Crisis India-Pakistan:
Achtergrondinformatie, analyse en nieuws
uit de Indiase, Pakistaanse en internationale media.

index

The Times of India, June 5, 2002

War fears recede, yet foreigners flee

MANOJ JOSHI

TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ TUESDAY, JUNE 04, 2002 12:34:19 AM ]
NEW DELHI: For two days running, the headlines in The Times of India and other newspapers have signalled that war-clouds may be receding in the subcontinent. Yet, ordered by their respective governments, thousands of western businessmen, tourists and dependents of diplomats’ families have left the country in what appeared to be near-panic conditions.
Though this is supposed to be a "voluntary" migration, departing foreigners have spoken of the dire nature of warnings they have received from their governments about the situation in South Asia.
On the day after the US order was issued, the TOI headline declared "No nuclear threat, says Musharraf," referring to the Pakistani leader’s interview with a TV channel declaring that nuclear war was unthinkable.
On Monday, a TOI correspondent accompanying Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to Almaty reported that India had received a commitment from Pakistan that it would not only halt infiltration, but terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir, that it was willing to see this as a credible first step in the de-escalation of the situation.
Yet the exodus of foreigners from India has continued. Indian officials are extremely unhappy at this development which they say will inflict medium-term economic damage to the country since it lowers the confidence of foreign investors and collaborators in the country.
They say that while this may have been done to apply pressure on India, but to what end is not clear.
"We are the aggrieved party and we have clearly signalled our willingness to normalise relations once cross- border terrorism is halted," said a senior official of the ministry of external affairs.
A western diplomat says that the entire exercise may have been occasioned by some wrong timing or misunderstanding. He concedes, "There is a visible lessening of tension in the region, so it is somewhat strange to have us ask our citizens to leave in near panic conditions."
A measure of just how serious the great South Asian crisis is, has becomes apparent from the fact that the UN Security Council is nowhere in the picture.
In previous wars, the UNSC has played a key role in brokering peace and indeed mandating ceasefires. However, even the alleged threat of a nuclear holocaust over the region has not moved the UNSC into action.
One explanation for the lassitude of the UNSC is that the primary world power, the US, is already on the job. Instead of mediating its views through the UNSC, it is directly interacting with the two countries concerned.
According to the MEA official, "The US has a special relationship with both the countries concerned, and in any case, it is the only country that has any leverage with both of them." The official notes wryly that it was only after the US called for a voluntary departure of its citizens from India that the rest of the western countries followed.

index

Wed, 5 Jun 2002

Petition to Vajpayee and Musharraf to stop march to Nuclear Holocaust

Please sign the petition and forward this link. The intention is to send this to the two, and also to the press demanding that they pay attention to the voices for peace and rapproachment. Also please forward this link on all lists.

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/ip2002/petition.html

To: Prime Minister AB Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf

Despite extremely dire reports of potential nuclear war with casualties in the tens of millions, it appears that the entire subcontinent is being led towards a holocaust of immense proportions by the leadership of both India and Pakistan.
Even a limited nuclear exchange will result in the destruction of tens of millions of lives and most of northern India and Pakistan will become uninhabitable.
Neither the people of Pakistan nor the people of India gave the right to their leaders to destroy their lives, and their two nations. 5000 years of history for this? We say NO!
Both you leaders have been pandering to extremists, as has been witnessed in the BJP's role in Gujarat, and the ISI's role in Kashmir. Effectively, we the people of India and Pakistan are being force marched like sheep to a slaughter by the maniacal agendas of fanatical extremists.
We can no longer remain silent spectators to the actions and agendas of the proponents of this brutal anti-people mentality.
We the people of India and Pakistan, as well as peace loving citizens of the world, DEMAND that you immediately:

  1. State unequivocally that this current march towards a holocaust of horrific proportions MUST be stopped IMMEDIATELY.
  2. March to the negotiating table with full sincerity. The baggage of colonialism must not lead us into total destruction. The great freedom fighters of our common land, gave their lives for a dream yet unfulfilled. Must we do to ourselves something infinitely worse than what colonization did to us?
  3. Recognize the common humanity of ALL people of the subcontinent, regardless of religion, caste or gender, and their RIGHT TO LIVE, and to enjoy a life of peace and security.
  4. Desist from bravado and war talk. The common people of India and Pakistan can teach you, dear leaders, that greatness comes from self-control and not from self destructive rage; the great Bhakti and Sufi saints taught this as did the Buddha.
  5. Acknowedge that your primary duty as leaders is to protect and embrace the welfare of ALL your citizens regardless of whatever religion they practice.
The People of India-Pakistan.

index

June 5, 2002

Nuclear war: Much ado about nothing?

