 |
||
|
||
|
||
Dr Manmohan Singh’s elevation to the office of the Prime Ministership is a defining moment for India. For the first time in country’s recent history, the executive head as well as the constitutional head belong to the minority communities. It is India’s strength. This in itself should silence the debate about the future of secularism in the country. Those forces, which are trying to force social polarization in the name of secularism and are demonising the majority community are, in fact sowing the seeds of social discord and fascism. Only India’s enemies seem to benefit from it.
National security would continue to remain the single most important challenge for UPA government. The previous government played subservient to dictates from the Americans. There were genuine apprehensions that the Americans were getting a bit too intrusive on the developments pertaining to the Indo-Pak dialogue. Both Mr Vajpayee and Mr Advani were publicly advocating “Give and take” and “Compromises” to resolve the Kashmir issue. The BJP also sold a dangerous line that only this party was better placed to pursue a policy of “Give and Take”.
The Congress, in its role as opposition, was critical of NDA government on two counts. One, it had apprehensions that Islamabad frame work might involve significant departures from the Shimla Agreement of 1972 Secondly, the party felt that the Vajpayee government had re-opened territorial questions about J&K. Indian politics has its own dynamic, where the politicians in opposition and as ruling class members interchange their roles. It is too early to comment how the present government would tackle Kashmir issue with Pakistan.
Ceasefire along the LoC has made no impact on levels of terrorist violence. The attacks on BSF bus and tourists in Pahalgam, besides the killing of Moulvi Mushtaq, amply convey Pakistan’s intentions. In the first four months of this year 106 security forces personnel have been killed. It is up from 93 seen last year. This year number of terrorists killed is also less-320 as against 430 last year. The number of civilian killings remain the same-232: 246, indicating the high vulnerability of non-combatant civilian population as the premier soft target of terrorists.
There are all indications that Pakistan intends to continue using terrorism as an instrument of state policy, while regulating the levels and intensity of terrorism, based on its internal and international compulsions.
India should reconcile to the reality that in the foreseeable future Pakistan will continue to play the role of a spoiler in regional issues. In this context, our stakes in Kashmir are to control the situation on the ground to keep away the international focus and secondly, to bring down the cost of fighting insurgency within manageable limits. It is desirable to develop a deterrent against Pakistan by raising costs for it for sponsoring cross-border terrorism. Supporting covert groups in Sindh and PoK, like counter shelling of Neelam Valley (PoK), holds the potentiality of making Pakistan rethink.
UPA government’s litmus test, however, would be how it tackles the internal component of terrorism in Kashmir. Its initial policy statement on tackling the complex situation in Kashmir looks weak, incoherent and out of tune with the ground reality. Decision to repeal POTA, taken to address petty populism of its allies, is bound to send wrong signals. This is unexceptionable. There are numerous UN resolutions calling member states to ensure an adequate legal fram work to deal with terrorism.
On North-East, CMP says, “UPA government is determined to tackle terrorism, militancy and insurgency in the northeast as a matter of urgent national priority”. On J&K their is no reference to countering terrorism. It merely rehashes the so-called “healing touch” policy of the PDP government.
The total silence on ethnic-cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits in the CMP is also deafening. It is not only Gujrat and Delhi where the communal violence has told upon the affected victims. In Kashmir the entire Hindu minority has been forced out of its home through a process of ethnic-cleansing.
India’s tragedy is that its Kashmir
policy remains hostage to the lobbyists; there is no institutional appraisal
of threats and national interests. Dr Manmohan Singh is a man with good
intentions. Can he give a new direction to the national security policy
and stamp out the threats India faces to its sovereignty and territorial
integrity? We wish him good luck.
|
||
|
||
|
||