Passage to Nowhere
Abandoning the Bride at the Altar
Already faced with enough troubles economically and politically, Pakistan now has a full-scale war on its western borders that we did not want and a religious call to arms within our frontiers that we certainly did not need. Compounding our problems, frustrated at seeing years of meticulous planning to isolate and Balkan-ize Pakistan literally go up in smoke on Sept 11, India is like a frustrated bride abandoned at the altar by the bridegroom to return to his original mate. India seems hell-bent on provoking a conflict on our eastern front which both India and Pakistan may well live to regret, if it escalates into a nuclear exchange both may well not live to express those regrets. Lobbying the US for the last decade to get the freedom fighters in Kashmir declared “terrorist”, and Pakistan a “terrorist-State” for good measure, it must be galling for the Indians to have their well-laid plans come to naught. Though he seemed to retract a little when in New Delhi, US Secretary of State Colin Powell may have inadvertently added insult to injury by calling “Kashmir the central issue between India and Pakistan”, “core issue” are code words normally used by Pakistan. Pakistan has returned to doing what it does best, being the front line State for the US in a war against somebody or the other. Indian intelligentsia and commentators have had real fun over the past year gloating over how Pakistan was on the ropes geo-politically, and economically was about to go under. Well, to paraphrase Mark Twain, “rumours of Pakistan’s demise seems to have been greatly exaggerated”, unquote.
Which Plan, Martial or Marshal?
To protect itself from both internal dissent and a foreign war, the then French Government imposed “Terror” as the order of the day on Sep 5, 1793. Targeting opponents within its own midst, almost 17,000 being executed in less than a year till July 27, 1794, courts across the country were given a rather stark choice, “Execution or Acquittal!”. Encyclopedia Britannica describes “terrorism” as the “systematic use of terror as a means of forcing some political objective. A government may use it to signal efforts for stifling dissent, insurrectionists or guerillas may use terror as part of an overall effort to effect desired political change”. Commercial passenger aircraft were employed as flying bombs to destroy the twin towers of the World Trade Centre (WTC), the terrorists denying benefit of a trial to the many innocent passengers on the flights or the many thousands of almost 80 nationalities making their living in the prime commercial square mile of the world. A sentence of death was carried out by a “kangaroo court” knowing well that those they were executing so brutally had nothing whatsoever to do with the crimes that the terrorists were fighting against. Supposedly for the glory of Islam, the terrorists struck Islam perhaps its most grievous blow in the many centuries of its existence. With such “good” Muslims in our midst, does Islam need enemies?
Hasina Khaleda-ised
Defying expectations of a great many analysts who predicted a close race, Begum Khaleda Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)-led Alliance routed the ruling Awami League (AL) in the general elections held on Oct 1, 2001, putting Bangladesh founding father Sheikh Mujib’s daughter, Shaikh Hasina Wajid, out to pasture for the next five years. The BNP already has a two-thirds majority with at least 30-40 seats still to be declared. Showing a good head for arithmetic, Hasina Wajid lost no time crying “foul” in announcing a boycott of Parliament, acutely aware that her party has often used brute majority to amend the Constitution to suit its narrow interests rather than national ones. More than 200 foreign observers present to observe the elections have disagreed with Hasina Wajid, unanimously calling the polls generally free and fair. The lady is out in the cold without any credibility to cloak her.
Hares and Hounds
Gen Pervez Musharraf is not known as a man who will vacillate in taking a decision. Unfortunately this time he does not have the luxury of a choice, the stakes are too high for this country. While the President has condemned terrorism in very strong language, the US wants him to put his money where Pakistan’s mouth is, i.e. translate rhetoric into concrete measures in line with a US wish-list which, though not disclosed publicly, seeks to isolate the ruling Afghan government logistically (no fuel, no war material) while providing concrete military support in form of intelligence, logistics and troops. The world’s media seems to be taking its cue from the various statements of top US leaders in Administration and from the US Congress in labelling Osama bin Laden as the prime suspect. Almost gleefully, Indian PM Vajpayee has not wasted any time linking Pakistan to terrorism, that India supported the Soviets against the US during the Afghan War is forgotten. While it does look bad for Afghanistan, all the hijackers were of Arab origin, even a tenuous link with Afghanistan is yet to be established. Western intelligence agencies are desperately looking for “a smoking gun” linking Osama to the heinous crime in the US. If that should happen, Pakistan would have no choice but to be in the forefront of those forces that will act against this terrorist and his Taliban protectors. One cannot run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.
Understanding Each Other
At Agra Pakistan and India seemed very close to an agreement, post-Summit statements make it quite clear that both sides were in fact far apart in their respective perceptions about what the agreement amounted to. Pakistan held out that their long-standing stand on Kashmir being a core issue was about to be formally recognized, India felt that its main concern, “cross-border terrorism” was going to be addressed by Pakistan and this would drastically curtail the freedom struggle within Kashmir. Such different interpretations post-Summit would have made any Declaration a non-starter, the various clauses could have been used as enough pretext by extremists on either side to destroy whatever understanding was developing among the leaders and intelligentsia of both the countries, seriously retarding the peace process. Both Musharraf and Vajpayee are very conscious of hard-liners in their constituencies, that is why they avoided eroding each others’ domestic standing by giving these hard-liners due cause. When two people meet to solve a problem, the sensitivity each displays for the other’s problems despite disagreeing with each other goes a long way in creating the right atmosphere for eventual solution. The good chemistry between Musharraf and Vajpayee was the main success of Agra, that it did not result in an “instant Declaration” may be temporarily disappointing, in the cold light of reality one can understand it has created the foundation that will eventually lead to lasting solutions.