NEW DELHI, June 5 (IANS)

Many countries have sounded the alarm bells and body counts of a nuclear battle are being predicted, but for many Indian citizens war with Pakistan is a news story that rates some notches below World Cup soccer. A number of people interviewed at random here are confident that a war not to talk of a nuclear conflict is most unlikely, despite the shrill tough talking and muscle flexing from both sides of the border.
While the Western press spells out fears of an India-Pakistan showdown and religiously reports developments in New Delhi and Islamabad, it is business as usual for vegetable vendor Dilawar Singh and college student Raju Tanwar. "Tensions have been around for a long time now. But the situation now is not as bad as it was during the (1999) Kargil war," said Singh, 35, a father of three girls and a boy.
Singh has not thought much about perishing in a nuclear bomb attack predicted by US experts to have the potential of killing 12 million in the region. "War takes place at the borders. They may drop some bombs here, but if it kills me it will also kill many others, what can I do?" he shrugs.
Tanwar, 18, a student of a prominent New Delhi college, revealed how talk of war bored him. "There is so much exciting football on television why waste time over and over again on the same India-Pakistan drill?" he remarked. His views are shared by many more. A bus commuter commented loudly after a rainstorm here flooded the streets, considerably slowing down traffic: "We don't have drains, civic amenities, yet we talk of nuclear wars."
The next man agreed: "A nuclear war will solve all the problems of India and Pakistan since both will bomb each other out of existence." Talk of war often evokes droll comments. But their lack of concern also stems from an inherent hope that neither country really wants a war.
Rajesh Kumar, 28, a public telephone booth operator, pointed out: "Nuclear war is not so easy. We talk of war but not exactly about a nuclear war. And we don't really think there will be war I am telling you what my customers say."

index

Asian Age, June 5, 2002

Putin offers Moscow summit

Almaty (Kazakhstan), June 4: Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf refused on Tuesday to renounce first use of nuclear weapons as efforts to bring him together with Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and defuse tensions over Kashmir failed. Asked to state Pakistan's nuclear policy and explain why it will not renounce first use of nuclear weapons as India has, Gen. Musharraf said, "The possession of nuclear weapons by any state obviously implies -they will be used under some circumstances." Russia and China pressed India and Pakistan to enter face-to-face talks on Tuesday to prevent the Kashmir conflict from exploding into a fourth full-scale-war. Although the effort failed to bring Gen. Musharraf and Mr Vajpayee together for a direct meeting, Gen. Musharraf said he had accepted Russian President Vladimir Putin's invitation for possible talks in Moscow.

index

The Hindu, June 5, 2002

Cross-border terrorism has to end for talks: PM

ALMATY, JUNE 4. India'and Pakistan were unable to make any further headway in easing their military tensions today, despite the reiteration by the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, that New Delhi would take "appropriate consequent steps" if the Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, implemented his earlier promise of curbing cross-border infiltration. Mr. Vajpayee said this in response to Gen. Musharraf s assertion during his address to the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building in Asia that India's refusal to address the Kashmir issue and its resistance to an immediate resumption of dialogue were the root causes for the military tensions in the subcontinent. Gen. Musharraf also blamed India for the "inconclusive summit" at Agra where the two sides were unable to set in motion "a dialogue process on Kashmir." And he accused India of disregarding the "relevant United Nations Resolutions" related to Kashmir, as well as the "wishes of the Kashmir! people."

index

The Times of India, June 5, 2002

Heavy shelling along Indo-Pak border

TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ WEDNESDAY, JUNE 05, 2002 12:00:23 AM ]
NEW DELHI: Though the nuclear sabre-rattling may have eased a little, Indian and Pakistani forces continue to exchange heavy fire in various sectors along the International Border and Line of Control in J&K. Army officers also say they are yet to come across any concrete indications of a let-up in infiltration levels or the violence in strife-torn J&K.
The general feeling is that the Pakistani army cannot be trusted to stop aiding the infiltration process.
"At the most, the militants will lie low for a while to show that Pakistan is no longer coordinating the ingress of terrorists from across the border. And then they will start again," said an officer. As for the cross-border firing, officers say the Siachen Glacier-Saltoro Ridge sector, the highest altitude battlefield in the world, continues to witness heavy artillery and mortar shelling between the two sides since Monday evening. There were, however, no immediate reports of any casualties.
"Exchange of artillery and mortar fire also took place in Batalik, Kargil and Dras sectors. At least, nine Pakistani bunkers were destroyed in Kargil and Dras," said an officer. In Poonch, Rajouri and Naushera sectors, "retaliatory fire assaults" by Indian forces led to "heavy damage to Pakistani posts".

