Author: Vinod Mehta
Publication: Outlook
Date: June 3, 2002
Introduction: What if we did defy
the US? Will it impose sanctions on us? Will US Marines land on Raisina
Hill and arrest George Fernandes?
At one of Robert Blackwill's more
amiable Round Table dinners, the American ambassador to Lutyens' Delhi
spoke with some passion on how India and the United States were like Siamese
twins in their commitment to fight terrorism. "The Bush administration
is the best US government India could hope for. If we fail you in your
fight against terrorism you have good reason to complain, but we will not
fail you," he declared grandly. The ambassador then went on to detail the
kind of pressure Bush would put on Musharraf to force the General to redeem
his pledge of cleaning up his country. He left his guests in little doubt
that despite Pakistan's critical assistance in Afghanistan, the US would
cut no deals with Musharraf over Kashmir.
The notion that Musharraf could
dare to deceive the US, according to Blackwill, was laughable. In return,Mr
Blackwill required complete no-questions-asked Indian support for President
Bush's exertions to root out terror from places as various as North Korea,
Iran, Iraq and Syria. I was not, I hasten to add, exclusively privileged
to hear the ambassador's views on India's concerns in Kashmir, he repeated
the reassurance endlessly at his Round Table.
I was reminded of Blackwill's declaration
as this country debated with increasing rage and frustration the narrowing
range of India's options. The government appeared ready and willing for
effective action, the Indian public was ready and willing, the political
class favoured retaliation, the defence forces required only clear instructions.
For once, there existed rare unanimity in the country.
Only one impediment stood in the
way. The United States. It wanted us to show more restraint, wanted us
to give Musharraf more time, wanted us to recognise that the General in
Islamabad was badly cornered and therefore vulnerable, wanted us to appreciate
that Musharraf was India's best friend in Pakistan. They sympathised with
our grief, understood our compulsions, condemned in "the strongest possible
terms" the "outrages", yet they requested, urged and even threatened India
to continue taking the serial cross-border punishment with civilisational
stoicism.
I don't think I have misread the
signs. Currently, the overwhelming view in the country is that without
the consent of Uncle Sam, India should not, indeed could not, respond militarily.
The prospect of the world's largest democracy acting independently-that
is, against US wishes-is inconceivable. Sober, wise and experienced policy-makers
insist the very idea of an offensive strike without prior approval of George
Bush, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice is fanciful.
Thus, all our energies and efforts
should be directed towards convincing the White House that what is okay
for George Bush and Ariel Sharon should be okay for A.B. Vajpayee. The
hypocrisy of the US position on fighting terror in Kashmir is so brazen
that to dwell on it is to merely repeat the self- evident.
I am not naive or simple-minded
enough to underestimate the influence or power of the United States. Not
a leaf moves on our planet without permission from the sole superpower.
In our own tussle with Pakistan, the US capacity-as demonstrated during
Kargil-to shove and push Islamabad is huge. No one understands that better
than President Musharraf. He turned tail with lightning speed when Bush
announced after 9/11: "You are with us or against us."
Given that the sole superpower in
the world is also the sole arbiter in all international disputes, I wish
to introduce a blasphemous idea. What would happen if India defied the
United States? What would happen if India went ahead and exercised its
"appropriate" option? What would happen if, say, India crossed the LoC?
Should we not at the very least examine the pros and cons of defiance before
we bow to conventional wisdom?
It is not as if we are moving into
uncharted territory. In 1971, Indira Gandhi successfully challenged Richard
Nixon's infamous "tilt" even as the Seventh Fleet sniffed ominously around
our shores. Why, just four years ago, the BJP government (which has ministers
who flaunt their proximity to the US as a badge of honour) covertly exploded
a bomb much to the displeasure of the world's only superpower. To use the
piquant phrase, the heavens did not fall. (By the way, where are the votaries
of the swadeshi bomb? Do they realise their folly now as Pakistan taunts
us with "first strike", making a laughing stock of our 3 to 1 superiority
in conventional arms?)
Will the Bush administration impose
punitive sanctions on us if the option we decide angers them? Will US Marines
land on Raisina Hill and arrest George Fernandes? Naturally, some deft
diplomacy will be needed and we can expect a long line of US officials
pounding the doors of South Block. Remember, India and the US are, or so
the present American President tells us, "natural allies". The world's
largest and second largest democracies can publicly quarrel, can publicly
disagree, but beyond verbal reprimand there is not much the Bush administration
can do. Who knows we might even go up in its esteem.
There is, of course, one area where
help will be required. India and Pakistan are two nuclear states and one
of those states has threatened to press the button if its "survival is
in question". Fortunately, the United States has as much at stake as India
to ensure that Pakistan does nothing globally catastrophic. Even our estranged
neighbour, despite his bluff and bluster, is unlikely to go all the way.
War-mongering? No. I am not pleading
for a full-scale war. Neither do I necessarily advocate a "reverse Kargil"
or any other variation. I am suggesting that for the world's largest democracy
with a legitimate grievance, this paranoid fear of the United States is
both shameful and humiliating.
Finally, the option we adopt could
range from dialogue resumption, to diplomatic offensive, to economic squeeze,
to war. But that option should be of our choosing. If the Americans don't
like it, that's their problem.
