 |
||
|
||
|
||
The President of Pakistan, speaking on the occasion of the Yom-e-Jumhuriya on
March 23, stated that his country will extend every type of political, moral
and diplomatic support to the separatists in Kashmir. It is no secret that
the aim of Pakistan is to create conditions within Kashmir which ultimately
result in that state being absorbed into Pakistan. We are witness to the
reign of terror, death and destruction unleashed on the hapless people of
Jammu and Kashmir over the past few years. all in the name of protecting the
rights of the Kashmiris. It is a well-known fact that the main supplier of
money, weapons and training to the militants is Pakistan.
It is against this background that one has to view Indo-Pak relations. Every
politician in Pakistan makes Kashmir the focal point of that country's policy
towards India and the constant refrain is that India must quit Kashmir and
hand it over to Pakistan. Kashmir had been invaded by Pakistan thrice, in
1947-48,1965 and 1971. India has never invaded the Pakistan-occupied area of
Kashmir ' and in 1965 after we had taken over the strategic Haji Pir Pass we
handed it back to Pakistan under the Tashkent Agreement. We have never
invaded and held any part of Pakistan because even in 1971 after Indian
forces liberated Bangladesh, we handed over the country to its legitimate
government and withdrew totally from it.
In Kashmir our posture has always been defensive. We began by agreeing to a
plebiscite after peace was restored. How is the accession of Kashmir any
different from that of Baroda? We have never agreed to plebiscite in
North-East India, despite the fact that Nagaland and Mizoram once faced
separatist movements. We even gave help to the Sri Lankan Government,
initially against the JVP and then against the LTTE because we firmly believe
in the territorial integrity and unity of our neighbours. We proved this in
the Maldives when we went to the rescue of the legitimate government of that
country. Why, then, do we adopt an apologetic posture about Kashmir, as if we
are guilty of some wrong-doing. Of course, Kashmir is the only Muslim
majority state in India, but then Punjab is the only Sikh majority state
where we, with the help of the people, effectively scotched the Khalistan
movement without a sense of apology or regret and without treating Punjab as
anything different from the rest of India. In Kashmir our attitude is
totally different.
Successive governments have been conciliatory and even weak in dealing with
Pakistan. In 1971 Indira Gandhi proved herself to be an exception to this,
with resounding success. President Leghari has said that sweet reasonableness
and offers of talk by Pakistan should not be considered a sign of weakness.
Is our reasonableness a sign of weakness? Let us take the present
government's policy. I.K. Gujral, supported by a claque of liberals, who
always paint a rosy picture of Pakistan, is all for making unilateral
concessions to that country. The theory is that a people-to-people exchange
will bring about better relations between the two countries. This thesis is
based on the writings of a few high profile visitors to Pakistan who wax
eloquent on the hospitality offered to them and the warmth of feeling that
the common man has towards India. What they say is not entirely wrong because
when we meet Pakistanis on an individual level they are just like us because
after all the language, the culture and even the looks are alike.
Be that as it may, relationships between nations cannot be based on the
experiences of a few individuals. The lumpen in any country can be easily
swayed by demagogues, as has been proved in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
Mass hysteria is easier to generate in a society which has strong elements of
homogeneity and in the self-proclaimed Islamic Republic of Pakistan Islam
provides that element on the basis of which the people can be moved as one.
India, on the other hand, is such a geographically, racially, linguistically
and religiously diverse society that there is no one single element an appeal
to which can homogenise the people. Pakistan, therefore, is a more fertile
ground for demagoguery than India. It is within the realm of the possible to
organise a jehad in Pakistan. It is impossible to organise a jehad in India,
as the VHP and the BJP have found to their cost on the question of Ayodhya.
Any Indian politician who fails to take note of this fact is laying the
country open to a grave security risk.
No one wants a war with Pakistan, but if Pakistan continuously wars with us,
do we always turn the other cheek? Not once has India said that it supports
the Pakhtoons, Baluchis or Sindhis when they ask for a special status in
Pakistan or separation from Pakistan. Not once has Pakistan desisted from
giving succour to Sikh militants, Naga rebels or Kashmiri terrorists. Does
India surrender Kashmir to Pakistan under these circumstances? Does India
concede that there is justice in Pakistan's claim to Kashmir? Pakistan will
not give up Kashmir and India cannot give it up. The problem cannot be
solved unless Pakistan either voluntarily accepts the status quo in Kashmir
or is made to do so by force of arms. More trade, one-way open borders, the
dove-like billing and cooing by Gujral will not bring Pakistan and India
closer. The only country where open borders worked in an environment of
hostility is Germany, with West Germany allowing free access to people from
East Germany except, of course, Stassi agents. It worked because West Germany
had always treated East Germany as a part of the country under foreign
occupation which would ultimately return to the fatherland. In opening our
borders to the people of Pakistan, is Gujral prepared to work for the
ultimate reunification of Pakistan with the motherland? You can bet your
bottom-dollar that this is not his objective.
It is an unfortunate fact of life that till sanity returns to Pakistan win
shall have to adopt Theodore Roosevelt's homily that when faced by a
ferocious dog speak softly to him while reaching for a big stick.
Unfortunately, our government can only talk softly because the Americans had
told us that they do not like our reaching for the big stick of Prithvi and
Agni and in any case our politicians would much rather take bribes than buy
good equipment for our armed forces. President Leghari and his ilk,
therefore, keep testing the outer bounds of our tolerance on the calculation
that there are no limits. Should we not tell them where that line, that
Laxman Rekha, lies?
|
||
|
||
|
||