By Inder Jit (Released on 30 January 1990)
Pakistan and its rulers urgently need to pause and ponder. They should not allow the developments in Jammu and Kashmir to encourage them to undertake any reckless adventure across the border, overtly or covertly. Prima facie, the temptation may be great to view the grave happenings as an opportunity to avenge the creation of Bangladesh. The circumstances may even appear to be in their favour. However, things are not always what they outwardly seem. India has no doubt its problems as a vigorous democracy. The nation may appear divided and plagued with political intrigue. But it has always stood together as one united people in the face of external threat or attack. Nothing reflects this more than the extraordinary step taken by the all-party Consultative Committee of Parliament attached to the Ministry of External Affairs at its first meeting on Friday last. The Committee unanimously adopted a resolution to declare: “Jammu Kashmir is an integral part of India. Any interference from any quarter whatsoever will not be tolerated.”
India is prepared to face any threat from across the border, directly or indirectly. New Delhi has been fully alive to the fast developing situation. The Prime Minister, Mr V.P. Singh and his colleagues have been in close touch. The Army, commanded by Gen V.N. Sharma, who hails from Jammu, is keeping its powder dry. Equally alert are the Air and Naval Chiefs, Air Chief Marshal Mehra and Admiral Nadkarni.
India is prepared to face any threat from across the border, directly or indirectly. New Delhi has been fully alive to the fast developing situation. The Prime Minister, Mr V.P. Singh and his colleagues have been in close touch. The Army, commanded by Gen V.N. Sharma, who hails from Jammu, is keeping its powder dry. Equally alert are the Air and Naval Chiefs, Air Chief Marshal Mehra and Admiral Nadkarni. Simultaneously, action is under way on the political plane. Talks have been held at the highest level with Dr Farooq Abdullah. Undoubtedly, Dr Abdullah must take most of the blame for mindlessly reducing the State to its present dangerous situation. Nevertheless, it is a great pity that he should have run away from the call of duty at a crucial time, placing self, party and politics before the country. Sheikh Abdullah, his father, was eulogised as the Lion of Kashmir. Dr Abdullah is being denounced as a “scared lamb”. Nevertheless, he is still the State’s only leader who could possibly mobilize the silent majority and help end the tyranny of the terrorist minority.
Ms Benazir Bhutto overplayed her hand last week both in terms of her statement on Kashmir and the brief with which Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Sahibzada Yakub Khan, was sent to New Delhi. True, she is eager to project herself as a tough Prime Minister vis-a-vis India and win popularity in her tussle for supreme power in Islamabad. (Pakistan, according to experts, has today four centres of power in the following order: the US, the Army, the President and the Prime Minister.) The President, Mr Ishaq Khan, enjoys under the country’s Constitution power to appoint or dismiss the Prime Minister. This special power is due to lapse on March 20, leading to a controversy: Can Ms Bhutto continue as the Prime Minister after March 20 as an appointee of Mr Ishaq Khan? What if Mr Ishaq Khan dismisses her on March 19 and asks her to seek a fresh vote of confidence? Nevertheless, Ms Bhutto should have shown greater circumspection. She should not have wiped off in one stroke the great goodwill she had built for herself in India. Indeed, the Sahibzada’s visit could have easily waited since Mr Abdul Sattar had already visited India as her special envoy.
The Sahibzada, a suave diplomat, took the Foreign Minister, Mr. I.K. Gujral, totally by surprise by the tone and content of his talk. His language was “offensive and hostile” even as he prefaced his remarks with the words: “There was a high-level meeting in Islamabad before I came. I have been treated to say…” But Mr. Gujral, also suave to a fault, gave the Sahibzada a good deal more than he got by late in the evening. He told the Sahibzada that a high-level meeting had been held on the message brought by the Sahibzada and that he too, had been “directed to tell” him clearly: “India will not tolerate any interference from Pakistan in its internal affairs…” Not much later, Mr Gujral briefed the Arab Ambassadors and so also the heads of missions of all the EEC countries of his talks with the Sahibzada. The Foreign Secretary, Mr S.K. Singh was rushed off to Moscow and the other Secretary in the MEA, Mr Muchkund Dubey, to the neighbouring countries and elsewhere. India’s views have already been made known to Washington.
Pakistan’s Army Chief, Gen Aslam Beg, is suspected to be playing a major role in Islamabad’s latest hawkish, nay belligerent outlook. Informed sources tell me that he is no longer the same Gen Beg who once said that the Army should stay out of politics. Of late, he has not hesitated to make political statements. He has even appeared to be playing for higher stakes.