index

Hindustan Times, June 5, 2002

3,000 terrorists waiting to infiltrate India from Pak: Vajpayee

AFP

Almaty, June 5
Some 3,000 terrorists are waiting in camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir ready to infilitrate India, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee told a press conference here on Wednesday, adding that Pakistan is "not keeping its word" on halting terrorism.
"As per our information, inflitration is happening even now," he said. "There are terrorist camps across the border.
"According to reports there are about 3,000 terrorists in these camps. We have been saying that Pakistan's statements that they have stopped terrorism are not good enough. The reports reaching us here from Kashmir ... show that Pakistan is not keeping its word."

index

The Times of India, June 5, 2002

Jaw-Jaw, Not War-War

Interview with I.K. Gujral

TIMES NEWS NETWORK [ TUESDAY, JUNE 04, 2002 12:20:22 AM ]
During his stint as prime minister, I K Gujral ensured a thawing of India’s relations with its neighbours. In an interview with Rashme Sehgal, he laments the growing introversion of Indian diplomacy:

The entire thrust of world diplomacy today seems to be on containing terrorism?
The attack on the World Trade Center has changed everything. The central point of world geo-politics now is terrorism. Ironically, it is Al-Qaida which is laying down the agenda for the rest of the world. No event can be perceived in isolation and no major power can afford to ignore events elsewhere in the globe. Almaty is far more important than what it was initially perceived to be, simply because all the members of the Shanghai Forum — six central Asian states along with Russia and China — are also victims of terrorism.
More importantly, Putin is coming here after meeting president Bush in Moscow. His role will be that of a spokesperson for NATO. We have to see how we can convert this situation to our advantage, especially since what is happening to us is an extension of the same network.

Do you think the Vajpayee government has explored all its diplomatic options?
Terrorism is expanding its base in our own backyard. Look at Sri Lanka, Nepal, Assam and Kashmir. Unfortunately, we are no longer taking any interest in what is happening around us. Indian diplomacy has become completely introverted. Earlier, prime ministers used to consult leaders from all parties.
Narasimha Rao used to send Vajpayee and me to attend international conferences. During the CTBT talks, I was holding consultations with leaders from all parties. Vajpayee, and other members of his party, consult nobody. They obviously believe they know everything.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, our diplomatic efforts in dealing with them have been very weak.
I was recently in Sri Lanka, where senior officials complained to me that India was not taking any interest in them. Nepal is of great strategic interest to us; their Congress party is in deep crisis and we are behaving as though our interests are not being affected.
Even in this present crisis, we have failed to mobilise the support of our Asian neighbours. Our indifference to NAM and SAARC has ensured that our reliable friends from Asia and Africa, who stood by us during our past crises, have no longer issued statements in our support.
The present government needs to dust the files of 1970 and take a look at how Indira Gandhi handled the situation. During the months prior to the Bangladesh war, she personally travelled to several countries to explain our point of view and to solicit their support. This government believes merely in issuing statements from Delhi.

Should Vajpayee meet Musharraf at Almaty?
The prime minister should not shy away from meeting Musharraf, particularly when Putin will be trying to act as a catalyst. What is expected at Almaty is some ice breaking, and we must not be seen to be reluctant. Talking is not an expression of weakness, it is an expression of inner strength. Even at the height of our war with China, we never closed down our embassy. It was the same during the Kargil war when backstage diplomacy continued between both countries.

Was the recall of our high commissioner from Pakistan a wise step?
No. It is very important for both countries to keep up a dialogue with each other.

Do you fear that an armed conflict might escalate into nuclear war?
No, I have no such apprehension. It is important to clarify that our fight against terrorism is not a fight against Pakistan. Terrorism is destabilising their society much more than ours.

Will the Kashmir issue ever be resolved?
We need to do much more internally. The Vajpayee government has been trying to handle the Kashmir situation in fits and starts. Initiatives are abruptly discontinued.
The J&K assembly passed a resolution demanding autonomy which the national government rejected. Critics argue that if we give more power to one state, there will be a demand for greater autonomy by other states. Giving more power to states does not weaken the overall system. In fact, it strengthens it.
Patriots do not live in Delhi alone. Nations learn to solve problems as they are confronted by them. China has two systems operating under one state. Hong Kong is operating under one system, the rest of China under another. No one can say the state has been weakened by this endeavour.

Should the Indian army remain mobilised at the borders for such a long time?
If the army had not been mobilised, the levels of infiltration would have been much higher. Our national borders need to be safeguarded.

