Author: M.V. Kamath
Publication: The Free Press Journal
Date: June 13, 2002
URL: http://www.samachar.com/features/130602-fpj.html
Who do the western powers - not
to speak of Japan - think they are fooling? Do they really believe there
is going to be a war between Pakistan and India? If the United States which
has stationed some 6,000 of its soldiers on the strategic border between
Pakistan and Afghanistan and has obtained rights to use several of Pakistan's
airfields at will wants to, it can lock up all of Islamabad's nuclear bombs,
if not Musharraf himself, and ask Pakistan to behave itself. Instead of
doing so, the United States has taken to the cheap way of spreading fear
in the world of a nuclear holocaust in south Asia.
The US, the British and several
other governments have advised their nationals to leave India. Leave India?
For what? Lest the people are instantly incinerated by a nuclear bomb?
There is no panic anywhere in India; not in Delhi; Not in Bombay, reportedly
the very first city to be targeted. Not even in Rajasthan and Gujarat,
not to speak of Punjab, which are border states. Then why this needless
panic-mongering? Two answers are possible. One is to tell Pakistan that
a war is imminent and that it might be decimated by India. The other is
to blackmail India into doing what the western powers want it to do. Washington
and London, Tokyo and Lisbon must know by now that India is not going to
submit to political blackmail, come what may. India has lived with crises
in the past and no doubt it can handle one more imposed crisis in the near
future.
If the United States wants to be
nice to Musharraf that does not have to be at the cost of India. If the
United States wants to patrol the border it can do so on the Pakistan side
of the LoC. India can hardly oppose that. The U.S. for example, can station
its troops in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. It can see for itself where the
ISI camps for training terrorists are and get them dismantled. Washington
surely knows that it is waging a war against terrorism to which Musharraf
is committed. And if there are terrorist camps in Pakistan they have to
be bombed and demolished, just as the United States is determinedly bombing
all suspected al Qaida camps in Afghanistan. And if the United States is
unwilling to do so, it should not complain if India proceeds to do so in
everybody's interests including those of Pakistan itself.
Is this a matter of argument? Musharraf
has now admitted that terrorists indeed are crossing the LoC to spread
murder and mayhem in Indian territory in Kashmir. He now wants other nations
- the United States, Britain, even Russia - to help him get out of his
quandary. As recently as June 6, satellite images sourced by the Hindustan
Times showed terrorist camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir buzzing with
activity. A report in the paper says: "The jehadi assembly line is still
in place. Credible intelligence inputs show terrorist launch pads - the
points at which terrorists are thoroughly briefed by ISI operatives about
their missions in India after their stints in terrorist training camps
- are also operational. The evidence suggests that terrorists already stationed
in Jammu & Kashmir and their mentors in Pakistan are not about to wind
down militancy in India. Transcripts of an intercept which are with the
Hindustan Times convey the impression that Musharraf's current crackdown
is temporary".
Now if a newspaper can have such
inside information, surely, so can the CIA - and in a vastly superior manner?
Don't US satellites take aerial photographs of that thin strip of land
between Pakistan and the LoC where some 3,000 terrorists are just waiting
for orders to move into India? According to the Hindustan Times information,
functional terrorist camps adjacent to the Pakistani Army's Chakothi cantonment
close to the LoC (grid reference MT 853 083) are operative. Also operative
is a launch pad (grid MT 569 086) on the banks of the Kishenganga. Why
can't Washington order Musharraf to close these - and other - camps immediately
or face the consequences? What is the point of patrolling the LoC, when
what is more relevant is to get the camps closed now and for ever? The
nations attending the very first summit of the Conference on Interaction
and Confidence Building Measures in Asia, namely Russia, China, Afghanistan,
Azerbaijan, Egypt, Iran, Israel, Kazakhistan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Palestine,
Tasikistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan have a duty to perform. They have to
demand that Pakistan, a co-signatory to the Declaration, should implement
it without fail or face the consequences. Terrorism is not eliminated by
words but by vigorous and meaningful action. Truth to say, Musharraf is
totally unreliable. He first instructs his representative at the United
Nations, Munir Akram, to state that Pakistan will use nuclear weapons if
push comes to shove.
When the western - indeed, the entire
world protests he says that of course, use of nuclear weapons is ridiculous
and one shouldn't even discuss it. Then, not long after - on June 4, in
fact - he changes his tune again and says that the possession of nuclear
weapons implies that there are circumstances under which they will be used,
though it is "irresponsible" for a leader to discuss it. What is irresponsible:
for a leader to discuss it or for the same leader to sanction the use under
undefined circumstances? Then there is that other question that needs to
be looked at. What right has Pakistan to speak on behalf of Muslims in
Jammu & Kashmir? According to Musharraf he is interested in the future
of all of Jammu and Kashmir - and not just of the Vale of Kashmir - because
there are Muslims also in Jammu and Ladkah.
By that token does he have the right
to speak in behalf f the Muslims in India as well? Who has given Musharraf
the divine right to speak up on behalf of all the Muslims in the sub-continent?
At this rate he might one day ask for autonomy to the Muslims in Sri Lanka
and Mynmar as well, which would be to reduce the Two Nations Theory to
its ultimate absurdity. But then do the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir -
in fact the people of the entire state - wish to join Pakistan? A survey
carried out by FACTS Worldwide (a part of the MORI International Group
of Companies) between April 20 and 28 indicates that 61 per cent of Kashmiris
believe they are politically and economically better off as Indian citizens.
According to the survey there are hardly any takers for Pakistan citizenship,
with only 6% preferring to be Pakistani nationals. Over 92% were opposed
to the division of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of religion and ethnicity
and in Srinagar itself 77 per cent of Muslims believed that infiltration
must end.
The survey trashes Musharraf's claims.
Importantly, 39% of Muslims accused Pakistan of fuelling militancy. To
what extent do these findings represent reality? One point made is that
the survey was conducted by an independent British organisation with no
axe to grind. To buttress this argument it is stated that the survey was
commissioned by one Lord Avebury who has shown considerable interest in
J & K affairs in the past and that the Managing Director of MORI, Peter
Hutton has strongly denied any interference by India. But there are many
who believe that what the British have done is to lay a careful trap in
which India innocently is expected to fall. Would the findings persuade
India to agree to a referendum? Delhi has refused to be naive in such matters.
What would be the point in holding a referendum when Jammu and Kashmir
had agreed to become part of India legally and morally? Besides, considering
that the survey has shown that the vast majority of people - especially
Muslims themselves - have shown their preference, a referendum is uncalled
for.
The bottomline is: the Kashmiris
are tired of militancy. Overall, 86% of the 850 people state-wide surveyed
wish that the militants must leave, for peace to return to the state. Half
the state's population, meanwhile, want a new political party and most
have lost faith in the Hurriyat. Considering that the surveyors spoke to
850 people over the age of 16, across 55 localities applying a random selection
procedure, the results are impressive indeed. The Kashmiris want polls,
not war. So where does this take India? The New York Times late in May
carried an article by a well-known political commentator, William Safire
who suggested the following, as steps for the US to take:
* Lean on India to agree to talks
with Pakistan about Kashmir after al Qaida is rooted out and terror attacks
cease from the Pakistan side of the LoC.
* Start pushing the concept of de
facto autonomy in divided Kashmir, as most of its residents want, without
upsetting the current claims of sovereignty by both India and Pakistan.
Besides, added Safire, the US must
ask China to help. If Musharraf won't listen, then the US, perhaps, will
have to take over Pakistan. All told that may not be a bad idea.