Pakistan’s Army Chief, Gen Aslam Beg, is suspected to be playing a major role in Islamabad’s latest hawkish, nay belligerent outlook. Informed sources tell me that he is no longer the same Gen Beg who once said that the Army should stay out of politics. Of late, he has not hesitated to make political statements. He has even appeared to be playing for higher stakes. On December 12, he stated in Islamabad that the words of friendship from Delhi had not been matched by deeds and blamed India for “backing out” of the Siachen accord. Not only that. At a Press briefing at the Army Control headquarters at Sargodha, he reportedly described the country’s biggest-ever war exercise, “Zarb-e-Momin”, as a demonstration of the people’s military will and said this was designed to match and support the political will! Significantly, he also announced a major shift in Pakistan’s strategic doctrine from defence to “offensive-defence” and asserted: “War must be fought on the enemy soil!” He also clarified: “The main purpose of the exercise was to test the Army’s capacity to launch a large-scale offensive.”
Ms Bhutto needs to be wary of Gen Beg, no less than Gen Zia was cautious of his own Generals. Zia was advised more than once to take advantage of India’s internal difficulties and divisions. But as a political General he drew wise lessons from the bitter experiences of Gen Ayub Khan and Gen Yahya Khan. The two were encouraged by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in their time to launch wars against India. Both the Generals came to grief and Bhutto calculatedly leap-frogged to power, first partially and thereafter fully. Gen Zia, therefore, was clear all along that any attack on India would amount to committing harakiri. It would be the surest and quickest way to bring his regime to an end. In fact, it is no secret that most Pakistanis desiring salvation from Zia’s rule repeatedly hoped (and prayed) that he would be stupid enough to attack India. Ms Bhutto should remember this. Any attack on India, encouraged by the misplaced euphoria over “Zarb-e-Momin” and the recent happenings within India, could put an end not only to Benazir’s Government but even to the country’s welcome return to democracy.
There is no denying the fact that the Kashmir issue continues to be on the UN agenda. It also figures prominently in the Simla Agreement. But there is no question of India ever agreeing to a plebiscite in Kashmir, as demanded afresh by Ms Bhutto, Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan and some others. Time was some 40 years ago when India was willing. Nehru then agreed to let the people decide their future again through a plebiscite under the UN auspices. However, the UN resolution which provided for self-determination and had the support of both countries could not be implemented. Why? Because of Pakistan, not India. How? Pakistan, took the astonishing and absurd stand that Part B of the resolution should be implemented before Part A, ignoring the basic scheme of things and the background. Part A provided for the withdrawal of Pakistani troops to clear the decks for the plebiscite. Part B provided for the withdrawal by India of the bulk of its forces from the State in stages. India could not, in fairness, be expected to take a chance again with the future of Kashmir and leave it to Pakistan’s mercy.
Clearly, the clock cannot be put back. India could not be expected to wait indefinitely. Sheikh Abdullah, who stood for the state’s accession to India, received overwhelming popular mandate through elections time and again. In sharp contrast, the Plebiscite Front in the State came to be wound up voluntarily by its founders. More importantly, India is in no position to risk a plebiscite today — not even if the chance of the plebiscite going against it is less than one per cent. As I candidly told a Pakistani friend at a dinner in honour of Sahibzada Yakub Khan last week: “Do you realise what would happen if the plebiscite was to go against us? India could then become Hindu on the rebound on the basis of your two-nation theory. What would then happen to India’s 100 million Muslims and their future?” The Pakistani interrupted: “I did not know your secularism is so fragile.” I continued: “That is not the question. You friends asked for partition, not we. You cannot escape responsibility for what happened then and what may happen tomorrow. Let us not demand something without going into its grave implications. Neither you nor we can afford another upheaval. It would destroy us both.”
Islamabad would do well not to be carried away by emotions and to desist from suicidal recklessness. Facts must be faced squarely and pragmatically. India happens to be bigger and stronger. As a senior Pakistani Ambassador once confided: “India is an elephant. We can at best harass and wound it. Ultimately, the elephant must triumph.” It would therefore be grave folly on the part of Islamabad to ignore New Delhi’s timely (and friendly) warning.
Islamabad would do well not to be carried away by emotions and to desist from suicidal recklessness. Facts must be faced squarely and pragmatically. India happens to be bigger and stronger. As a senior Pakistani Ambassador once confided: “India is an elephant. We can at best harass and wound it. Ultimately, the elephant must triumph.” It would therefore be grave folly on the part of Islamabad to ignore New Delhi’s timely (and friendly) warning. New Delhi is not unaware of the emotions over Kashmir in Pakistan, especially amongst its rulers. But we must not allow our feelings to run amuck. We must seek a realistic solution, of which there is only one. We must build bridges between our two countries step by step as provided for in the Simla Agreement. This must one day bring us closer, as in the case of Canada and the United States. Once that happens, the international border between our two countries must necessarily become soft. It will then matter little whether Kashmir is on this side of the border or that. We must learn to look beyond narrow nationalism, even as we retain our separate national identities. The future lies in friendship, not conflict. — INFA