THE LAST PAGE
Make no compromise with Pakistan
M V KAMATH
What on earth does Dr Manmohan Singh have in mind when he says that dialogue with Pakistan is the only way ahead? According to him "we cannot wish away the problem (of Jammu & Kashmir) by not talking to them (Pakistan)" and "dialogue is the only way for civilized countries to resolve problems". Who says Pakistan is a civilsed country? In the last decade or thereabouts Pakistan has been trying to resolve the so-called problem in the most uncivilsed way by pushing jihadis into the Vale, leading to loss of several thousand human lives. Terrorist camps continue to function in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (POK). Has Pakistan agreed to close down the 40 terrorist camps as suggested by Delhi? It hasn’t and it won’t. Has the ISI-supported Taliban decided to stop killing? It hasn’t. On the contrary, it went on a killing spree only recently in Kabul resulting in the death of a dozen Indians. Is the Pakistan Army that supports the ISI in a conciliatory mood? Hardly. Only last month Gen Parvez Ashfaq Kayani told the media that the Pakistan Army is an "India-centric Institution" and "reality will not change in any significant way until the Kashmir issue and water disputes are resolved". His words and language convey the same thoughts as have been from time to time used by jihadis such as Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Mohammad saeed, who, even as talks at the Foreign Secretaries level were going on in Delhi, was telling a massive Lahore audience that the answer to the Jammu & Kashmir ‘problem’ is ‘war’. He has neither been arrested, nor even pulled up. He was evidently speaking for the Army. Meanwhile, Gen. Parvez Kayani is reportedly due to retire in November, but apparently he has no plans to do so. If forced to leave, his favoured choice for his successor is the current ISI chief, Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha. Kayani himself would like to get selected to the chairmanship of the Joint Chief of Staff Committee. In other words he wants to stay on at the helm of affairs to dictate foreign policy. Incidentally, Hafiz saeed was subject of discussion in a big way at the Foreign Secretaries’ level talks held on 25 February. But Pakistan has denied it. It is well to remember that the realists like K.P.S Gill have been trenchant critics of the ‘peace process’ in general and of the Jammu & Kashmir talks in particular on grounds that the search for a political solution is akin to appeasement. There are reports that Dr Singh is working under pressure from the United States, what respect can one have for Washington which has admitted to supplying laser-guided ammunition, 12 surveillance drones and 18 latest models of F-16, when past history tells us that every weapon provided to Pakistan has been used against India in three wars? When, in the past, President Eisenhower said that the military equipment given to Pakistan was not meant to be used against India, it was V.K. Krishna Menon who famously said that armament makers have yet to make weapons that could shoot only in one direction. Two points need to be raised in this connection. One is that foreign policy is made in Pakistan not by Messers Zardari, Gilani and Bashir, but by the Army and it makes no sense to hold a dialogue with civilian authorities. As did Vajpayee (who was betrayed) in the time of Musharaff, so today if Dr Singh wants to achieve anything, he must talk to Kayani who would not listen, anyway. And if talks are to be held anyway, they should be held only after behind-the-scene talks are held and a meaningful understanding agreed upon which, given the situation, is unlikely. That remains a chimera. It was Musharaff who said, "Kashmir runs in our blood. No Pakistani can afford to sever links with Kashmir. We will continue our moral, political and diplomatic support to Kashmiris. We will never budge from our principled stand on Kashmir". Kashmiri blood flows only in the veins of Kashmiri Pandits and the vast diaspora of Saraswat Brahmins who were driven out of the Vale by terrorists in a clear example of genocide. The blood that runs in the veins of Pakistanis is terrorist blood full of hatred of Hindus and of India and it stinks. Muslim Kashmiris have nothing in common with Punjabi or sindhi or Baluchi or Pathani Muslims. Those that have something in common are only the Kashmir Pandits. What is involved in the so-called Jammu & Kashmir ‘problem’ is not territory. It is a principle on which secular India is based. In 1947 Congress leaders-but not Mahatma Gandhi-accepted partition not because they were in agreement over the Two Nation Theory which stipulated that Muslims constitute a separate nation, but because they wanted to avoid a civil war of frightening proportions. Sixty odd years later, Indian leaders can now stand up to the separatists and tell them to go jump into the sea. To agree to Jammu & Kashmir being separated from India is to damage the entire concept of true secularism and India should not be a party to it. If Musharaff and his successor cannot judge from their "principled stand", neither can India, and with even greater justification. So, what is left for both countries to have a dialogue? Will Pakistan then keep up the tension by going back to its decade-long terrorism? It has to be warned as Bill Gates did. A war which nobody wants may come to pass. India’s patience is wearing thin. It has had enough. In a war both countries will suffer disastrously, but Pakistan will be wiped out of the surface of the earth. And neither the U.S. nor even China would be able to help it. Indeed it could turn out to be a war to end all wars, in the sheer magnitude of destruction. Dr. Manmohan Singh means well. We need a dialogue, but first the Pakistan Army must be defanged and that can only be done by the treacherous United States, NATO and hopefully with the understanding, if not cooperation, of China, that may not be forthcoming. In regard to the water disputes and the alleged misuse of the Baglihar Dam on the Chenab River, there can be two opinions. But a dialogue is possible, but not under threat. In this instance, too, India should be willing to hold talks but only after terrorism is called off. Dr. Manmohan Singh should not give in to blackmail. Already we are laughed at as a ‘soft state’ with no courage to stand up to shameless murderers who know only how to decapitate innocent Sikhs for ransom. We should show some self-respect that is so lacking in our policy towards a barbarian neighbour.
