indexPresident Musharraf has tried to ease the tension on the Subcontinent, but the incessant military build-up could create an
unstoppable momentum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Ahmed Rashid/LAHORE and SARGODHA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A COUPLE OF UNEXPECTED handshakes and some conciliatory remarks from
Pakistan's President Pervaiz Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal
Bihari Vajpayee at the recent meeting of South Asian leaders in
Kathmandu briefly raised the hopes of millions around the
Subcontinent.
But the peace dialogue and easing of tension that they all longed for
did not materialize, despite the added diplomatic pressure from
United States President George W. Bush, British Prime Minister Tony
Blair, who visited both capitals, and nudging from nations such as
China and Russia.
An indication of the heightened tension came soon after the close of
the January 5-6 South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
summit in Nepal, when mortar and artillery fire erupted along the
border after India shot down what it claimed was a Pakistani drone.
Underlying the danger, and virtually ignored by world leaders, is
that the incessant border military build-up by both nations is
creating its own momentum, which could overtake any future diplomatic
efforts to resolve the crisis. Analysts warn it could easily lead to
a pre-emptive strike by either side-as happened during conflicts in
1965 and 1971.
Indian outrage at the deadly December 13 attack on its parliament is
at the heart of the showdown, and New Delhi says the steps since
taken by Musharraf to crack down on the Islamic militant groups
blamed for the raid-Jaish-e-Mohammed and Laskar-e-Toiba-do not go far
enough. The Pakistan-based groups are fighting for independence in
Indian-controlled areas of disputed Kashmir.
Following a meeting in Islamabad on January 7 with Blair, Musharraf
denounced terrorism in all its forms and pledged to unveil within
days a plan to combat militancy in the country. India and the United
States said the statement did not go far enough. "I don't think the
situation is defused," Bush said in Washington on January 7, adding
that Musharraf must clearly state "that he intends to crack down on
terror."
But while Musharraf has the public's support in trying to defuse
tensions with India, he can only go so far on Kashmir without risking
a backlash at home.
Stoking the fire, Indian military leaders and politicians have called
on the government not to back down and to punish Pakistan by
launching strikes on militant training camps in the
Pakistani-controlled slice of Kashmir.
Senior Pakistani military officers, faced with India's tough talk and
mobilization of hundreds of thousands of troops and armament along
their mutual 2,900-kilometre international border and the Line of
Control in Kashmir, clearly fear the worst.
They say were taken by surprise when India began to move several
divisions of its Eastern Command to the Pakistan border in late
December and then announced it would it would hold three-month-long
military exercises in the border provinces of Punjab and Rajasthan.
"These are the largest Indian troop movements in history," asserts a
former Pakistani army chief. "How the Indian army can now roll it
back without losing face, even if talks do start, I just don't know."
Senior army officers claim the Indian exercises are aimed at
synchronizing the strike forces of India's eastern and western
commands in preparation for an attack on Pakistan on a much wider
front than just Kashmir. "This is much more serious than India
planning a skirmish or two in Kashmir," says a Pakistan army general
in Rawalpindi. Adds a senior bureaucrat, "India seems to have made
the decision to punish Pakistan for its 12 years of support to the
Kashmiri people's armed struggle."
Musharraf is trying to roll back that support, cracking down on
Islamic militant groups demoralized by the defeat of the Taliban and
Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda group in Afghanistan. These groups
expected the army to continue backing their guerrilla operations in
Indian-controlled Kashmir.
"It is being done at the behest of the United States," Hassan Burki,
a spokesman of Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed on January 4. "These
detentions cannot stop our jihad in Kashmir." The authorities have
gone out of their way to stress that the crackdown, including the
arrests of the leaders of the two main groups, is for internal
security reasons only.
So far neither the fundamentalists nor mainstream Islamic parties
have taken to the streets because they know there is little public
support for them after several thousand Pakistanis died fighting for
the Taliban in Afghanistan.
PUBLIC SUPPORT VITAL
"I support the Islamic parties but at the moment I am more worried
about the possibility of war with India and I am not taking to the
streets and weakening Musharraf," said Riaz Mohammed, a shopkeeper in
Sargodha in central Punjab.
But Musharraf can only go so far to meet Indian demands without
losing public support, and there's growing suspicion among the
military and public that India's military build-up has only been
possible with U.S. support, at a time when America is using Pakistan
bases in its war on terror.
"How can India have the nerve to do this with U.S. forces on our soil
unless the U.S. has given India the nod," asks Amjad Noon, the mayor
of Sargodha district. "Everybody is thinking that when India attacks,
the U.S. may try to take out Pakistan's nuclear assets."
Pakistani officials publicly deny such linkages but they perceive
that India and the U.S. are playing a game of brinksmanship with
Musharraf.