1000 yrs in Less Than 100 hrs?
About the best thing that could have happened to Pakistan and India was to have no agreement at all at Agra. Munich is a benchmark that compromises made on appeasement can have a terrible backlash. Refusing to fall into the trap of having to satisfy an expectant world at any cost, the two countries decided to walk away from the negotiating table without a Joint Declaration containing compromises lacking sincere intent. There may not have been the success of a Declaration, there was no failure of the peace process at Agra. Consider the intent behind a play of words in the language of the draft declaration, any agreement reached under such compulsions would have been torn apart by domestic dissent on either side before the ink was dry, the two leaders would have been eaten up alone by the lions-in-waiting on either side. Maturity prevailed in foregoing a short-time exultation of a contrived success, and in agreeing to continue future discussions in the congenial atmosphere that seems to have largely replaced the public acrimony of the past the countries may have had their first real success on the road to achieving lasting peace. Instead of the dialogue of the deaf prevailing since Kargil, a growing understanding (and a public deference hitherto missing) was manifest in the statements of the two Foreign Ministers the day after Agra. Many commentators have observed that 54 years of mistrust, suspicion, conflict, etc could never be erased in three days, unfortunately the divide goes back over a thousand years plus. Given such an environment even if the miracle had happened, the very speed of the understanding would have been its undoing.
Complete Nuclear Lunacy?
Since May 5 an Indian strike force of 60,000 plus is conducting Corps — level exercise code-named “Poorna Vijay” (Complete Victory) in the Bikaner sector of Rajasthan, the final assault on “enemy positions” (believe it or not, that’s us) is scheduled for Thursday May 10, 2001. Armour might in the form of T-72 tanks make up the centre-piece of the manoeuvres, supported by mechanized infantry, self-propelled artillery and about a 100 combat and transport aircraft which will launch mock ground attacks. Even though not stated, heliborne assault forces are certainly making up an integral part of the deployment. The exercise “aims to evaluate concept and practice, battle procedures during defensive and offensive operations on the future battlefield, with a nuclear backdrop”. The Indian Government further states that “the operation’s aim is to enhance the army’s operational preparations through the conduct of a number of tactical exercises with troops under simulated battle conditions. Drills and procedures to meet challenges of a nuclear, chemical or biological strike will also be practiced”. Air Marshal (Retd) Kak, a noted defence analyst, opines that “the exercise also aims to prove India’s nuclear deterrent is indeed credible and that our (i.e. Indian) retaliation will be massive. Our doctrine is to escalate conflict beyond battlefields to strategic targets in case of nuclear war”, unquote. In violation of the ground rules agreed upon in April 1991 about exercises conducted in the proximity of each other borders (i.e. within 75 kms) and in the presence of the hotline between each other’s Military Operations, India conveniently failed to inform Pakistan that it was carrying out offensive manoeuvres so close to our borders. This deliberate omission signals a provocation of sorts, such manoeuvres will certainly lead to friction if Pakistan chooses tit-for-tat escalation.
Dilli Hanuz Dur Ust
Within days of a most pleasant invitation for talks by the Indian PM to his Pakistani counterpart, the Indian External Affairs and Defence Minister back-pedalled furiously at a televised Press Conference. Had the hardliners in BJP succeeded in bringing Jaswant Singh into line or was the live charade stage-managed to convey the real message, that India had no intention of bargaining over (Indian-Occupied) Kashmir, and that the Kashmiris themselves had no role in the proposed talks? As an afterthought nail in the coffin of peace, Jaswant Singh added that inviting Pervez Musharraf did not mean that India was recognising the Pakistan’s military regime. So why was the invitation made in the first place, was the Pakistani Chief Executive (CE) only meant to be an “accidental tourist to New Delhi”? “The talks are meant to forget the bitter past between the two countries and begin a new chapter for the future”, said Jaswant Singh, and perhaps to drum it into Pakistan at the highest level to forget Kashmir.
Foreign policy – The crossroads of friendship
On the receiving end of world opinion for some time, the Chinese Premier’s visit was a much needed tonic for Pakistan. China has been a tried and trusted friend in need since 1965, how did we ever manage to loosen the remarkably strong bond with Pakistan’s friend indeed? And should we now compound the situation by turning away from the US altogether? One of the imperatives of foreign policy is that we must avoid extreme change, another is that change if it comes must be for good reason, next when change does come it must be gradual, then it must conform to prevalent national security imperatives and lastly, it must be in the national interest. Change must never be sudden, never for change’s sake and never for short-term advantage. Above all, change must never be for an individual person’s gain. Far too long Pakistan’s foreign policy resembles a chameleon, changing shape to suit the occasion.
21st Century media challenges
For dramatic transformation, no century has been like the 20th. Starting with the radio to interactive multi-media, the last 100 years have been a revelation, inculcating a mind-boggling information revolution. Only 40 years ago, as we prepared for college-entry examinations, the radio was still considered an amazing contraption in countries like Pakistan, dimensionally making information available from across the globe, today the world has been brought almost physically into our drawing rooms and bedrooms, encapsulated by the TV, Lawrence J Peter pronouncing that, “an ounce of image is worth a pound of performance”. The 20th Century started with the print media only, despite being almost overwhelmed by the rapid technological change, it was still not the force it has become today. The written word remains a common denominator for the media. Centuries ago, the Greek culture and civilization, which was till then a victim of morality, was transformed into literacy because of writing and the willingness of the Greek to accept the written word.