M V KAMATH
What on earth does Dr Manmohan Singh have in mind when he says that dialogue with Pakistan is the only way ahead? According to him "we cannot wish away the problem (of Jammu & Kashmir) by not talking to them (Pakistan)" and "dialogue is the only way for civilized countries to resolve problems". Who says Pakistan is a civilsed country? In the last decade or thereabouts Pakistan has been trying to resolve the so-called problem in the most uncivilsed way by pushing jihadis into the Vale, leading to loss of several thousand human lives. Terrorist camps continue to function in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (POK). Has Pakistan agreed to close down the 40 terrorist camps as suggested by Delhi? It hasn’t and it won’t. Has the ISI-supported Taliban decided to stop killing? It hasn’t. On the contrary, it went on a killing spree only recently in Kabul resulting in the death of a dozen Indians. Is the Pakistan Army that supports the ISI in a conciliatory mood? Hardly. Only last month Gen Parvez Ashfaq Kayani told the media that the Pakistan Army is an "India-centric Institution" and "reality will not change in any significant way until the Kashmir issue and water disputes are resolved". His words and language convey the same thoughts as have been from time to time used by jihadis such as Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Mohammad saeed, who, even as talks at the Foreign Secretaries level were going on in Delhi, was telling a massive Lahore audience that the answer to the Jammu & Kashmir ‘problem’ is ‘war’. He has neither been arrested, nor even pulled up. He was evidently speaking for the Army. Meanwhile, Gen. Parvez Kayani is reportedly due to retire in November, but apparently he has no plans to do so. If forced to leave, his favoured choice for his successor is the current ISI chief, Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha. Kayani himself would like to get selected to the chairmanship of the Joint Chief of Staff Committee. In other words he wants to stay on at the helm of affairs to dictate foreign policy. Incidentally, Hafiz saeed was subject of discussion in a big way at the Foreign Secretaries’ level talks held on 25 February. But Pakistan has denied it. It is well to remember that the realists like K.P.S Gill have been trenchant critics of the ‘peace process’ in general and of the Jammu & Kashmir talks in particular on grounds that the search for a political solution is akin to appeasement. There are reports that Dr Singh is working under pressure from the United States, what respect can one have for Washington which has admitted to supplying laser-guided ammunition, 12 surveillance drones and 18 latest models of F-16, when past history tells us that every weapon provided to Pakistan has been used against India in three wars? When, in the past, President Eisenhower said that the military equipment given to Pakistan was not meant to be used against India, it was V.K. Krishna Menon who famously said that armament makers have yet to make weapons that could shoot only in one direction. Two points need to be raised in this connection. One is that foreign policy is made in Pakistan not by Messers Zardari, Gilani and Bashir, but by the Army and it makes no sense to hold a dialogue with civilian authorities. As did Vajpayee (who was betrayed) in the time of Musharaff, so today if Dr Singh wants to achieve anything, he must talk to Kayani who would not listen, anyway. And if talks are to be held anyway, they should be held only after behind-the-scene talks are held and a meaningful understanding agreed upon which, given the situation, is unlikely. That remains a chimera. It was Musharaff who said, "Kashmir runs in our blood. No Pakistani can afford to sever links with Kashmir. We will continue our moral, political and diplomatic support to Kashmiris. We will never budge from our principled stand on Kashmir". Kashmiri blood flows only in the veins of Kashmiri Pandits and the vast diaspora of Saraswat Brahmins who were driven out of the Vale by terrorists in a clear example of genocide. The blood that runs in the veins of Pakistanis is terrorist blood full of hatred of Hindus and of India and it stinks. Muslim Kashmiris have nothing in common with Punjabi or sindhi or Baluchi or Pathani Muslims. Those that have something in common are only the Kashmir Pandits. What is involved in the so-called Jammu & Kashmir ‘problem’ is not territory. It is a principle on which secular India is based. In 1947 Congress leaders-but not Mahatma Gandhi-accepted partition not because they were in agreement over the Two Nation Theory which stipulated that Muslims constitute a separate nation, but because they wanted to avoid a civil war of frightening proportions. Sixty odd years later, Indian leaders can now stand up to the separatists and tell them to go jump into the sea. To agree to Jammu & Kashmir being separated from India is to damage the entire concept of true secularism and India should not be a party to it. If Musharaff and his successor cannot judge from their "principled stand", neither can India, and with even greater justification. So, what is left for both countries to have a dialogue? Will Pakistan then keep up the tension by going back to its decade-long terrorism? It has to be warned as Bill Gates did. A war which nobody wants may come to pass. India’s patience is wearing thin. It has had enough. In a war both countries will suffer disastrously, but Pakistan will be wiped out of the surface of the earth. And neither the U.S. nor even China would be able to help it. Indeed it could turn out to be a war to end all wars, in the sheer magnitude of destruction. Dr. Manmohan Singh means well. We need a dialogue, but first the Pakistan Army must be defanged and that can only be done by the treacherous United States, NATO and hopefully with the understanding, if not cooperation, of China, that may not be forthcoming. In regard to the water disputes and the alleged misuse of the Baglihar Dam on the Chenab River, there can be two opinions. But a dialogue is possible, but not under threat. In this instance, too, India should be willing to hold talks but only after terrorism is called off. Dr. Manmohan Singh should not give in to blackmail. Already we are laughed at as a ‘soft state’ with no courage to stand up to shameless murderers who know only how to decapitate innocent Sikhs for ransom. We should show some self-respect that is so lacking in our policy towards a barbarian neighbour.
Comments