India clearly sees this moment as a golden opportunity to end
Pakistan's support for the Kashmiri militants. New Delhi has issued a
list of 20 alleged Pakistani terrorists it wants extradited to India.
Musharraf, reversing previous decisions, said on January 7 he was now
ready to analyze the list.
New Delhi remains firm, while waiting for Musharraf's promised extra
measures. "Where is the question of a dialogue when there is no
change in attitude?," asked Indian Foreign Minister Jaswant Singh on
January 7.
Some Western diplomats say the only thing that could bring India to
the table is nothing less than a complete renunciation by Pakistan of
terrorism in Kashmir and a ban on the groups fighting Indian rule
there. But Musharraf is unwilling and unable to renounce support for
the Kashmiri people, whose cause Pakistan sympathizes with-not least
because it could alienate the armed forces.
So far Musharraf has faced no opposition from his generals or the
powerful Interservices Intelligence, which has organized Pakistan's
support to the Kashmiris and the Taliban. Musharraf replaced the spy
agency's leadership in October, but getting rid of mid-level officers
sympathetic to the Islamic militants would be much more difficult.
"India must realize it cannot afford to humiliate Musharraf or the
army, it has to provide a face saver at the right moment," says a
European diplomat.
As the Kathmandu summit demonstrated, India clearly feels that moment
has not yet arrived. The summit was a carefully choreographed theatre
of India's refusal to talk and Pakistan's willingness to do just that.
Musharraf concluded his summit speech on January 5 by saying he
wanted "to extend a hand of genuine, sincere friendship to Prime
Minister Vajpayee." He then strode over to Vajpayee and shook his
hand.
Vajpayee replied that, "President Musharraf must follow this gesture
by not permitting any activity in Pakistan or any territory in its
control today which enables terrorists to perpetrate mindless
violence in India."
The Indian leader later told the summit that he had been betrayed in
all his peace talks with Pakistan since 1999. But India's sense of
betrayal will have to be matched with grace and statesmanship if war
is to be avoided.
INDIA AND PAKISTAN continue to trade bullets across their
2,900-kilometre border and the danger of accidentally triggering a
war is still high (see article on page 20). Diplomatically, though,
we may only be as close to war as we were the week before. Which is
to say that political ignition remains unlikely. That sentiment was
reinforced after Pervaiz Musharraf extended his hand to Atal Behari
Vajpayee at a meeting in Nepal of South Asian nations. Mr. Vajpayee
reciprocated at the close of the conference. The two also managed a
chat in Kathmandu, though Mr. Vajpayee told reporters it was only "an
exchange of courtesy. Nothing significant was discussed." Still,
courtesies at times like these must be welcome. If only both could
see fit to extend courtesies over Kashmir.
At the nub of the conflict is this disputed territory. India and
Pakistan will continue to argue as long as Kashmir's status remains
unresolved. Without a doubt, the problem was foisted on both by
Britain, which, acting by precedents set in Africa and elsewhere,
allowed for a hash to made out of the divvying out of territories
into the new nations of India and Pakistan. That said, Indian control
of Jammu and Kashmir now is a historical fact, and given India's
claim to be a nation for all people of all faiths, New Delhi will
find it hard-if not impossible-to shed itself of its slice of
predominantly Muslim Kashmir just because it is Muslim. Doing so
undermines the first principle of the republic. While that does not
absolve India of blame for its heavy-handed rule in Kashmir, it
brings to mind a similar situation in the Middle East. Just as
Palestinians may need to accept the fact of Israel's existence,
perhaps Pakistanis also need to accept the status quo represented by
the Line of Control.
But that's only one scenario. If India and Pakistan were to return to
discussions, others may emerge. As Tony Blair rightly put it this
week in South Asia, the only way to resolve Kashmir is to seek
agreement by dialogue. Anything else would be a temporary victory for
one side waiting to be dislodged at the next opportunity. India,
however, continues to stick to its precondition that talks will take
place only if Pakistan does more against anti-Indian militants. For
his part Mr. Musharraf has finally said that "Pakistan rejects
terrorism in all its forms and manifestations." However, India is
looking for deeds rather than a statement. Still, as we go to press,
Mr. Musharraf is expected to address his country to outline further
decisions on militant groups. Mr. Vajpayee must certainly understand
that Mr. Musharraf needs to tread carefully if he is not to be seen
out. (And does India think any replacement would be easier to deal
with?) So, is the time for gamesmanship not perhaps over?
India and Pakistan's squabble has too long diverted the energies of
their peoples towards unprofitable ends. Resolve Kashmir and perhaps
soon we will see the end of this disparity: Of nuclear nations where
roadwork crews must still break rocks by hand. The end of conflict
would be the necessary prelude to both nations finally fully entering
the modern age.
