Author:
Publication: PBS
Date: December 26, 2001
URL: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec01/confrontation_12-26.html
Betty Ann Bowser reports on the
latest in the escalating conflict between India and Pakistan. Gwen Ifill
gets three perspectives on the recent flare-up between the two nuclear-capable
countries and the possible consequences on the war against terrorism.
GWEN IFILL: We get three views on
the confrontation between India and Pakistan. Malik Zahoor Ahmad is a former
Pakistan diplomat. His last post, before retiring in 1999, was minister
of information at Pakistan's embassy in Washington. Sumit Ganguly is a
professor of Asian Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. He's written
extensively about the subcontinent, and was born in India. He's now a U.S.
citizen. And Dennis Kux is a retired State Department official who specialized
in South Asian affairs. He's now a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson
International Center, a Washington research organization. Professor Ganguly,
two wars have been fought over the fate of Kashmir. Are we on the verge
a third?
SUMIT GANGULY: We could possibly
be on the verge of a third, especially if the rhetoric from both sides
keep ratcheting up. There is a real danger of miscalculation and misjudgment,
and thereby war. However, that said, I think that the possibility of people
deliberately going to war is somewhat small, because of the extraordinary
physical costs and the material costs that are involved in going to war.
GWEN IFILL: Mr. Ahmad, what's your
take on that? Is India's rhetoric a prelude to war? MALIK ZAHOOR
AHMAD: Well, I don't think that there's a danger of world war. But there's
certainly a danger of war between India and Pakistan.
Both sides now the rhetoric has
gone up, but both sides say that we don't want war. But when Pakistan says
that we don't want war, I agree and I understand because Pakistan is ...
it is not because Pakistan is a saint; it is because Pakistan now cannot
afford a war, its hands are already full with Afghanistan and the situation
in that part of the world.
But what Indians are doing, that
surprises me, because this incident was not that serious an issue to do.
What they have done, for example, they have --.
GWEN IFILL: Are you suggesting that
what happened at the Indian parliament didn't deserve this kind of response?
MALIK ZAHOOR AHMAD: Absolutely.
Because it's kind of a knee-jerk reaction.
This happened last time I think
in 1965 and then again in 1971 -- two extreme points in our history. This
time, although I have sympathy for Indians, the attack on the parliament
building, but that is not the only incident that has taken place there.
GWEN IFILL: Let me ask Professor
Ganguly to respond to that. Are we taking about rhetoric and overreaction?
SUMIT GANGULY: I completely disagree
that this is an overreaction. I think the reaction from India has actually
been extraordinarily restrained. How would we feel here in the United States
if terrorists came and tried to attack our national capital?
If terrorist, if a terrorist group
based in a neighboring country were to come and attack our national capital
and the two houses of Congress, I dare say our response would be somewhat
more than what the Indians have done.
What the Indians have done by calling
back the Indian ambassador, is actually a fairly anodyne movement as far
as diplomatic relations go. They could take far tougher measures than they
have thus far. I could give you an entirely any of measures they could
consider resorting to.
GWEN IFILL: So Mr. Ahmad, where
does that leave us right now? Is this a place where there's a standoff
in at least the rhetoric?
MALIK ZAHOOR AHMAD: Well, I think
two things. One is what Pakistan has done is, they said okay, give us the
leaders and India said no. Pakistan said okay let's have a joint inquiry
into it and India said no. Americans said you give Packistan some evidence,
they said no. Americans said let FBI investigate the issue, they said no.
Now, okay, no.
Then what you want to do, war? Go
ahead with it. The point is that Pakistan is no Afghanistan. And India
is no United States of America.
U.S. role and response GWEN IFILL:
Well, let's talk about the United States of America's role in this.
Mr. Kux, Washington has been watching
nervously, Colin Powell is making phone calls today trying to decide what
the role should be.
DENNIS KUX: The U.S. has already
taken a role, the U.S. came out very strongly after these Dec. 13 attacks
on the Indian parliament, condemning them, and last week the president
put one of the organizations that the Indians believed carried out these
attacks, the Lashkar-e-Taiba, on one of the terrorist lists.
The president then said he expected
Pakistan would take action against these groups.
And today the -- Secretary Powell
announced that we were putting both of the organizations on really the
top terrorist list, if you will, putting them in the al-Qaida category.
So in a sense we're leaning on Pakistan,
we're leaning on Musharaff very hard to put the lid on these groups, which
is really what India wants.
India, and here, with all respect,
Malik, I disagree with you, I think this is not a trivial thing. Trying
to blow up the nation's capital and kill the leaders of the nation is something
awful.
GWEN IFILL: But let me interrupt
for a second. How much of the nervousness of the United States is centered
around the nuclear capability of both of these countries and how much of
it is centered around the fact that the U.S. in its war on Afghanistan
so much needs peace in that region.
DENNIS KUX: It's three factors,
you have the war in Afghanistan, and obviously if India and Pakistan go
to war it's going to be very hard for Pakistan to continue its cooperation.
