Hindu Vivek Kendra
A RESOURCE CENTER FOR THE PROMOTION OF HINDUTVA
   
 
 
«« Back
No compromise with Pak: it will not work

No compromise with Pak: it will not work

Author: M. V. Kamath
Publication: The Free Press Journal
Date: June 19, 2003

So much has been said and written about settling the Jammu & Kashmir issue once and for all but the general public has not a clue as to what is happening on that front. Talks at various levels have been held. Prime Minister Vajpayee has met many world leaders who have given lip service and praise to India. His Adviser Mishra has met US senior officials and has even been received big deal by President Bush right in the Oval Room itself. And now Deputy Prime Minister L. K. Advani, too, has had the opportunity to meet them all. But across-the-border terrorism hasn't stopped and India is practically where it is a continuing target of Pakistan-supported jihadists.

Pakistani promises of stopping terrorism has become quite a joke. And top American officials obviously do not realize that Musharraf is thumbing his nose at them. Either they have no control over the Pakistani leader or they don't want to exercise it. Either way India has no option but to go on its own to handle the situation. Meanwhile India is being badgered by some of its own pseudo-intellectuals to agree to make compromises.

No one had yet spelt out the nature of these compromises. What is India supposed to do? Hand over Jammu & Kashmir to Pakistan on a golden platter? It is necessary to remind everyone that at the instance of the then Prime Minister P. V. Narasimha Rao, the Indian Parliament had unanimously passed a resolution claiming Pakistan- Occupied Kashmir as part of India. There is no way India can now backtrack on it unless Parliament itself moves a second resolution to that effect. That must be clearly understood. Nobody on earth can force India to give away even a square centimeter of what legitimately belongs to it. So what is the compromise that India is supposed to make? Alternately, what are the possibilities open to India at this stage?

Consider these:

India refuses to make any kind of compromise and demands the unconditional return of land presently occupied by Pakistan. India concedes the overlordship of Pakistan over the territory it currently occupies and demands that it agree to accepting the Line of Control as the international boundary. India agrees to the trifurcation of Jammu & Kashmir, takes over Jammu & Ladakh and grants full autonomy to the Vale. India demands that all of Jammu & Kashmir (including Pakistan- Occupied Kashmir) be reconstituted as one state with its own constitution, flag and parliament while retaining control over the state's foreign policy and defence. India agrees to hold a referendum in Jammu & Kashmir under United Nations auspices to let the people decide whether they want to be a free and independent state or remain part of (a) Pakistan or (b) India. The question of independence has never been mooted in the past, though. India decides to maintain the status quo as of now and warns Pakistan and the world that any attempt to change it through terrorism will be adequately met. India warns Pakistan that if it continues to give support to terrorists whether overtly or covertly, it will have to face the inevitable consequences even if that ends in a nuclear conflict. India and Pakistan agree to form a South Asian confederation in which a neutral but reunited Jammu & Kashmir will be separate but an integrated part. Instead of insisting that there is no dispute, India concedes that there is one, and Pakistan agrees not to press it in all sincerity for the next 25/35/50 years. Pakistan realises that partition of India in 1947 was a ghastly mistake and that in the larger interests of peace and prosperity it would do well to rejoin the parent country. India conspires with the United States to wage a short but terminal war against Pakistan with the United States locking up Pakistan's nuclear arsenal before India strikes. India is willing to make some minor adjustments in favour of Pakistan if that can close fifty years of confrontational politics.

Ingenious political pundits, no doubt, can suggest even more imaginative alternatives but the point is that the Indian people should know what is going on. As of now they are lamentably in the dark. Statements and counterstatements are being issued almost on a daily basis by Indian and Pakistani officials that lead us nowhere. On June 5, for instance, Pakistan's Prime Minister Zafrullah Khan Jamali made it plain that the Kashmir "dispute'' cannot be resolved by converting the Line of Control into a ``permanent'' border. As he put it: ``A peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue could not be as simplistic as recognising the Line of Control as a permanent border''. Even earlier, the Pakistani Information Minister, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed had said that the ``struggle'' of the last 55 years would be futile if Islamabad were to agree to conversion of the the LoC into a permanent border. So where do we go from here?

Should Pakistan remain adamant and refuse to come to terms with India, then Delhi will have no other alternative but to take such measures as will contain Pakistan-aided terrorism. But then these will now have to be ruthless. India has put up with enough aggression all these years with patience and fortitude, but should talks finally break down, then it should feel free to turn the heat on Pakistan in many ways.

Pakistan will have to be weakened to the point when it will finally have come to terms with India on Indian terms. India missed out a golden opportunity at Simla when Indira Gandhi, under the guidance of her advisers gave in to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's importunities. India not only agreed to free some 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war but was over generous in giving back land India had taken. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took India for a ride. India never learnt a lesson from Pakistan's perfidy. In an excess of zeal Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee made a trip to Lahore even as Pakistani forces were secretly taking possession, of hills in the Kargil Sector. And the man who was organising the aggression was Pervez Musharraf. How can India ever trust this man? And how can the United States ever ask India to trust him? We have been shown to be a naive nation thrice before.

Believing that we will get justice from the UN Security Council, Nehru took the Kashmir case to that world body only to be neatly trapped. India has paid for that monumental folly since 1948. Are we still going to trust the United Kingdom and the United States both of which were fully responsible for dragging India into the Kashmir mire for over half a century? If Pakistan wants to be treated as an enemy India should grant it that privilege and fashion its reaction on that basis.

For over a decade Pakistan hoped that by administering ``a thousand cuts'' India could be brought to its knees, considerably weakened. India should now return the compliment and learn to administer a thousand cuts on Pakistan. Indian militiamen must carry out continuous raids across the international border to `liberate' Sind. And just as the ISI is supporting rebel movements in India's north east, India must reciprocate in equal measure by supporting independence movements in Sind and Baluchistan.

In her book `Pakistan: In the Shadow of Jihad and Afghanistan', Mary Ann Weaver, a former correspondent of The New Yorker quotes Mir Ghaus Bux Bizengeo, a distinguished Baluch leader as saying that Baluchistan wants autonomy. According to him Baluch students want independence for their state. He told Ms Weaver: ``The students, the young people, they're frustrated and angry and have become increasingly vocal of late''. Another leader told Miss Weaver: ``Baluchistan, especially Makran, could become another Afghanistan, another Beirut''.

India has a deliberately exploit such a situation. If Pakistan thinks it can deliver a thousand cuts to India, India should reciprocate the favour with equal zeal. It is in Indian interests to weaken Pakistan. And the United States has hardly any right to complain. In past decades it has given full aid and comfort to Islamabad in its evil deeds. If Baluchistan is on the verge of revolt, so is Sind. When Ms Weaver asked G.M. Syed why the Sindhis are so angry with Islamabad he had told her bluntly" ``Because we are dominated by Zia's Punjabis''. This was said many years ago. But Sind remains essentially alienated from the rest of Pakistan.

 In his idealism Atal Behari Vajpayee has extended his hand of friendship to Pakistan. It is a futile gesture. Pakistan wants everything and will not be satisfied with compromises. It wants all of Jammu & Kashmir and will not be satisfied with anything less. It wants India to give and it will be happy to take. Compromises with Pakistan will not work and will never work. Meanwhile the people have a right to know what is going on behind their backs. It is all very well to say that negotiations cannot be carried on in full public view and diplomacy calls for a certain amount of secrecy. Up to a point, yes. But it would be unwise for any government to take the public by surprise or hoist an arrangement on it without its approval. The government stands warned.
 


Back                          Top

«« Back
 
 
 
  Search Articles
 
  Special Annoucements