Why is Musharraf making so many contradictory statements on the nuclear issue?
I wish Musharraf would show greater restraint and begin to realise that if he does not take action against terrorists, his own interests will be jeopardised. Having become more vulnerable, he is literally being forced to issue contradictory statements on every Monday. The Shanghai Forum must persuade Musharraf to take a final position on this whole issue of terrorism because he cannot condemn it in Afghanistan and yet continue to support it in Kashmir.

index

The Indian Express, June 5, 2002

Rein in the blackmailer: Terrorism, not Kashmir, is the central issue

Jasjit Singh

General Pervez Musharraf has at last admitted that infiltration of militants, as claimed by India for more than a decade, has been taking place. But he asserted that it has now been stopped. By all accounts, orders have been given to the army to plug all infiltration. US Secretary of State Colin Powell has expressed the hope that new instructions from Islamabad will lead to the end of infiltration across the borders, but he asserted, “when and if it does stop, it must also stop permanently.”
Powell has been assured by Islamabad that it will be stopped permanently. Judgement on that must wait for results over the coming months. Even the US is not sure of results at this stage. It seems we are entering a new phase of more active US involvement.
Unfortunately, Musharraf’s emphasis on providing political, diplomatic and moral support for Kashmiri freedom struggle is only an encouragement to continued violence within the state. And this support is for 6 per cent of the people of Kashmir who want to join Pakistan! If he is sincere about what the people of Kashmir want, then he should closely look at the fact that 86 per cent of the people in the state want an end to militancy and infiltration. On the other hand, India had said after Musharraf’s January speech that the real test would come in summer. Unfortunately, the incidence of terrorist violence in J&K during the winter months was noticeably higher than during similar winters in recent years. Besides, cross-border terrorism has escalated. Musharraf’s new promises would take time to show results on the ground. And these are crucial months since they are also the run up to the elections in J&K.
It is ironical that the world’s sole super power has been held to ransom by a persistently failing state, home to jehadi terror across the globe
Indian non-military options were running out. However, the public debate essentially centred on limited, calibrated use of conventional military force within J&K. But what was even more significant was the sudden raising of the nuclear bogey by Pakistanis faithfully echoed in the media from London and Washington. During his referendum campaign, Musharraf himself talked in terms of using the nuclear weapons. Following his address to the nation on May 23, three tests of ballistic missiles were carried out as a visible symbol of the strategic capabilities to back his claims. As if this was not enough, Pakistan’s new ambassador to the UN, who is otherwise a very polished diplomat, talked quite aggressively at length on how and when nuclear weapons would be used while his president talked of taking the war inside Indian territory.
The tragedy is that the nuclear bluff and blackmail appear to have worked on the sole super power and it ordered its citizens out of India! This has far reaching consequences even if some non-proliferation-wallas see some advantage in it. Now Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is to visit the subcontinent presumably to tell us of those dangers. To back it up, his Defence Intelligence Agency has released a report that 12 million people would be killed in a nuclear war. The US Secretary of Defence will follow to continue applying “pressure” to de-escalate. But no one seems to have sat down to answer some obvious questions: who is threatening nuclear weapons and their use? And secondly, who is likely to initiate it? And what does the nuclear hype really mean?
India has a declared no-first-use policy. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has committed the country to that policy at the UN General Assembly in 1998. This policy has been frequently reiterated in recent weeks. Deterrence is expected to work under these circumstances by the promise of assured retaliation to a nuclear attack on India and its forces which would lead to unacceptable levels of punishment to the nuclear aggressor. Even Colin Powell has indicated that he had told the Pakistanis how foolish nuclear option would be, given India’s no-first-use policy.
The risk of use of nuclear weapons, if any, therefore, can arise only under one set of circumstances: Islamabad decides to use it on India. It has been threatening to do so almost every other day. It did hold out a nuclear threat in the early stages of the Kargil War in 1999 in the hope that the international community would order a ceasefire shifting the line eastward. The US also concluded that Pakistan was planning to arm its nuclear missiles while Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was enroute to Washington on July 3, 1999, to confirm Pakistan’s withdrawal back across the Line of Control. The current promotion of nuclear threat, therefore, can only be a diplomatic blackmail by Pakistan to persuade Washington to tilt in its favour.
Washington must be careful in not sliding back to its Cold War practice of balancing India and Pakistan in what came to be known as a hyphenated relationship. This would detract it completely from its immediate goal of fighting a war against terrorism especially since almost all the top leadership of Al-Qaeda and Taliban have dispersed inside Pakistan, and complicate its long-term foreign policy goals. India has a stake in the success of the US war against terrorism. It is ironical and symptomatic of the times we live in that the world’s sole super power has been held to ransom by a persistently failing state, home to jehadi terror across the globe, stalling on one pretext or the other the dismantling of the terrorist infrastructure established by its army and army-controlled ISI.
Under the circumstances, the US would find it practically impossible to balance counter-terrorism in Pakistan with search for a permanent “solution” to the Kashmir issue. At the minimum, a ‘dialogue’ between Pakistan and India is sought. But what would be the agenda for such a dialogue even if India gives in to arm-twisting? Status of Jammu and Kashmir which acceded to India in 1947? Or, the programme for rolling back and eliminating cross-border terrorism? The central issue now is cross-border terrorism and not Kashmir; and the US must remain focused on it.

