Author: A K Verma
Publication: Rediff.com
Date: November 3, 2009
URL: http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/nov/03/why-talks-with-pak-will-only-end-in-frustration.htm
The dialogue process is just too inadequate
to meet the challenges from Pakistan, writes former R&AW chief A K Verma.
A continuous pressure emanates from a segment
of Indian elite for maintaining a dialogue process with Pakistan, directly
or indirectly, for a solution of Indo Pak problems.
No doubt dialogue is always advisable between
any two contending parties and in the case of India and Pakistan has led to
many confidence building measures like the Indus Water Treaty, cross border
travel facilities and certain agreements in the nuclear field. But such dialogues
over several decades carried on directly or indirectly by government representatives
or by what are known as think tanks in the two countries have not been able
to make any headway on the core issues, one, to whom Kashmir belongs and,
two now, the total elimination of terror.
In the government to government dialogues
there were spikes which built up a mood of hope and expectations but these
ultimately got crushed by the hard rock of reality which is the perceived
bedrock of Pakistan.
The dialogue between think tanks and other
similar groups belonging to the media, academia and other well wishers have
rarely reached anywhere on account of a variety of reasons. The access of
such luminaries to wide segments of society, polity and the common man, in
the rural and urban sectors, has remained extremely limited. Often their judgments
are crony based, self serving or even addressed to the interests of those
who fund them.
A host of powerful groups that control the
destiny of the State or constitute public opinion in Pakistan remain well
beyond their reach. Apart from the military establishment of serving officers,
such clusters should include extremists, radicals, terror spinners, students,
hard core religious orthodox and bigoted clergy and the ordinary folks in
city slums and rural hinterland who all seek to have an opinion of their own
on Kashmir, India, religious nationalism and puritanism, and their desired
options, which fail to be given due prominence.
Successful dialogues between government to
government in which some measure of progress was achieved in the core issues
number only three in the bilateral history of the two countries. The first
was at Simla where Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, prime minister of Pakistan in 1972,
assured then Indian prime minister Indira Gandhi about recognising Indian
claims on Kashmir.
To be fair to Bhutto, on returning to Pakistan,
he started preparing the people of Pakistan through his speeches to expect
a change in the Pakistan's position on Kashmir. Public reactions indicated
confusion, consternation and finally complete opposition to whatever Bhutto
had in mind.
Bhutto had to discredit himself with Indira
Gandhi. He also stood discredited with the people of Pakistan. Some believe
that his journey to the gallows commenced in fact from this point.
The second attempt was by Zia-ul Huq, then
president of Pakistan, in 1988. The general had come to believe that confrontation
with India was costing heavy to the people of Pakistan in terms of absence
of development and economic progress and that a compromise should be sought
with India on key issues. He got his corps commanders from whom real power
emanates in Pakistan to support his thinking.
A new dialogue commenced between the two countries
through high level representatives, away from public glare and unknown to
the normal channels of communications. The dialogue resulted in some spectacular
meeting of minds on Siachen, general reduction in the level of armed forces
of the two countries, contours of an outline of a possible solution of the
Kashmir question etc.
At Indian insistence Pakistan forwarded to
India the proposed new delineation of actual contours along the Sal Toro ranges
in Siachen, on a GHQ survey of Pakistan map.
As steps were being taken to translate these
ideas from the top secret back channel to the official domain, the corps commanders
in Pakistan probably realised what an enormous shift in the balance of power
between the two countries would come about on the concessions being made and
how the military establishment in Pakistan will turn out to be the ultimate
loser in the process.
It is difficult to say what steps the corps
commanders took to stall the process which already had developed a momentum
of its own but the whole world knows that Zia died in a mysterious air crash
in August that year. The cause of the crash has never been disclosed.
Surprisingly, the existence of this dialogue
has been totally denied by subsequent Pakistani governments. There is now
not a scrap of paper in the government archives in Pakistan to provide proof
that such a dialogue did take place. The only solid evidence is the GHQ Survey
of Pakistan map received from Pakistan.
