NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES
SEARCH REDIFF

Search the Internet          Tips

Recent Columns

It's not the economy... Happiness is... Bechare, battered       and besieged Birds of a feather      fight each other Where are the       green M&Ms? No path to reformation

Too little, too late

First of all, I'd like to apologise to readers who did not receive a reply to the mail drawn by my last column: the amount was unprecedented and I couldn't possibly have replied to all without shutting down the rest of my life. Also, I want to especially thank those who wrote "God bless you". Your goodwill -- apart from dumbfounding me by its appearance in message after message -- touched me very deeply and more than makes up for the Islamist/pinko hate mail. I feel rich, richer, richest; thank you. However, one aspect of the mail can't not trouble me: nearly all readers offered me their matches, too, and some even gas and kerosene... This, then, is the state of our morale.

Astonishingly, the Government of India has taken some steps against Pakistan, one of which is the closure of the Jaali-Note Express and the Sada-e-Jihadi bus service. Next, the administration is readying itself to target the over 13,000 Pakis illegally staying in the country, of whom about 2,000 have gone underground and aren't traceable. Nearly two years ago, officials in Attari had disclosed that more than 50,000 Pakis who had entered India by the Jaali-Note Express never went back. Even then, their whereabouts were unknown, and many were thought to be "engaged in spying and other subversive activities on behalf of the ISI". And yet, this transportation of jihadis has been halted only after the lives of the honourable MPs -- who need a "code of conduct" to sustain a day's work -- were threatened.

India kept urging the US to declare Pakistan a terrorist State, and at the same time, it maintained a bus service between its capital and Lahore -- a samjhauta with the country's security in an express way. Not even during Pakistan's invasion of Kargil were these services halted. So why blame others for not taking us seriously? That under a proxy war -- a phrase much bandied by this government -- the borders of the country should be sealed, is not a rationale that can stir the minds of the Yellow Chaddis.

To augment this dazzling show of strength and iron will, ie, halting services it shouldn't have sustained in the first place, the government has recalled its ambassador to Pakistan. Great! That should really show 'em who's boss!!

Let me relay to you the thoughts of K Shankar Bajpai, former Indian ambassador to the Netherlands in 1975; Pakistan, from 1976 to 1980; China, from 1980 to 1982; and the US, from 1984 to 1986. This is from a television interview of December 21, where STAR News asked Mr Bajpai to comment on the diplomatic offensives. Unlike Benazir's self-serving airwaves, these went unreported by newspapers:

"I'd like to urge this point: it is not a very tough message to Pakistan. It may be a message to the world that we really are running out of options. But as far as Pakistan is concerned, they couldn't care less whether you halt the Samjhauta Express or the bus service. The truth of the matter is that unless our envoy in Pakistan can enjoy the same access to the public that the Pakistan high commissioner has here, our mission in Pakistan is virtually non-existent."

At this, the face of the little-boy-anchor perceptibly fell. One could see the waves of uncertainty wafting down his forehead till realisation dawned that he now had to deal with a plain-speaking person who was also an experienced and much feted diplomat, whom he couldn't rudely dismiss in the way that Indian anchors shelve the Hindu right-wing. After some stumbling and mumbling, he managed to ask if Mr Bajpai would have liked to see a snapping of diplomatic ties.

Answer: "I would say, that would be a better message in terms of what we need to do with Pakistan because that would have involved closing down their mission here. But in this case, as the high commissioner [Pakistan's Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, who was also being interviewed] has himself told you, he's perfectly free to remain here. And I don't see that harms Pakistan's interests in doing us down. Whereas our interests in Pakistan weren't being served in any way!"

Now, this is simply too much for our ultra-pacific national press, leave alone the choirboys of Rupert Murdoch, to swallow. With barely concealed indignation, Little-Boy-Anchor questioned the logic of shutting down "things" that build "people-to-people contact".

Reply: "You can't build people-to-people relations when only one people wants to build it. Where is the response from Pakistan? Our people there can't have access to the people there. Let's be very candid about this."

Shock writ stark on their mugs as the anchors asked if our ambassador really didn't have freedom in Pakistan. Mr Bajpai's response: "I don't see him getting the television coverage that you are giving the Pakistan high commissioner here. But more than that, people who have contacts with him are harassed. I've been there myself. I know."

By now, the anchors had resigned themselves to a highly politically-incorrect discussion. The better of the two asked if Musharraf's asking India to provide evidence of Jaish-Lashkar's involvement in the Parliament strike was a "disingenuous argument". Mr Bajpai's reply: "You are putting it very mildly and politely. It's more than that -- it is dishonest. They know *exactly* what they are doing. If they don't want to recognise it, that is also a deliberate act of policy."

Is there a chance that Pakistan will ditch its Kashmir policy like it ditched its Afghanistan policy? "It will never happen. The power structure in Pakistan is such that it relies on animosity towards India. They countered the Taliban because it was in their interest. They will not counter the terrorists in Kashmir because it is their main instrument in prising away Kashmir from India."