index

The Indian Express, June 5, 2002

First straws? Pak’s Urdu press hints at a jehadi ‘ceasefire’

Jyoti Malhotra

New Delhi, June 4:
They are the political weather vanes of Pakistan, its hardline and mostly right-wing Urdu press, and diplomatic circles here indicate they may be catching the first straws in the changing wind.
This morning’s edition of Nawai Waqt claims that US pressure on Pakistan to stop cross-border infiltration is working and that the ‘‘jehadi’’ groups have been ordered to ‘‘stop strikes in Occupied Kashmir’’, even as a membership list of all ‘‘jehadi’’ groups is being prepared.
One commander of the United Jehad Council of Syed Salahuddin has told the paper that he ‘‘feared that from now on, the mujahideen may not be able to launch strikes in (Indian) Kashmir.’’
An office-bearer of another unnamed group told the paper that the ‘‘Kashmiri struggle’’ would be crushed, just like the ‘‘Khalistan movement’’ was earlier. He added that about 10,000 Pakistani youth belonging to different outfits were fighting in the Kashmir valley and that the ban on ‘‘strikes had made their return impossible.’’
Yesterday, Nawai Waqt published a letter written by ‘‘Kashmiri commanders fighting against Indian forces in occupied Kashmir,’’ to leaders of religious and political parties in Pakistan, expressing displeasure over the reported shift in Pakistan’s policy on Kashmir.
‘‘Pakistan has been calling Kashmir its lifeline,’’ the letter says, making no bones about warning Musharraf, ‘‘so can anybody make a compromise when its lifeline is being cut?’’ Today’s Jasarat, meanwhile, has an interesting story under the byline of one Shamim Akhtar, who says that Pakistan may have assured the US that it ‘‘would stop the armed struggle in Kashmir over the next two months.’’ Most ‘‘jehadi’’ outfits had shifted base to ‘‘Azad Kashmir’’ from proper Pakistan, but now it seemed that they would be moved from there as well.
Akhtar arrives at an interesting conclusion as a result of all this complex political and diplomatic activity at home. ‘‘The logical outcome of this,’’ he says, ‘‘is that the armed freedom struggle in Kashmir will die down and gradually the Line of Control will be converted into a permanent border.’’
And if that was how the Kashmir story was going to end anyway, he goes on to argue, why didn’t Musharraf ‘‘directly deal with India at the Agra summit? What was the need to invite the US to broker a deal between the two countries?’’
In its inimitable way, the Urdu press seems to be putting out the danger signs for the General. Ausaf by choosing to print this story, that the Hurriyat on both sides of Kashmir has announced that it will ‘‘not accept the Line of Control dividing Kashmiri families,’’, may be saying that the Kashmir movement is spinning out of the General’s control.
Saying that a meeting of the ‘‘Azad Kashmir’’ chapter of the APHC was held in Islamabad on June 2, attended by ‘‘AK president Sardar Anwar and prime minister Sikander Hayat,’’ the meeting ‘‘demanded that the Pakistan government stick to its stand on Kashmir.’’
The Jasarat has a warning for Musharraf as well. ‘‘Pakistan will have to review its foreign policy and restore the confidence of friendly countries. But this goal cannot be achieved as long as the Musharraf junta is around,’’ it says.

index

Rediff.com, June 5, 2002

'US will tell India to de-escalate only if infiltration stops'

United States Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that the US will urge India to de-escalate the current standoff with Pakistan only when it is 'obvious and demonstrable to all' that cross-border terrorism has ended.
"I spoke to Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf over the weekend, once again encouraging him to do everything to restrain all activity across the Line of Control," he told reporters in Barbados after a meeting of the Organization of American States on Tuesday.
"When that takes place in a way that is obvious and demonstrable to all, then we would call upon India to take the de-escalatory steps so we can start moving in the other direction," he said.
While conceding that the situation in the sub-continent 'continues to concern (the US) deeply', Powell said that he was pleased that both sides in the last few days had once again stated they would not use nuclear weapons.
India and Pakistan realized that this was a threshold that "we do not wish to see crossed," he said.
"I am glad that both nations have responded in a responsible manner to that concern on the part of the international community," Powell said.

index

The Indian Express, June 5, 2002

'All we expect from Musharraf regime: stop supporting terror’