The second point is that India and
Pakistan go to war, it could conceivably, even if they don't wish it to,
to escalate interest a nuclear conflict, it could happen - through inadvertence,
just through circumstances.
Finally the U.S. is very interested,
the Bush administration is very interested in improving relations with
India over the long term, and it knows it has a double standard on terrorism,
saying when we're the target, we the United States are the target, then
you can hit them back, but if India is the target, oh, no, you've got to
be calm, you've got to be quiet.
You're going to have problems in
establishing a longer-term relationship with India.
GWEN IFILL: Professor Ganguly, how
significant were the actions the United States has taken or that Pakistan
has take then the arrests of the leaders of these two groups, of the freezing
of the assets, even none of these groups seem to have U.S. assets -- how
significant is all of this?
Past conflicts reigniting
SUMIT GANGULY: I agree with Dennis
completely, that the most recent decision of today by Secretary of State
Colin Powell to put the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed on the - FTO
-- Foreign Terrorist Organization, this will certainly give the foreign
ministry in New Delhi an opportunity to go to the Indian people and say
look, the United States is taking us seriously, they probably should have
done this a lot earlier, but better late than never, this is a significant
step.
Obviously the U.S. Is maintaining
a degree of moral consistency in terms of the war on terrorism. Pakistan's
detention and this, by the way, is something very peculiar to India, Pakistan
and certain countries which have inherited a British tradition, this notion
of preventive detention where you detain somebody on suspicion of certain
acts they may or may not have committed because they could contribute to
public disorder, that such an act also exists in India.
And people are routinely detained
under it. This really does not amount, as far as I'm concerned, to a hill
of beans.
If Pakistan is really serious, they
should hand over Masood Azhar, who had been languishing in an Indian prison
and had been released as a consequence of certain terrorist demands - the
demands that ensued when an Indian airliner was hijacked and Masood was
released as part of the bargain, then Masood Azhar showed up in Pakistan
and started to make speeches.
GWEN IFILL: Let me give Mr. Ahmad
a chance to respond to what you said about Masood Azhar. How important
is it that he is being detained?
MALIK ZAHOOR AHMAD: It's very important
to detain him, and right now this is the maximum any government could do.
The problem with India is, and I'm very sorry with Professor Ganguly, I
would expect professor to be more academic and more impartial, he's more
speaking as if he's a representative of the Indian government.
I'm no longer with the government
of Pakistan -- I don't... The point here is that India all of a sudden,
unfortunately, all roads lead us to 9-11. The Sept. 11 has changed the
course of international relations.
GWEN IFILL: Has it also changed
the challenges for the President Mushareff and the relationship with the
United States?
MALIK ZAHOOR AHMAD: It has changed
everything, and the problem with India is, and this is what The New York
Times said a couple of days ago, they said that India has been successful
in, at that time with these Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed --their
assets were frozen by the U.S. Government and The New York Times said that
India has been able to accomplish...
New relations post-Sept. 11
GWEN IFILL: I know the point you're
trying to make about India, but I'm really curious about the challenges
for Pakistan. Does Pakistan have unique challenges since Sept. 11 in this
dispute, which is intractable and so many years old?
MALIK ZAHOOR AHMAD: Absolutely,
this is what I was going to tell. That India is not trying to copy America.
India wants Pakistan to treat her as other states in the region. That is
probably not acceptable to Pakistan.
GWEN IFILL: Mr. Kux?
DENNIS KUX: I don't think -- that's
true maybe in a broader sense of but I think that 9-11 has really presented
a new situation for Pakistan, because Pakistan before 9-11 was heading
down the road to fundamentalism if you will towards a theocratic state,
and one of the reasons was what the government of Pakistan, because of
its support of the Taliban, because of its support of proxy war in Kashmir
against India, was giving a lot of space to these terrorist organizations.
Well, it, Mushareff first did a
180 against the Taliban, so he cut off that bit of fundamentalism. And
now, and here I think India needs to be patient, India gives him time,
I think he may well be able to do a 180 against these other terrorist groups.
It's not that he's going to change the policy on Kashmir.
The rhetoric will remain. But he
may change some of the actions. And it's this use of terrorism that India
has objected to.
GWEN IFILL: Professor Ganguly, how
about that?
SUMIT GANGULY: I completely agree
with Dennis. Obviously it would be unreasonable for India, for Pakistan
to give up its support for Kashmir.
This is one thing that is a fix
of Pakistan, the Pakistani elite remains absolutely fixated on Kashmir
and despite the fact they have initiated four wars and have lost all four,
they still simply cannot afford to give up on this issue.
This is one thing that unifies much
of the Pakistani elite. That said, certainly support for terrorism is intolerable,
and 9-11 if it hasn't changed that, should change it in fairly short order.
Also I should remind Ambassador
Malik that an ad-hominum attack does not enhance the matter of discourse
- that merely attacking my persona does not do very much. Perhaps he could
point out where I my err in terms of my information.
GWEN IFILL: That said we're going
to have to leave it there, because I don't think we're going to solve this,
but we scratched the surface. Thank you, gentlemen, for joining us.