One of the visible manifestations of the good
that the dialogue created was the suo motto release of four Indian Sikh soldiers
who had defected to Pakistan earlier that year, misguided by Khalistani propaganda.
The coordinates of the area where the release
was to take place and the date of the release were determined by the Pakistani
representative and communicated to his Indian contact who passed on the information
to the BSF which picked up the four defectors from the identified spot.
The recapture of these soldiers was just a
bonus handed over by the Pakistani side to establish their bonafides. Khalistan
was not discussed at all during the dialogue.
This episode is reflective of the hard and
solemn reality of Pakistan. Power resides absolutely in the hands of the military
establishment there. No price, no sacrifice, is considered too great by them
to preserve their interests.
If a subjective, speculative and cynical conclusion
can be drawn, it will be that the dialogue process got two top powerful personalities
in Pakistan to lose their lives.
The third episode is equally telling, demonstrating
that the combined powers of the head of State and head of the military establishment
fall way short of challenges thrown up by public prejudices and religious
propensities.
President General Pervez Musharraf discovered
this when he ordered surrender of unlicensed weapons and registration of madrasas
in Pakistan soon after seizing power. The underlying clash was between the
military might and Islamic might. The former threw in the towel and beat a
hasty retreat.
So, when Musharraf promised to the US and
India that he would not allow the territory of Pakistan to be used for cross
border operations, the discerning knew that it would be a hollow promise as
it indeed proved to be
The military and the extremist establishments
were just not willing to abide by his diplomatic undertakings, underlying
once again the acute limits of the dialogue process and the capability of
any power centre in Pakistan to take unconventional decisions.
The Kerry Lugar enactment of the United States
Congress, just signed into a law by the US president, imposing conditonalities
on US civilian aid to Pakistan of $1.5 billion yearly for five years, provided
an occasion to the world to glimpse again Pakistani reluctance to mend its
ways.
The law, among other things, seeks to ensure
two red lines for the Pakistan establishment; one, the military should remain
under civilian control, and two, the territories of Pakistan should not be
allowed to be used for terror against neighbours.
The reactions of the military and the public
in general, including the elite, indicated that they had felt revolted by
such conditions. In other words, the ruling structure and public opinion in
Pakistan, by and large, spell out the message that they are unwilling to modify
their ways, even if this US aid brings a great deal of succour to their faltering
economy.
Apparently, starvation is preferred to withdrawal
of a policy of terrorism against neighbours. What hope can, therefore, be
entertained for any dialogue process to reach any meaningful end?
Such a mindset is not a product of recent
history. At least a millennium has gone by producing factors, contributing
to the psychology of this frame of mind. There are Pakistanis who believe
Pakistan started incubating when the first Muslim stepped on the shores of
the Indian subcontinent. Muslim encroachments and pillaging expeditions into
India and subsequent establishment of Muslim ruling dynasties in India sparked
off dreams that the whole of India should rightfully be ruled by Muslims.
Nobody in his right senses could agree to
such an absurd proposition but such formulations have been voiced again recently
by leaders of terrorist organisations in Pakistan like the Lashkar-e-Tayiba.
For them creation of Pakistan is just an intermediate milestone in the march
of history.
Events in Pakistan since its constitution
when its founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah had envisaged Pakistan as a secular State,
to present times when radical Islam seems to be in strategic control of the
country, holds out many lessons for our own country.
National frontiers cannot hold back spread
of ideologies. Radical Islam has already crossed the borders into India. It
is a phenomenon that, starting from a little spot in the deserts of Arabia,
has spread across continents, ravaging and destroying empires, countries,
religions and people.
As Pakistan sinks deeper into the clutches
of Talibanised and jihadi Islam, its threat to India as a nation with a composite
culture and multi-ethnic society is assuming monumental dimensions.
