the CPI(M) Politburo and in a few studio-hopping academics for whom India-bashing is the main source of livelihood. We need to remember that these RNIs (Resident Non-Indians) constitute a hopeless minority and that the space they garner in both the print and electronic media is grossly disproportionate to their numbers. The founder-members of this club have successfully weakened India's resolve at critical moments in our post-independence history and the fresh recruits are carrying on this treacherous legacy at the present juncture.
The government should know that there is a gross disjunction between the feelings of this articulate minority and that of the patriotic, not-so-articulate millions. However, since even Indira Gandhi succumbed to such dubious domestic and international theorists and Mr Vajpayee has himself fallen prey to them twice already, he must guard his flanks this time round. Mr Vajpayee had fought in vain against the policy of appeasement followed by the governments of the day after the 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan and he and several other stalwarts in the opposition had prophesied that Pakistan would flout the Shimla and Tashkent agreements and return to the path of conflict and infiltration across the borders. It may therefore be in the fitness of things to take him down memory lane to the events of 1965-66 and 1971-72 and to quote Atalji to Atalji
In August, 1965, the Pakistan army despatched thousands of infiltrators into Jammu and Kashmir leading to a war between the two countries. The Indian Army pushed back the infiltrators and captured strategic positions in Haji Pir and Tithwal areas to effectively prevent further incursions in the future. The leaders of the two countries met at Tashkent following a UN-sponsored cease fire and under Soviet pressure, India bartered away its key territorial acquisitions at the negotiating table.
Mr Vajpayee was a member of the Rajya Sabha at that time. He and many others in the opposition were greatly troubled by the way in which the government had succumbed to pressures and gifted away key positions captured by Indian soldiers in the war. But what was even more troubling was the sweet innocence of the government. In the parliamentary debate after Tashkent, Foreign Minister Swaran Singh claimed that the government was "fully satisfied" that the question of infiltrators was not likely to arise hereafter. When the accord was discussed in the Rajya Sabha on February 17, 1966, Mr.Vajpayee moved an amendment to the resolution before the House which in effect directed the government to stop the withdrawal of troops from the areas liberated by the Indian Army in Pak-Occupied Kashmir. The resolution denounced the Tashkent Declaration and said it created " a dangerous sense of complacency and wishful thinking in the country" even though Pakistan's postures vis-à-vis the agreement was something entirely different.
In the Lok Sabha, Nath Pai, Surendranath Dwivedi and Dr LM Singhvi were among those in the opposition benches who unsuccessfully tried to stall the withdrawal of Indian troops from areas acquired in the war. Nath Pai was so prophetic when he said: "Ultimately, again, they (Pakistan) will send them (infiltrators) and when the time has come to disown, they may say `We have not sent them'. What is your protection against this kind of perfidy?"
Six years hence, Parliament debated the Shimla Agreement, wherein, once again, India returned to Pakistan 93,000 Prisoners of War and 5000 Square Miles of territory captured in the 1971 War without any worthwhile guarantee of peace. Mr Vajpayee and several others in the opposition benches were incensed. He moved an amendment to the official motion in the Lok Sabha which said the agreement had failed to assure durable peace which Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had promised before the commencement of the Shimla Summit. He also decried the agreement on the ground that while it required India to return 5000 square miles of territory to Pakistan, it did not require the latter to return the 30,000 square miles of territory in Kashmir which is legally and constitutionally part of India.
Speaking in the Lok Sabha on July 31, 1972, Mr Vajpayee ridiculed Sardar Swaran Singh's statement that Shimla was the "first step" towards achieving durable peace in the sub-continent. Atalji said : "In the last 25 years, we have always been taking the first step. We took the first step when Nehru met Liaqat Ali Khan, then yet again when Nehru met Ayub Khan. We again took the first step when Shastri met Ayub Khan at Tashkent. And now again at Shimla we are taking the first step". How many times do we keep taking the "first step" towards durable peace with Pakistan ?, was his question as he dissected the cycle of war and agreements in the sub-continent.
Yet another key member of the opposition in Parliament in those days was Mr LK Advani, who was then in the Rajya Sabha. He opposed the the Shimla Accord and said it was not only a betrayal of the nation and the sacrifices of the jawans but also a wilful contempt of parliament.
The top guns of the opposition in the Tashkent, Shimla days are now at the helm and are, like the leaders of the 1960s and 1970s under pressure from the Pak-lovers club. In a short span of three years Pakistani leaders have already betrayed Mr Vajpayee twice. The Kargil intrusion followed the spurious bear hug in Lahore and the domestic and international friends of Pakistan did not want any escalation of that conflict. Soon thereafter Mr Vajpayee was under pressure to resume the dialogue with Pakistan and the Agra Summit followed. We now have the assault on Parliament and yet again India is under pressure to initiate the peace process.
Fortunately for India, Prime Minister Vajpayee has at least this time round, stood his ground and taken several measures to down-scale India's ties with Pakistan. But a lot more needs to be done. Since export of terrorism has been a key instrument of state policy in Pakistan for over 20 years and since India has been the sole victim of this policy, there is need for a complete break in diplomatic ties with Pakistan. Frankly, diplomatic relations at a reduced level makes no sense when the main perpetrators of the Mumbai blasts and the Kandahar Hijack are stationed in Pakistan. Ideally India must now set a deadline for Pakistan to hand over all those listed by our government. Should Pakistan continue to resist Indian demands, we should completely cut off diplomatic, trade, cultural and sporting ties with that country.
But for this to happen, one will
have to remind the Prime Minister of his own prophetic words in Parliament
three decades ago and of the promise he made to the Indian people post-December
13 that this time round the issue of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism would
be settled "aar ya paar" (one way or another).