WASHINGTON - With troops massed at the India-Pakistan border, and
communication and travel between the two nations frozen, we are
reminded of the perpetual possibility of armed conflict between these
nuclear-armed neighbors.
Rich in culture and resources, and the birthplace of several great
civilizations and world religions, the region is marked by poverty
and conflict. Despite its recent advances in cyberscience and its
mature spiritual traditions, India evokes images of disease and
social dysfunction. Pakistan suggests religious intolerance, and a
culture of irrational violence. For both of us - one Pakistani, the
other from India - this is a source of immense sadness.
Until modern times, the region was a model of financial and
administrative accomplishment. Its traders were wealthy, its
manufacturers highly productive, its craftsmen exquisitely talented.
The Muslim Moghuls ruled a predominantly Hindu population and
elaborated an Indian civilization that partook of both cultures.
The Moghuls developed a sophisticated and equitable tax system. This
structure was so well designed, the British emulated it in setting up
their local administration in India, itself the pride of the British
Empire. In the 16-century empire of Akbar the Great, the poorest
province had revenues larger than those of the United Kingdom.
Today, all must also acknowledge the contemporary accomplishments of
Pakistanis and Indians: abroad and at home, in education, business,
leadership of international financial institutions and UN agencies,
academic life, and literature. And though justifiably known for
women's oppression, both countries have had women political leaders,
activists, journalists, diplomats, novelists, and filmmakers.
As British India moved toward independence in 1947, greatness was
expected by all - Britons, secular Indian nationalists, Muslim
partisans of a separate Pakistan, and Hindu revivalists. India would
inherit British power and wealth, and revive its own ancient cultural
greatness.
Greatness was also expected of the relatively small and impoverished
new nation of Pakistan, so gifted was its leadership. The first
generation of Pakistanis sought to revive the greatness of Indian
Muslim civilization. They sought to represent the interests of all
Muslims of the subcontinent.
Between Rabindranath Tagore, the poet and first Indian to win the
Nobel prize in 1913, and the Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam who
shared the Nobel prize in 1979, came an extraordinary group. Nehru,
India's first prime minister, was an accomplished historian.
Radhakrishnan, its second president, was a renowned scholar and
philosopher, as was Iqbal, the poet and intellectual hero of
Pakistan's national movement. This firmament included women such as
India's Sarojini Naidu, the poet of national awakening. Greatness
will continue to elude both societies in the absence of prosperity
and security. Neither is possible without peace.
There are as many Muslims in India as there are in Pakistan. A
Pakistani who cares about the welfare of Muslims everywhere must
surely see that a weak and impoverished India is not in the interests
of Indian Muslims. And if the hostility persists, Pakistan's
greatness will remain hostage to it. Indian nationalists concerned
with India's strength, prosperity, and security (or chauvinists
aspiring to revive Hindu greatness) must see that a weak and hostile
neighbor is a liability.
The armed tension between them aggravates their poverty. Vast
portions of their budgets have been devoured by their relentless
search for military security or advantage with respect to the other.
Their rush toward nuclear weapons compounds this vicious cycle.
The stakes are enormous. India and Pakistan account for almost
one-fifth of the human race. But their common problems also offer the
occasion for cooperation. The populations of both are still
predominantly rural, and their national economies rely substantially
on the prosperity of farmers. River-based irrigation offers one of
the few means for scientific agriculture. In a water-scarce and
population-intensive environment, rivers are also key to the welfare
of urban dwellers.
One positive example of longstanding cooperation so far has been
their agreement and consultative mechanism for dealing with the
complex Indus River system that crosses their border. This could be
expanded and updated to allow more integrated and cooperative
planning for mutual benefit.
The two face common, even interrelated, problems of international
crime and terrorism and public-health issues such as tuberculosis and
polio. Cooperation on those would be of mutual benefit. Both also
face similar challenges of ending illiteracy, child labor, and
oppression of women. They could share experiences and learn from each
other.
The process of dialogue and collaboration on these practical problems
would also build understanding between Indians and Pakistanis. We can
imagine the peacemaking effects of Indian and Pakistani women
discovering in dialogue that what they have in common is greater than
what divides them.
The initiation of such a visionary enterprise must come from both the
political leaders and the business and cultural leaders of both
countries, as well as grass-roots organizations already addressing
these problems. Civil society can push politicians to do what is
right. Cooperation offers the almost certain prospect of more
prosperity for business, a richer culture, poverty reduction, and
popular empowerment.
In the process of collaboration, each could become what it aspires
to, and what the other would respect rather than fear.
* Akbar Ahmed, former high commissioner of Pakistan to the United
Kingdom, is the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American
University. Amit Pandya is a former US government official and a
member of the Washington Foreign Policy Group.
index |  HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep | pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN |
Landelijke India Werkgroep - 23 januari 2002