Most analysts concur that Asia holds the key to the future of mankind’s eternal quest for peace and progress. The demographic profiles will themselves ensure that close to half of humanity, will reside in Asia. Asia will be the cradle for interplay between all major powers particularly, USA, China, Japan, India and Russia.
India’s parameters of security concerns clearly extend beyond the confines of the conventional geographical definition of South Asia.
There are a variety of challenges for Asian security. At present, the war against terrorism holds centre stage. The evolution of events since September 22 and the December 13 terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament, the symbol of the largest multi-ethnic democracy in the world, has challenged conventional notions about security, vulnerability and strategy. Re-affirming the indivisibility of international security, these events have shaken the comity of nations out of the ambivalence of the post-Cold War decade. These events have sensitised them to the threats posed by terrorism, which India had long since identified as the principal destabiliser of the world order.
We recognise the relevance accorded to Pakistan for its support to the US-led coalition against terrorism. Yet it is common knowledge that al Qaeda and Taliban cadres have escaped into Pak’s north-west province and PoK. We are deeply concerned that these cadres would be encouraged to indulge in terrorist violence against India
No one imagined that the pattern of medieval violence that stalked Afghanistan was a prelude to more shocking violence to come. The supporters of the Taliban felt that this cycle of violence could be a profitable ‘export’, apart from being an instrument of state policy. It was indeed an ‘export’ but of a different kind, where destinations varied from Kerala to Kashmir in india, from Aceh in Indonesia to Mindanao in the Philippines to Chechnya in Russia and Xinjiang in China.
Today, open, pluralistic and democratic societies have become particularly vulnerable to the destablising effects of the close nexus between international terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering, criminal groups operating across borders, and illicit trafficking in small arms. Except Afghanistan. governments elsewhere which harboured and supported the Taliban and the al Qaeda are intact and, in one case, are pretending to have emerged stronger. India however continued to remain steadfast in its commitment to promoting stability based on democracy.
India has consistently followed the principle of voluntary restraint. We have called for consensual initiatives to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons, which still remain outside any normative restraint, by subscribing to such political measures as no-first-use, non-use against non-nuclear weapon states and a move away from deployment in the hair-trigger alert mode. India’s nuclear weapons capability is meant only for self-defence and seeks to ensure that India’s independence and integrity are not threatened by any misconceived plan to nuclear aggression.
India will not get drawn into a nuclear arms race. With this objective, India has also constructed several CBMs with both Pakistan and China. These include early warning of missile tests, hotline communications, limitations on the movements of military forces near the international borders. India and China are engaged in a security dialogue, resolution of border disputes and further CBMs through strengthening of mutual trade links.
Major powers such as China, Japan, India and Russia, have a crucial role to play in fostering regional cooperation in the Asian continent. We also view China as a crucial peg of the emerging security and political architecture of Asia. Much of Asia’s future security will depend on the way China’s leadership shapes its policies vis-a-vis many of its neighbouring countries. China has embarked upon a path of rapid modernisation and ambitious economic growth. It is our hope that economic development in China will help it to play a benign role in all Asian matters, including the peaceful settlement of its boundary disputes with some countries in the region.
India’s birth as a nation came through a non-violent freedom movement led by that apostle of peace, Mahatma Gandhi, with a commitment to economic development designed to restore dignity to the deprived millions of our countrymen. When misconceived Islamic nationalism was used by a section of the Muslim leadership to divide India to carve out a theocratic state, named Pakistan, the founding fathers of our nation perserved and fought to make India a secular and democratic republic. For the record, let me state here that India is the second largest Islamic country in the world.
We recognise that the military is only one of many tools in the state’s quiver. Short-term interests should not allow contours to make imprudent choices. The world led by the US can prevail upon Pakistan to live up to its responsibilities and its commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 1373. This is the co-operation we seek from those who advise restraint
Some pointed questions have been raised about the possibility of a war between India and Pakistan. Similarly, there have been widespread concerns whether such a conflict may result in nuclear exchange.
May I, therefore, place the entire issue in perspective. In an unintended way, the current Indian challenges distills all the complexities that the global community is facing apropos terrorism, post September 11, 2001. India has been facing terrorism for almost two decades. A proxy war of low Intensity conflict has been waged against the Indian state and society by our neighbour — Pakistan. Over the last twelve years India has been subjected to a deadly pattern of cross border terrorism. The resilience of our democratic polity, secular structure and the professionalism of our armed forces has helped us withstand this challenge. We have lost more than 60,000 people over the years in the proxy war by Pakistan — ‘‘to bleed India by a thousand cuts’’.
