Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: December 5, 2000
Prime Minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee's current offer of a unilateral ceasefire in Kashmir has so drastically
and qualitatively altered the ground reality against India that one cannot
but fear that the countdown to the formal annexation of the state by Pakistan
has begun. Unless discerning citizens, political scientists, strategic
analysts, generals and former generals speak out loudly against this bartering
of national interests in return for nothing tangible, India's political
map could soon loose its distinguishing capstone.
The danger is very real
as the Congress, headed by rank outsider Sonia Gandhi, whose miniscule
comprehension of the Indian reality is legendary, cannot be expected to
play the role of a responsible opposition. In any case, the Signora's
current preoccupation is to consolidate her hold on the party organization
by winning over the disgruntled Jitendra Prasad faction.
Most parties in the NDA
alliance have an insular outlook (barring the Tamil parties' emotional
attachment to the Sri Lanka situation), and the Shiv Sena has unfortunately
agreed to moderate its opposition to the move. Yet, given the deafening
silence of the otherwise vociferous Sangh Parivar on an issue of such momentous
import, the inference is unavoidable that a major compromise of Indian
interests appears to be underway. The RSS' controversial proposal
to trifurcate Jammu & Kashmir, which critics decried as a move to separate
the Valley, suggests that the Parivar may have been acting in concert with
the government. Mr. Bal Thackeray would therefore do well to
reconsider his position on both the ceasefire and continued support to
the regime, while other political parties should give Kashmir the attention
it deserves.
What the BJP has done
- for which it shall be culpable in the bar of history - is to quietly
abandon without debate or warning the existing national consensus that
Kashmir is an inalienable, non-negotiable part of India, and that the only
thing we have to discuss (or fight) with Pakistan about is the recovery
of Occupied Kashmir. During the premiership of Mr. P.V.
Narasimha Rao, Parliament passed a unanimous resolution to this effect.
That resolution, it may be recalled, was initially proposed by the BJP
(then in opposition), but ultimately moved and adopted at the instance
of the Rao Government as it reflected the overwhelming national consensus
on the issue. If memory serves me right, even Mr. Mulayam Singh
Yadav was a Member of that House. My point is that the national consensus
is still with that resolution, and no one has honestly put another alternative
before the country.
The BJP has violated
that consensus stealthily. And it has added insult to injury by virtually
permitting third party mediation through the Clinton administration-backed
Pakistani-American Mansoor Ijaz. Newspapers give hints and suggestions
about a magical breakthrough in the form of trilateral talks between the
Indian Government, Pakistani Generals and Pak-sponsored militants.
The Kashmiri Pundits - those still in the beleaguered state, those in refugee
camps, and those in exile in other parts of the country - figure nowhere
in these talks. Nor does the will of the Indian people. For
whom then, are these talks proposed, to what end, and at whose instance?
This is the heart of
the matter. Under the foot soldiers of Akhand Bharat, Kashmir has
been virtually transformed into an issue of the Muslims and for the Muslims
(whether of India or Pakistan). A ceasefire offered during Ramzan
when it is well known that the fundamentalist groups always escalate violence
in this month is not just poor strategy, but a horrible betrayal of the
blood of Kashmiri Hindus and Hindus in the rest of the country who are
still being targeted by ISI-funded militants. The government has
compounded its folly by persisting with the ceasefire even after hardline
militant outfits ridiculed it on the ground that the first battle between
Muslims and infidels was fought in Ramzan. Security forces are looking
forward to the coming days with dread and foreboding.
Despite this being the
grim reality, the new Imam of Jama Masjid, a player in the Track II diplomacy,
has launched a tirade against former Governor Jagmohan for the developments
in Kashmir, while not uttering a single word against Pakistan and the terrorists.
He has spoken of peace, but not voiced a word of sympathy for the Kashmiri
Pundits who have been driven from home and hearth, or for Hindus and Sikhs
massacred since the ceasefire (The Indian Express, 1 December 2000).
Till date, not one Hindu of stature, in Government or otherwise, has come
forward to explain the peace initiative to the Indian people. On
the other hand, there are disturbing attempts being made at the instance
of the United States, to discredit the institution of the Indian Army through
stories insinuating that the Army is trying to resist civilian control.
We need to rebuff these reports sharply.
Given the alacrity with
which the United States has greeted the peace initiative, there is, to
my mind, little doubt that it is at the back of this foolish escapade.
The trouble with America is that notwithstanding its military might, it
is a poor strategic thinker, and frequently commits itself to a course
of action inimical to its own long-term interests. Its current troubles
with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, for instance,
are in large measure due to its funding and arming Pakistan to the teeth
in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Pakistan, as is
well known, used those funds and arms to create the Taliban in Kabul and
sponsor insurgency in India. While it would be understandable if
the United States sought India's help in containing the Taliban and saving
the Northern Alliance, it beats me how it can imagine that whetting Pakistan's
appetite in Jammu & Kashmir will serve to contain the Taliban and other
mullahs, either in Afghanistan or in Islamabad.
What is pertinent to
us, however, is why India has agreed to and embarked upon the current course
of action. The nation has a right to know what the trilateral talks,
or even initial talks with the terrorists, are expected to accomplish.
In the case of the militants, we need to know why the State is discussing
anything other than the terms of surrender. This is imperative since
it appears that more than a general amnesty to bring misguided youth back
to the national mainstream is being considered.
In the case of Pakistan,
we need to know if the Indian Government has conceded that Islamabad has
a legitimate claim to Kashmir. India cannot be so naïve as to
believe that this is not the way talks will be interpreted across the border.
It follows that if we nevertheless negotiate with Pakistan behind the backs
of the Indian people, we would be willing to concede something to it.
The nation has the right to know what; it also has the right to know what
India would get in return.
Something is seriously
wrong. India is being asked to disregard the failure at Lahore, the
treachery at Kargil, the humiliation at Kandahar, the cocktail of human
prawns at Amarnath, the streams of blood of selectively slaughtered Hindus,
Sikhs, police and military personnel in the Valley, for 'peace' with an
incorrigibly hostile neighbour. Even the audacious intrusion into
the New Delhi residence of the Chief of Naval Staff has not deterred the
government from pursuing its inane and ill-conceived ceasefire initiative.
Chamberlain lives in many guises.