Exactly right. We have done too little, too late. Worse, we're only posturing to get America's attention. If we really meant business, we'd have shut down the Pakistan high commission -- which, incidentally, has more personnel than any other embassy -- and booted out the "culture secretary" et al, under which designations operate the station chiefs of secret services like the ISI. In short, we would have snapped diplomatic ties and prepared for the "W" word.

But hold on! Do you think Indians unanimously want to retaliate? From where do you think Little-Boy-Anchor got his pacific cues? Here's Khushwant Singh in rediff.com: "I think the steps taken by the Indian government are foolish... By suspending the train and bus service you are stopping people-to-people contact... By withdrawing the high commissioner from Pakistan you are taking one step towards further hostilities between India and Pakistan." I'm sure that elsewhere there are similar puke-bytes from the Wagah candle-holders led by Kuldip Nayar, and their acolytes are slurping it all up.

In the past, all attempts by the Punjab-Haryana-Delhi Chamber of Commerce and Industry to establish liaison with its counterpart in Lahore were blocked by Islamabad. The plan to set up an Indo-Pak chamber of commerce was turned down by Ishaq Dar, who said that there could be no free trade with India, nor would it be given MFN status till the Kashmir issue was resolved. India's efforts to send artistes to the golden jubilee celebrations of Pakistan were rebuffed. Meanwhile, India's been hosting an unending stream of Pakistani qawwali, ghazal and pop singers and film stars -- while Indian artistes are banned from Radio Pakistan and PTV. Even in 1997, India had relaxed visa restrictions, allowing some categories longer stays and exemption from reporting to the police. This July, India announced that it would open check points along the LoC and IB and *unilaterally* ease visa restrictions. Pakis would be able to come by road and obtain visas at check-posts in Attari, Munabao in Rajasthan, and Uri and Sialkot sectors in J&K -- despite severe opposition from the Indian Army.

And how did Pakistan react? It simply dismissed these CBMs as issues "peripheral" and irrelevant to the "core problem" of Kashmir.

This is not about Musharraf or Nawaz Sharief (who, speaking on the 50th independence day, said that Pakistan's independence would be complete only on the day "all Kashmiri brethren joined the country") or any other leader. It is about the people of Pakistan. Right from the whiskey-swilling elite, through the Marxism-nurturing intellectuals, to the Quran-waving Beards, each and every Paki wants Kashmir -- and there is NO exception to the rule. The only way they differ is in the way they put forward their case. But the case remains the same: the "core" issue of Kashmir.

The ordinary Paki is a generous host and "just like us" and all that kind of stuff -- but just bring up Kashmir and see the change. I've tested this sooo many times that I have to literally stop myself from tightly slapping any acquaintance who tells me that the ordinary Paki isn't Kashmir-centric. The bottom line is, the people of Pakistan will never give up their dream of attaining Kashmir, and the people of India -- all save the Leftists -- will die before giving it up. Therefore, Pakistan and India are destined to live in a state of perpetual hostility. Therefore, this "people-to-people contact" bullshit is just that: bullshit.

What's happened since India cried "foul" and went running to Uncle Sam? All the Pakistani terrorist groups have sworn to continue, nay, double the efforts against India. "We cannot make any compromise on our goal -- to wrest Kashmir from India," said Harkat commander Ubeidullah Assad. "Now we will attack with more vigour the Indian paramilitary and military camps and inflict maximum casualties on them," said Jaish commander Abu Hijrat. As for Lashkar, its ideology goes beyond J&K: in a pamphlet titled 'Why Are We Waging Jihad', it defines its agenda as the restoration of Islamic rule over all of India. As for Pakistan, it has been continuously shelling and firing all along the LoC and the IB since 12-13.

Yesterday [Friday], Islamic terrorists opened indiscriminate gunfire in a Sikh locality in Anantnag district, killing three girls, one of whom was 12 years old. Another group opened fire at homes of Kashmiri Pandits, killing one woman on the spot, while another died in hospital...

Sooner or later, and for the first time since its inception as a republic, India MUST declare war on the terrorist State of Pakistan. There is no option! I spoke to several serving colonels, and none reflected the doubts being put forward by various think tanks. Rahul Bedi, a defence correspondent of repute, reports in The Telegraph: "An army officer... said: 'We are waiting for the green light from Vajpayee to operationalise existing plans to strike targets in PoK like militant training camps and other strategic objectives that provide logistic support to insurgents fighting Kashmir's civil war.' He said senior officers had told the government that any hesitation to hit Pakistan 'hard' after last week's suicide attack on Parliament would be 'expensive' for India. Not retaliating would also demoralise the armed forces." Keep waiting...

A recent book by former soldier Pravin Sawhney avers that the military leadership had advised in October that "it was not enough for the government to give evidence of the Jaish-Osama-Taliban nexus to the US" and that while the US bombed Afghanistan, India should hit terrorist bases in PoK. But nearly every defense expert -- even generals and commodores -- has cautioned against the strikes. For, it would inevitably lead to war. What has changed so radically between October and now...? Why is there a schism in the opinions of serving officers and retired ones...? I don't like the answer that leaps to mind. Let me put it very gently: Soft cushions impede hard choices.

Varsha Bhosle