You will all appreciate that despite all the threats it faced, India has conducted itself with characteristic restraint. We refrained from bombing the swamp that was breeding terrorists. Even after September 11, we have been subject to a series of attacks. On October 1, 2001, the J&K Assembly was attacked leaving 40 innocent persons dead. India showed restraint. On December 13, 2001, there was an attack on the Indian parliament. This was not just an attack on the structure but actually aimed at eliminating the entire political leadership of the country. It was an attack on everything that India stands for.
The subsequent speech of General Musharraf on January 12 was encouraging. While words were spoken, we still wait for action. The crackdown on terrorism by Pakistan was merely cosmetic, as subsequent events have shown to the entire world. And then we had the brutal massacre of women and children in an Army residential complex near Jammu on May 14. It was a diabolical act. Innocent people were mowed down by the terrorists including a two month-old baby. Mr Chairman, I am 70 plus and I have seen a lot of violence, blood and gore. But the Kaluchak killing churned my insides.
The country is angry and anguished. The pressure on our PM, Mr Vajpayee, to launch an attack on the terrorists is intense. But we held back — only to have Mr Abdul Gani Lone, a voice of moderation in the politics of Kashmir — assassinated by terrorists.
We are not threatening the territorial integrity of Pakistan nor do we have any animus against its people. We have resolved to address the problem of terrorism tactically and strategically. India will neither be impulsive nor stop fighting the war against terrorism
Over the last few days, there have been intemperate assertions from Islamabad that Pakistan may use nuclear weapons if India takes any military action. The global community has been periodically alarmed at this. We must look at why Pakistan is crying ‘‘wolf’’ and threatening to use weapons of mass destruction. Why, after all, did they test their missiles at this particular point of time in even the face of global condemnation? Mr Chairman, I feel, the attempt is to obfuscate the real issue. I would also like to ask, why the world opinion is not strongly reacting to such open threats of Pakistan on use of nuclear weapons. Is this not an attempt to blackmail India and the rest of the global community?
India is focused on terrorism — with determination. We are not threatening the territorial integrity of Pakistan, nor do we have any animus against the people of Pakistan. We have resolved to address the problem of terrorism both tactically and strategically. All we expect of the Musharraf regime is that it desist from supporting terrorism. These commitments have been made in public by the General in his speeches of January 12 and May 27. India expects Gen Musharraf to match word with deed.
Pakistan is ostensibly supporting the US led coalition against terrorism. We recognise the relevance accorded to Islamabad by Washington. Yet it is common knowledge that jehadi groups including the al Qaeda and Taliban cadres have escaped into the north-west province of Pakistan and also into Pakistan occupied Kashmir. We are deeply concerned that these cadres would be encouraged to indulge in terrorist violence against India.
What concerns us more than anything else is that while we show restraint we are faced almost daily with tragic news of brutal attacks on innocent men, women and children. We are regularly faced with pictures of young children being killed along with the mother who was trying to protect them. Of women who lost their husbands and children, of people who are homeless, of thousands who now have nowhere to go.
The question is, where do we go from here?
Perhaps we need to change the semantic of war when we address terrorism. Mr Paul Wolfowitz dealt with the complexity of the challenge to like-minded states in the global community. His is going to be a long campaign against terrorists and the infrastructure and the motivational force that feeds the gene-pool.
India has been grappling with the challenge of terrorism for many years. We recognise that the military is only one of many tools in the quiver of the state and society. We need to deliberate at length and identify the contents of the problem. Short-term interests should not allow contours to make imprudent choices.
In this specific case, I believe the global community, led by the USA, can prevail upon Pakistan to live up to its responsibilities to the global community and its commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 1373. This is the co-operation we seek from those who advise India to be restrained.
In India, the Defence Minister is called the ‘‘Raksha Mantri’’. Raksha in Sanskrit is protection. As Raksha Mantri, I am committed to protecting India’s core interests. Terrorism is the challenge. I assure you, ladies and gentlemen, India will not be impulsive, neither will we waver in our determination for the simple reason that what we have been fighting and will continue to fight is the war against terrorism — the same terrorism which hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, as a part of the global war presently being fought for Enduring Freedom by the coalition forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world.