Today, Islamic radicalism using terror as
a tool constitutes the most serious danger India faces, larger than the Naxal
threat which has been publicly described by the government as the top-most
threat to India.
Compulsions of politics prevent Islamic terrorism
from being identified in its true colours. How can dialogue be a success with
a party that sponsors jihadi extremism against India?
Pakistani cannot withdraw from its involvement
with terrorism as it has converted it into a multinational enterprise, with
theatres of operations spread through all those areas in the world where Islamic
interests have been under pressure. The target is not just establishing an
Islamic Caliphate in Delhi but also all around the world.
With the rate of growth of their populations
in mind, the Islamic radicals have said that time is on their side and, sooner
or later, Europe will become Euro-Arabistan, England Londonistan and so on.
Al Qaeda has invited the US to convert to
Islam or run the risk of decimation. All incidents of Islamic terrorism in
any part of the world have been found to have links with Pakistan in one way
or other.
As new potential terrorists are discovered
and apprehended in US and Europe, Pakistani links surface again and again.
Therefore to imagine that terrorism against India will be given up will remain
an unrealistic hope.
The same applies to the Kashmir issue also.
Besides, the Pakistani leadership is also on record for stating that a solution
of the Kashmir question will not end their confrontation with India.
Pakistani enmity for India is abiding. It
is reflected glaringly in its educational, military and nuclear doctrines.
Not only the madrasas but also the government approved text books in schools
and colleges demonise India, indoctrinating the young minds with hatred for
India.
One can ask the NGOs and think tanks that
pitch in time and again for resumption and continuance of the dialogue process
how many of them have asked for revision of text books to replace the animosity
and hatred they teach, with a call for a friendly, compassionate and neighbourly
fellow feeling.
Never has sympathy stirred the hearts of Pakistanis
when attacks by Pakistani terrorists have killed innocents, women and children
in India. Enmity with India makes Pakistan focus its military and nuclear
doctrine entirely against India. Increasing Islamisation of the rank and file
of Pakistani military and nuclear establishment makes reconciliation with
India almost impossible.
There are good reasons to believe that some
in Pakistan are itching to unleash the nuclear arsenal on India. It will simply
be unwise to think that the logic of deterrence that operated during the Cold
War can be the guiding lights for the irrational minds that govern Pakistan.
Several other issues harden the Pakistani
posture with anti India feelings. Regarding India as hegemonistic lands Pakistan
in a perpetual conflictual stance. Search for parity with India in strength
and influence amounts to a vain effort to prove geography wrong.
Plans of a modus vivendi remain unattainable
because of the unquenched thirst for revenge in the Pakistani armed forces
which suffered successive defeats in wars with India.
The causes of defeat remain incomprehensible
to the military mind which then turns to the delusional solace that devotion
to religion will turn the tables against the adversary.
Since wars have failed to produce the desired
results and have even led to the division of the country, a strategy of subversion,
sabotage, terrorism and proxy war has been substituted, that despite mounting
international and bilateral pressure Pakistan is refusing to give up.
Growing Islamic radicalisation in Pakistan
makes a change of policy there infinitely more difficult. Use of terror has
created its own rules of the game. The initiatives have now passed beyond
the hands of the State and the controller himself is being threatened.
The short objective of the proxy war and terrorism
against India was to initiate another two nation theory movement in India.
Unless Pakistan moves away from the two nation theory it will be just futile
to expect any change in Pakistani policies and practices. Till then Pakistani
assurances should be rejected as too often in the past Pakistan has betrayed
the trust reposed in its words, written or otherwise.
The dialogue process is just too inadequate
to meet the challenges from Pakistan. First, they have to be fought at the
ideological level and then at the field level. What the response at the field
level should be needs to be thought out in advance and appropriate measures
kept ready, to be launched at a moment's notice on any new transgression.
A majority of citizens of the country are likely to respect a bold and blunt
policy.
