HVK Archives: Pollyannas all - Appeasing Pakistan to no avail
Pollyannas all - Appeasing Pakistan to no avail - Times of India
By M.D. NALAPAT
()
25 June 1996
Title : Pollyannas All
Appeasing Pakistan to No Avail
Author : By M.D. NALAPAT
Publication : Times of India
Date : June 25, 1996
THIRTY years ago, the then Pakistani President agreed in
writing to "exert all efforts to create good-neighbourly
relations" with India and "not to have recourse to force,
and to settle disputes through peaceful means,"
especially over Kashmir. Along with the then Prime
Minister of India, President Ayub agreed that "relation
between India and Pakistan shall be based on the
principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of
each other" and that both sides would "discourage any
propaganda directed against the other". Further, Pakistan
would join with India in restoring "economic and trade
relations, as well as cultural exchanges". =
After Pakistan got what it wanted, which was the Punjab
lands captured by India and the Haji Pir pass, the
Tashkent Agreement was forgotten. It was as dead as the
1972 Simla Agreement became after Pakistan got back its
PoWs and land. In both agreements, India conceded the
gains of war in exchange for the promise of peace. It is
a measure of the gullibility of South Block that even
after 50 years of broken promises, there is still
euphoria whenever Islamabad puts forward another
proposal that demands concessions today in exchange for
peace tomorrow. Indeed, there need not even be a formal
proposal from Pakistan for a gushing response from New
Delhi. Even a press report - subsequently contradicted -
is enough for a chorus of hallelujas from the Pollyannas
of Delhi, as the illusory grant of MFN status to India
showed. Naturally, India has not taken Pakistan's refusal
to abide by international agreements to the WTO. =
Tough Talk
Or perhaps we are being unfair in forgetting the stream
of tough talk emanating from New Delhi whenever there is
a public outcry against Indian cosseting of Pakistan. Mr
P.V. Narasimha Rao, who had the same effect on Indian
defence preparedness as Neville Chamberlain did on
Britain in the final years before Hitler invaded western
Europe, talked about the "unfinished business" of
partition, which was the recapture of Pakistan- occupied
Kashmir. There-after, he froze the Prithvi missile and
scuttled the Agni programme. Sadly, not only did Pakistan
not halt its support to terrorism in Kashmir, but the
United States - confident of Mr Rao's meekness - once
again began sending armaments to Islamabad.
For the past 44 years the U.S. has been giving weapons to
Pakistan, each time insisting that the arms were not
directed against India. This mantra has once again been
chanted, despite the fact that U.S. arms to Pakistan
(barring a few supplied to Afghan freedom-fighters
during the Soviet occupation) have only been used
against India. Given this background, it is rather tame
of the government to merely lodge a formal "protest" when
confronted with evidence of Pakistan deploying Chinese
missiles. Had India been an independent power, the
Chinese and Pakistani envoys would have been called in
and warned that diplomatic ties may not survive such
actions. The U.S. envoy would have been asked why his
government was pretending that the CIA could not
distinguish between sewer pipes and nuclear missiles. =
Constant Criticism
During the 1950s and the 1960s, there was constant - and
often merited - criticism in the west about India's
sermonising. After Mr Rao took office, it is the west
which is preaching to New Delhi, especially about
Kashmir. Envoys of countries from Italy to Canada visit
the valley in a series of vice regal trips. During this
time they naturally expect that the local administration
will suspend all other work to be at their back and call.
Usually they are. With each visit, these diplomats stoke
the fundamentalist illusion of secession.
Keeping in view the presumed admiration of the Indian
"masses" for Sonia Gandhi, one hesitates to ask the
Italian envoy what the reaction in his country would be
if the Indian ambassador in Rome went to mafia hideouts
in Sicily and expressed distress over the many dynamic
young men of the Cosa Nostra who have been sent to jail
by his government. Perhaps one should instead ask the
U.K. envoy how he would react to an Indian mission to
"understand the socioeconomic problems" that drive the
IRA and its political wing to such "moderate
democratic" acts bombings. Strangely, the very BBC that
is so solicitous about terrorists Kashmir appears to
disapprove of the IRA's much milder activities in
Manchester. Clearly, for the BBC deploying the army in
Ulster is legitimate, while using it in Kashmir is not. =
These days it is difficult to avoid western "conflict-
resolution specialists" who ask India to cede Kashmir
"for the sake of peace". Astonishingly, these specialists
have not as yet suggested that the U.S. cede Florida to
Cuba. That would certainly warm Mr Fidel Castro to
Washington. After all, "peace demands a few sacrifices".
Equally inexplicably, none of the western "arms control"
experts who demand that India desist from not just
nuclear weapons but rocket technology as well have
demanded that the U.S., France and the U.K. should
destroy their own arsenals, in line with their advice to
India that "nuclear weapons and missiles are not needed
for defence"
During the confidence debate on the Gowda government, Mr
Vajpayee read out the foreign secretary's March 21
assertion that "we do not believe that the acquisition of
nuclear weapons is essential for national security,"
whereupon he was interrupted by Mr Rao and Mr I. K.
Gujral both of whom claimed that he was quoting out of
context. Clearly, Mr Vajpayee had not read through the
speech he was quoting. Had he done so, he could have
rebutted his critics by pointing out that in the very
next sentence the foreign secretary had admitted that "we
have followed a conscious decision in this regard," thus
making it clear that the reference applied to India.
Policy Perfected
The Rao government perfected a policy through which India
conceded the substance of the demands of the west while
pretending that it would not. Thus, in effect Mr Rao
permitted the internationalisation of Kashmir by allowing
any and every country to encourage the terrorists and
their front organisations by receiving them in their own
capitals and funneling money to them. All this has taken
place without a bleat from New Delhi. On NPT and CTBT,
India has got the worst of both worlds. Had it signed
both, many of the restrictions it has been facing on
transfer of technology may have ended. Not signing makes
sense only if India further develops its technology by a
series of nuclear explosions, exactly as the other five
nuclear powers have done. By neither signing nor testing,
this country has suffered the pain of technology
restrictions without the gain of testing.
In the case of missiles, while China has ensured that
Pakistan races ahead, the Rao government choked off
development in defensive systems by cutting back on
funds. Had the government privatised the nuclear power
industry or developed foreign markets for defence
equipment, this country would have been better able to
face a terrorist assault from a country that is fully
aware that New Delhi will not - in substance - punish it
for its actions.
Back
Top
|
