Their Feudal Lords
Surendra Munshi
The Telegraph
June 28, 1999
Title: Their Feudal Lords
Author: Surendra Munshi
Publication: The Telegraph
Date: June 28, 1999
Just before his visit to India, the foreign minister of Pakistan,
Sartaj Aziz, said in Islamabad that while his country had always
respected the line of control, India had always violated it. He moved
a resolution in Pakistan's national assembly that was unanimously
adopted. It condemned the "unprovoked" shelling, rocketing and air
intrusions by India into Pakistan's side of the LoC. The resolution
also deplored the repression that was unleashed on the people of
Kashmir, and it reiterated the continued political, moral and
diplomatic support of Pakistan to the struggle of the Kashmiri people.
And then came the handing over to India of mutilated and disfigured
bodies of six Indian soldiers who were held captive by Pakistan for a
month. When India decided to show restraint and to go ahead with the
scheduled talks between the two foreign ministers, Aziz came to India
and refused to acknowledge any role in the intrusions that had taken
place in Kargil. He saw in these intrusions Kashmiri mujahedin
fighting their own war. Believing in the "sanctity" of the Shimla
agreement, he asked India to halt heavy shelling and air-strikes to
defuse the tension in Kargil.
India had already released by then the transcript of telephone
conversations between the Pakistan army chief and his deputy that were
believed to have taken place on May 26 and 29. It is clear from these
conversations that the military establishment has kept the Pakistani
prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, the foreign minister, Aziz, and the
foreign secretary, Shamshad Ahmed, in the picture, laying down the
course of action and expecting Aziz to act as dictated.
His brief was to keep the option of dialogue open without giving any
commitment on the military situation. He was not to even accept a
cease-fire. As far as the LoC is concerned, doubts were raised to the
advantage of Pakistan and the dispute was given the colour of an
Indian attack on their side of the LoC. Did the Mi-17 helicopter fall
in their area? "No, sir," said Lieutenant-General Mohammed Aziz to his
chief. 'This has fallen in their area. We have not claimed it. We have
got it claimed through the mujahedin". He had said earlier that "the
scruff (tooti) of their [militants'] neck is in our hands".
The story about Pakistan's deception and doublespeak goes back to the
earliest days. Tribal raiders invaded Jammu and Kashmir in 1947 for
whom Pakistan refused to own any responsibility till its involvement
and the direct participation of its regular army could no longer be
denied. The brutality of that period is still remembered in Kashmir,
as is the sacrifice of the local hero, Sherwani, in resisting the
attack. Even M.K. Gandhi, the apostle of peace, could not overlook the
role of Pakistan, nor deny the responsibility of the Indian army in
defending Kashmir from external attack.
A ceasefire line came into being under the direction of the United
Nations in early 1949. Pakistan honoured it by continued violations.
In 1965 infiltrators were used yet again in an attempt to take over
Kashmir. When this too failed, the CFL was restored by the Tashkent
accord of the Indian prime minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, and the
Pakistani president, Ayub Khan.
In 1971, during the Bangladesh war, Pakistan again opened the front in
Jammu and Kashmir and it proved costly for it. After the surrender of
Pakistani forces in Bangladesh, a ceasefire was declared. This led to
the Shimla accord that was signed in 1972, incorporating an LoC. This
line was drawn on maps and defined in words, duly agreed upon and
jointly signed. Both countries resolved by the accord to respect each
other's territorial integrity and sovereignty and to abstain from
interference in each other's internal affairs. Both sides further
agreed to respect the LoC and to refrain from threat or the use of
force in violation of the line. Pakistan has abused this accord in
many ways all these years.
Yet Pakistan has been able to get away with all its doublespeak. It is
only now that it finds itself exposed internationally. Overwhelming
evidence points to its direct role in the undeclared war in Kargil
that has required much advanced planning. The Pakistani army appears
to have admitted after weeks of denials through its spokesman,
Brigadier Rashid Qureshi, that its soldiers have been involved all
along in the battle. It has owned up to what has been aptly termed,
its "great Kargil lie".
Statements from Washington, Moscow, Cologne and Berlin indicate that
Pakistan has not been able to sell its story this time. The United
States president, Bill Clinton, has asked Sharif to pull out of
Kargil. There are reports the US may go public with more evidence of
the direct involvement in Kargil of the government of Pakistan, its
army and intelligence services. That the Kargil crisis is the creation
of the mujahedin has not been accepted.
Why has Pakistan indulged in this adventure? It has been argued that
the Pakistani game plan is to open the whole question of the
territories so that the LoC may be altered. Through the appearance of
a positional dispute an attempt is being made to raise a territorial
dispute. Other reasons that have been noted are gaining strategic
locations, controlling the important Srinagar-Leh highway, blocking
Indian access to Siachen and creating a new route for infiltration
into the Kashmir valley. Yet another reason noted is that an attempt
is being made to bring back Kashmir as an international issue, all the
more important in view of the normalcy that has been returning to the
valley.
All these reasons are plausible. Yet this move has to be seen in its
proper context. It will be a mistake to consider this undeclared war
as a replacement for the proxy war Pakistan has been carrying out in
the Kashmir valley. It has to be emphasized that this war is meant to
bolster that proxy war, primarily through the infusion of fresh
mercenaries with more advanced weapons.
These are then two wars that Pakistan has waged against India over
Kashmir. It has systematically tried to keep the proxy war alive by
sending infiltrators from outside and also by creating terrorists from
within. The act of creating terrorists within has been carried out by
terror and temptation, thus acting on the primary instincts of fear
and greed.
It is for anyone to see how weapons and money are flowing into the
valley. Pakistani strategists understand well that a situation of
terror breeds terrorism, and this has been exploited in provoking
retaliations from the Indian forces. Moreover, systematic attempts
have been made to introduce the ideology of Muslim fundamentalism from
outside, an ideology that is alien to the culture of Muslim saints who
have flourished in Kashmir.
Pakistani compulsions are the compulsions of an oligarchy dominated by
the top brass of the armed forces which rules in its own interest and
over which the people exert hardly any influence. This oligarchy has
learnt since the time of Ayub Khan to use democracy as a household
drudge to be dismissed at will. It has also learnt to use Islam as an
instrument of central power. This is an oligarchy of aggressive
Punjabis who constitute the dominant ethnic group of Pakistan and who
look upon other ethnic groups, including Kashmiris, with contempt. It
is in the interest of this oligarchy to keep the conflict with India
alive so that the prominence and privileges of the armed forces may be
protected.
Pakistan spends on military expenditure by way of percentage of gross
national product more than double of what India spends, while its
record with respect to expenditure on health and education is much
worse than that of India. Its finance minister, Ishaq Dar, has stated
that the defence budget may be further increased beyond the announced
10.9 per cent increase in the 1999-2000 budget, keeping an eye on the
existing scenario at the LoC.
To this oligarchy the Islamic state of Pakistan constitutes its
ideological justification and the Indian secular state a threat of
negation. Here are the true successors of the two-nation theory whose
greatest misfortune would be if India were to hand over Kashmir to
them on a platter. For then they would have to find other sources of
conflict to keep themselves in power.
(The author teaches sociology at the Indian Institute of Management,
Calcutta)
Back
Top
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2011, Dharma Universe.
|
|