Commentary/Varsha Bhosle

Theories are just ideals blowing in the wind; but a patch of earth, even if frozen and of no strategic value, can set ablaze the mind

From 1960 to 1984, this war-like columnist was fortunate enough to spend every summer and many an autumn and winter in Srinagar. That’s only a quarter of a century, but a lifetime of memories. For Indians of my age, Kashmir is an emotional thing: We aren’t wistful over an Akhand Bharat -– we never knew a Sindh or an undivided Punjab. But Kashmir… that’s another kettle of fish.

The official US line on the Kashmir issue, as enunciated by the departing US ambassador to India, Mr Frank Wisner, is sane and irrefutable. As sane and irrefutable as the bare essence of Marx’s communism, Ayn Rand’s capitalism or the Prophet’s Islam. But that’s not how it all works in existence, does it? Theories are just ideals blowing in the wind; but a patch of earth, even if frozen and of no strategic value, can set ablaze the mind. Therefore, I can’t help but react with: You finished? Now, git.

We Indians tend to take the West at face value when it makes these clucking noises about Other People’s Messes. We are reluctant to boo even when it reaches right across the globe to manifest its might. But do you really believe that altruistic principles got the US and West Europe the ascendancy they enjoy? In fact, though it may seem like a persecution complex in the face of American hegemony, I squint suspiciously at everything they advocate.

For instance, I don’t, even for a minute, consider as true that the West desires 'real peace and long-term stability' in the subcontinent – or, indeed, in any Third World region. For, just as the prosperity of the Middle East rests on a natural phenomenon (oil), so does that of the West (human bellicosity). It isn’t detergents and burgers that make the international market ticker: It’s arms, plain and simple.

It’s no secret that after the Cold War, the world arms market, already crowded with new and eager players, crashed resoundingly. Whereas in 1988, arms exports worldwide were $ 67.9 billion, in 1993, they plunged to $ 31.9 billion. As a result, arms industry jobs fell from 16.5 million to 11.5 million, with Russia suffering the most losses. And yet, in that time, US arms exports more than doubled…

Right. The Gulf War. Which provided neighbouring Asian countries with the impetus for building up their defences. Thus, while US companies totaled $10.1 billion from sales abroad in 1989, they accrued $22.3 billion in 1993. Last year, a spokesman for the congressional research service admitted that arms spending had risen by 8% in West Asia and by 12% in South East Asia. Now tell me, why would the US possibly want peace in this region? What do arms have to do with entente and stability?

In February 1995, President Clinton’s administration issued a policy statement stating that the government would provide 'support for arms exports, actively involving senior government officials in promoting sales of particular importance to the United States.' According to an analyst for the London-based Jane’s, top US officials pushing arms expected to sell at least $10 billion worth of weapons by 2000. Now tell me, is there some other peacenik Democrat at the US helm this year? And who is he going to sell arms to if not Pakistan, India and the nations which equip terrorists? America’s 'wealth of equities' in South Asia isn’t restricted to property and business: it includes human propensity for territory-staking.

And no, I don’t want Mr Wisner to advise India on the nuclear option, either. His country is kept informed by the likes of Dr Henry Kissinger who told the deliberating Senate committee that: