It would be a folly for India to fall for Pakistan’s charm offensive
At about this time six years ago Indian troops were scaling the heights of Kargil and Nawaz Sharif was in panic.Later, the Pakistanis got Gen Musharraf but he knew the Indians held all the trumps and he held a yarborough.Yet through bluff, bluster, some skilful play, weak responses from us and force of circumstance, Gen Musharraf and his partner, the Hurriyet, today feel that if they play their hand right they can win game and rubber.
The Indian position on Kashmir has gradually eroded. From the long held Indian position that Kashmir is a settled issue, we have allowed some unelected Hurriyet leaders to visit Pakistan where they have been lauded as “the true representatives of Kashmiris.” When we now talk of the issue being bilateral, Musharraf talks of international guarantors; when we speak of the elected representatives in the State, he acknowledges only the Hurriyet. When we say let us not rush and it will take years to solve, Musharraf says the issue can be resolved by 2007.
Musharraf and the Hurriyet are in agreement on every issue that they discussed. Various pronouncements from Pakistan – on the time frame, self-governance, removal of LOC, exclusion of elected Kashmiri representatives from negotiations -- only confirm that the Hurriyet is really Pakistan’s cat’s paw in the Valley and, read together, these statements are a virtual declaration of independence. This motley group has rather magnanimously offered to drop the dead issue of a UN plebiscite if India sets aside the Shimla Agreement. This negation will be of great psychological significance to the Pak Army, for it signifies defeat and surrender, the return of POWs and territory. The current round of extensive talks with Pakistani leadership means there will be sequels to this. We should be prepared for this.
Since Indians – politicians and media -- have consistently ignored the Northern Areas of Jammu and Kashmir and Pak Occupied Kashmir and talked instead of the sanctity of the LOC, Pakistan has successfully created the impression that all other areas are settled and the dispute is only about the Valley. There is more and more information now available about the ill treatment and sense of alienation in the predominantly Shia North, which Pakistan has successfully kept under wraps.
Our dilemma and our ambivalence have also been how to handle the elected representatives of the state legislature, elected by people who braved the gun to caste their ballot. Every one agreed that these were free and fair elections. What do we tell these people who voted and their representatives? What do we tell Farooq and Omar Abdullah and the National Conference, who have worn their Indianness proudly, or Mehbooba and the PDP? That they are elected but are not the true representatives of the people of Kashmir? Would not our secular leaders want to talk of the displaced Kashmiri Hindu?
There are many in India who believe that Pakistan has changed and that there is a genuine desire for peace and that India should now sit down and solve all problems with Pakistan. The truth is that the change in Pakistan has been towards more and not less, Islamisation. Pakistan is not a moderate Islamic state. It is ruled by the mullah-military alliance neither of who understand secularism or democracy. Musharraf asserts repeatedly and emphatically that Pakistan is not a secular state but an Islamic state. Mushahid Hussein, currently an ardent fan of the General and a well known political trapeze artist, visited India twice in recent months. After his return from the first visit he glibly told a group of students in Islamabad on April 9, that thank God Pakistan had been created because ‘over there’ Muslims were not even allowed to worship. Now, now Mr. Hussein, we all know that it is in the Northern Areas of Gilgit that Shias fear a state sponsored policy to impose Sunni Wahabism through the import of Pathans and to reduce the indigenous population to a minority; it is on the walls of Shorkot, Punjab, one would see slogans “Kafir Kafir, Shia Kafir”; it is in the mosques of Karachi and Quetta that Sunni radicals blow themselves up to kill other Shias. It is in Pakistan that Muslims are not safe.
It would be naïve and sentimental to assume that trivial pursuits like the Katasraj temple renovation signify a change in Pakistan. Actually this is yet another tactic in a changed strategy post Kargil -- the launch of the charm offensive, to attain the national foreign policy goal – acquisition of Kashmir. It is neither a change of heart nor change of policy and would be a fatal error to assume this. Musharraf, the good learner that he is, has understood that military aggression in whatever form will not work with India but was becoming unfashionable and counterproductive.
The current Great Indian Debate whether or not Jinnah was a secular leader has only shown that we too are yet not ready for any compromise that leads to another partition of the subcontinent on religious grounds – even if you call it what you will. In any case, Jinnah’s secularism is of academic interest; what is of some importance and relevance is whether or not the present rulers of Pakistan are secular. By their own claim, they are not and they do not want to be. What is more important is whether the present regime is friendly to India and can be trusted. The answer to both is no. Instead of debating and worrying what the Hurriyet has been saying in Pakistan and the inevitable consequences, our media and our politicians have got involved in a largely meaningless debate about Jinnah’s credentials.
It is sometimes difficult to decide whether we are wallowing in the past or learning from history. Whatever it is, there are at least two lessons. One, that whenever the Sultanate in Delhi has been weak there have been invasions from the northwest. Today, our General assesses that the polity in Delhi is weak and at war with itself so it is better to accentuate the differences rather than launch a frontal attack. The multi-pronged charm offensive of pampering individual and collective egos has relevance in this context. This sweet reasonableness can be expected to last till 2007, after which, if things do not work out according to Musharraf’s plans, one can expect the jehadi hordes to be unleashed again.
The second lesson is that in the last 500 years, Srinagar has never been ruled from Srinagar but either from Agra, Lahore or Delhi. Those who dream or fantasise about joint control or independence should realise that Srinagar can either be ruled from Lahore or Delhi. It is either them or us; it cannot be both. India and Pakistan may do business with each other but mutual trust is a long way away.
For Musharraf, it is important to have a favourable decision by 2007, that is the year of reckoning for him; whether or not he will be President for Life or receive any other accolades that may await him. He has to deliver quickly. Any Indian arrangement with the Pak military would also vindicate the Pak army and strengthen the mullah. People like Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif can then say goodbye to their political fortunes in Pakistan.
Unless we are suffering from political fatigue or collective ennui, we should not be in any tearing hurry simply because we want to look good.
Source : Hindustan Times 15th June 2005
0 comments:
Post a Comment