index

The Times of India, June 5, 2002

Superpower retreat: Bowing to N-blackmail

K SUBRAHMANYAM

[ TUESDAY, JUNE 04, 2002 11:56:27 PM ]
May 31, 2002 is likely to turn out as fateful a day in history as September 11, 2001, when the superpower was attacked on its home turf.
On the former day, the sole superpower virtually yielded to nuclear blackmail by Pakistan (conveyed by its ambassador to the UN). Instead of taking Pakistan to task as was done in 1990, the US chose to keep silent on the issue. Worse, the US administration obliged Pakistan by recalling its staff from the subcontinent.
Whether this was a momentary loss of nerve on the part of Washington or a permanent cerebral stroke incapacitating the superpower, the next few weeks will tell, as deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld visit the subcontinent.
The advisory of US and western powers to their nationals verged on utter panic. It also brought out two factors which will affect the future, irrespective of any policy reversal by the United States and possible recovery of its confidence. First, in spite of the non-proliferation treaty, the counter-proliferation strategy and the Security Council summit resolution of January 1992, the US and its nuclear allies are in no position to impose nuclear discipline on Pakistan.
The message is loud and clear to other potential rogue states that if they could clandestinely acquire nuclear weapons, then the US and the rest of the international community would keep off. It would confirm the potent role of nuclear weapons in international relations.
The western leaders praised General Musharraf for more than four months for his speech of January 12, 2002 and his commitment to stop cross-border terrorism. Then, on May 31, 2002 they spoke about the possibility of an Indo-Pak war consequent upon the continuing cross-border terrorism. In other words, the sole superpower and its allies were not able to prevail upon Pakistan to abide by its commitment and invoke Security Council resolution 1373 (which mandates states not to support terrorism).
Further, Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and the leadership cadres of the Al-Qaida and the Taliban are today in Pakistan and regrouping their forces. In spite of Pakistan being an ally of the US, the terrorists were able to move from Afghanistan to Pakistan in November-December 2001 before the Indo-Pak border stand-off began and while the Pakistani army fully manned the Afghan border.
Out of 22 leaders of the Al-Qaida, only two are accounted for. Most of the high profile operations of the elite US and British forces on Afghan-Pakistan border have been futile.
The US vice-president and the director of FBI have asserted that new terrorist threats are inevitable and cannot be stopped. Yet, they seem oblivious of the fact that today the epicentre of terrorism is Pakistan, from where the Al-Qaida is busy plotting new attacks on the US.
The Al-Qaida used to proclaim that they had defeated one superpower (the Soviet Union) and they would surely defeat the second (the US). The US’s current indulgent behaviour towards Pakistan would appear to validate their claims.
Lastly, by giving in to Pakistani nuclear blackmail, the US has allowed the nuclearisation of terrorism, thereby encouraging the Al-Qaida and the jehadis to continue their terrorist activities behind the shield of Pakistani nuclear capability. Today, the Al-Qaida and the Taliban may have lost Afghanistan, but they have successfully established themselves in the safe haven of Pakistan, thanks to General Musharraf’s brilliant strategy of claiming to be an ally of the US, while in practice supporting and sustaining the operation of the terrorist groups.
This strategy is derived from the one successfully practised by the Al-Qaida and the jehadis in the eighties in Afghanistan. They derived their weapons, skills and other resources from the US for the purpose of overthrowing Soviet occupation and used them successfully against the US itself. Similarly, using General Musharraf’s professed alliance with the US, the Al-Qaida will derive the necessary wherewithal to wage its war of terrorism.
In this respect, General Musharraf has been hunting with the American hound even while running with the jehadi and Al-Qaida hares.
In these circumstances, the world, as well as India may have to adjust themselves to a new international security paradigm in which the sole superpower does not have the will to commit itself to a war against terrorism or towards effective countering of nuclear blackmail. The present Indian strategy is based on certain assumptions of superpower behaviour.
The May 31 events call for a radical reassessment of our assumptions. The possibility of the US not pursuing the war against terrorism or countering nuclear blackmail has to be factored in our calculations. Many may rejoice in the sole superpower losing its nerve and abdicating its responsibility.
Others may be disoriented by it. For the Al-Qaida and the jehadis, this will be a morale booster and it will be logical to expect them to initiate more terrorist attacks both against India and the US.
The former is far more vulnerable than the latter. It is also possible the Americans may treat this as a temporary loss of nerve and return to their normal superpower behaviour pattern. In that event continuity will be restored, though at significant cost to the US image and credibility.

index

Wednesday, June 5, 2002

Pakistanis and Indians for Peace

Washington, D.C. -- In a first for the Washington, D.C. area, local Indian and Pakistani organizations held a joint peace vigil in front of the two embassies. Supporters turned out to urge the two governments to find a peaceful solution to the current crisis.
"We oppose war of any kind, conventional or nuclear," said Chaudhary Shafi of the Pakistan Association of Greater Washington Metropolitan Area. "We have fought three wars already and they've produced no solution. More fighting will mean more death, more refugees, and more misery but won't solve the problems." Speakers emphasized that even threats of war were counter-productive in the quest for solutions.
The groups also delivered petitions to the embassies, calling for military de-escalation, a resumption of diplomatic negotiations, and investment in people's basic needs in both countries.
"We urge our governments to reach a just, constructive and realistic solution to the crisis. In our opinion, a military ësolution' is no solution at all," said Shivani Chaudhry of the DC Collective, a South Asian coalition for peace and justice.
Others at the vigil emphasized that the governments of Pakistan and India must seek alternative approaches to the problems facing both countries. "Peace means no war; but peace also means a guarantee of food, employment, health care, and personal freedom," said Lubna Ejaz. "These are the priorities of most people in both countries."
As the vigil shows, Indians and Pakistanis are united in their desire for peace. One of the vigil organizers, Indira Ravindran, summed up by saying, "This is our message to our governments: people to people, we are one. Any solution to the current crisis must reflect this."



index

HOME Landelijke India Werkgroep

pagina KRUITVAT INDIA-PAKISTAN

Landelijke India Werkgroep - 8 juni 2002