A call for a paradigm shift
INAYATULLAH
Pakistan has shown some spine in expelling a “Raw” diplomat caught red handed indulging in activities “incompatible” with his normal duties. New Delhi lost no time in a tit-for-tat expulsion of a New Delhi Pakistan embassy official. Even before the accusations about the Mumbai train blasts were hurled at Pakistan, India had raised the tempo of allegations regarding “cross-border terrorism”. Despite enhanced expectations, Manmohan Singh wouldn’t even consider paying a visit to Pakistan. Why visit a “terrorist” country? This hardening of the stance had a definite purpose.
Having secured Pakistan’s assent to opening of travel and to some extent trade and with SAFTA coming into operation, there was no pressing need for carrying on the talks especially about Kashmir. Let Pakistan keep asking for a dialogue on the Kashmir issue. New Delhi could afford to slow down the process of “normalisation”. The Mumbai train attack was put to immediate use to not only accuse Pakistan of complicity with the terrorists but also for putting a stop to the scheduled meeting of foreign secretaries. Without any credible evidence Pakistan was placed in the dock. Manmohan Singh’s injured innocence could win the sympathy and support of the eight great, meeting in St Petersburgh. Islamabad was projected as an unrepentant villain. US assistant secretary of state, Richard Boucher’s statement after the Mumbai bombings was not appreciated in New Delhi as he did not find any evidence linking the tragic incident with the miscreants in Pakistan. It wouldn’t let the opportunity slip and fully used its influence with Washington.
Lo and behold the gambit worked and soon enough Boucher was visiting India and making the right noises in New Delhi. Just read the AFP report: “A senior US State Department official called Monday for joint action against terrorism, including against groups based in Pakistan. Richard Boucher, US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, arrived in India last week. He made the comments after meetings with business leaders and government officials. The two sides discussed joint efforts to fight terrorism and felt that terrorism should be fought in all places and in all its forms, Boucher said after a three-hour meeting with government officials. We all know there is terrorism in the (South Asia) region. Some of the terrorism is in Pakistan. Some of the groups that have designs against India still have pieces in Pakistan, he told reporters”.
One may here recall that for the last many years India has been working on the American mind (even prior to Nine Eleven), more specifically Jaswant Singh, convincing Strobe Talbott deputy secretary of state that there was need for joint action against terrorism (Jaswant asserting that Pakistan was the “epicenter” of the terrorist activities). These efforts bore fruit and the Americans not only agreed to the setting up of a joint working group to combat terrorism but also to establishing a centre at New Delhi to institutionalise anti terrorism operations. It is no surprise for a discerning observer to find the origin of American change of approach to Kashmir and the Kashmiris struggle for self-determination. It had a lot to do with the hard work done by the Indian ministry of external affairs led by its competent minister.
Of course the crazy Kargil misadventure was also fully exploited to turn the tables against Pakistan. A tremendous damage was done to Pakistan’s historic stand on Kashmir. Henceforth any involvement of Islamabad in Kashmir was to be treated as something undesirable and an unwarranted intrusion into Indian territory.
Little was done by Islamabad to counter the Indian campaign to malign and demonise Pakistan. There was more of damage to come. In the name of “flexibility”, Islamabad was willing to set aside the United Nations resolutions on Kashmir. And further to be content with some sort of “self rule” --it being presumed that the hapless Kashmiris would be quite happy with such a compromise. The Hurriayyat leadership at the same time was split with the Mir Waez group toeing the official line given by Islamabad. Indians thus found themselves in the enviable position of not only having a Pakistan retreating from its internationally recognised position on IHK but also the world standing with it on the charge of “cross-border” terrorism.
Because of American persuasion, India kept paying lip service to the need for discussing Kashmir in the composite agenda dialogue without entering into any serious consideration of the issue. Pakistan could hope against hope. Stew into its own juice. Kept on the defensive. With no let up in state terrorism. Civilians-men, women and children could be killed with impunity, property burnt and youth just “disappearing” without trace. At the same time Pakistan could be reminded off and on that Kashmir was an integral part of India. That there was a joint parliamentary resolution which regarded Azad Kashmir a part of the Indian territory.
Now that the sole superpower is a long-term partner, with a remarkable nuclear deal more or less clinched and India being hailed economically as well as militarily as an emerging giant, why should it concede any request or demand coming from the “delinquent” Western neighbour? More of confidence building measures yes, but there shall be no concessions on Kashmir, Beghliar, Siachin or even Sir Creck. Where does all this leave Pakistan? How does it stand? Politically weak, socially un-integrated and volatile and economically not quite stable as yet, some of its plus points are its size, considerable resources, location and its nuclear capability. To emerge from the morass, the first thing it must do and urgently, is to put its house in order. The unnatural and unacceptable military-led government must give way to the restoration of democracy with the army confining itself to its constitutional duties. Equally important is a clear-eyed and ruthless review of our foreign relations. We cannot afford to continue to act as mercenaries for the imperial powers hell-bent on reducing the Muslim states to hapless lackeys, stooges and at best satellites.
Today these powers are destroying the resistance in the Middle East and Afghanistan, threatening Iran. Tomorrow it could be the turn of Pakistan facing the music. There are enough excuses available, including Dr A Q Khan doings. The charge of terrorism could be used as a stick to beat us with. India and Afghanistan will be only too glad to provide evidence. Washington is already preparing India to undertake certain duties on its behalf in Afghanistan.
India is bound to in the near future increasingly involve itself in managing the latter’s affairs.
India’s role in supporting the insurgency in Balochistan is openly talked about. And you can’t rule out the burgeoning interest of USA in this strategically located area.
Pakistan’s faulty policies and its unstable political system have made it vulnerable to unwholesome US and Indian designs. The new Islamabad policy must be based on forging closer relations with China and Iran without unnecessarily annoying USA, India and other influential powers. It will also be desirable to make vigorous efforts to infuse a new life into OIC and CEO. It is not beyond Pakistan to play a leadership role (as was done by King Faisal and Mr Butto in the 1970s) to revive these international organisations and devise an approach and a policy to international affairs based on conviction, courage, realism, competence and self-respect.
E-mail:
pacade@brain.net.pk
