The Hindu Business Line : Is Indo-Pak peace process really `irreversible'?

India's diplomatic efforts to highlight the dangers of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism have been inadequate, primarily because of New Delhi's anxiousness to claim progress in the peace process. The dangers of the continuing links between the ISI and terror groups remain unaddressed. The tendency to overstate "achievements" and gloss over differences in relations with Pakistan and China could boomerang on India. There can be no substitute for strong and decisive leadership in dealing with terrorists and those who support them, says G. Parthasarathy.

EMERGING from a meeting with the External Affairs Minister, Mr Natwar Singh, in the Kazakhstan capital of Astana on July 5, the Pakistan Prime Minister, Mr Shaukat Aziz, proclaimed that his country was committed to the peace process with India, which was now `irreversible'. These comments came almost simultaneously with the attack on the Ayodhya Complex by well-armed terrorists quite obviously linked to the Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Interestingly, the same day, the Amir of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, told a gathering in Lahore that Indian Muslims have come to realise that "there is no future without Jihad". For good measure, Saeed advised his audience "never make friends with Jews and Christians".

It was Saeed who had proudly proclaimed that it was at his behest that the Red Fort was attacked and the green flag of Islam unfurled there on December 22, 2000. Earlier, on October 9, 1997, Saeed had warned: "We feel that Kashmir should be liberated at the earliest. Thereafter Indian Muslims should be aroused to revolt against the Indian Union so that India gets disintegrated". The attack on the Ayodhya complex reminded me of a conversation that I had with a former Chief of the ISI at his residence some years ago. Responding to my assertion that Muslims in India would never agree to any further division of the country on communal lines, my host told me in chaste Urdu: "You come from South India and do not understand the sentiments of the Muslims of Hindustan (north of the Vindhyas).

We will make Kashmir an issue of faith and religion in the hearts of the Muslims of Hindustan". Another worthy ISI Chief was asked at a seminar in Islamabad what the primary objective of the ISI was. He replied: "Our aim is to weaken India from within. And we can do it". Ever since Mohammed Ali Jinnah, with his love for ham sandwiches and Scotch Whiskey, bemoaned that all that he had got from Partition was a "moth-eaten, truncated Pakistan", the quest for "parity" by weakening India has been a continuing objective of our neighbour's security establishment.

Jinnah believed that India would be Balkanised and split into several semi-independent fiefdoms, that could be dominated by a Muslim-majority Pakistan. His efforts to encourage the rulers of such princely states as Travancore, Jodhpur, Junagadh and Bhopal not to opt for Union with India, his espousal of Dravidian separatism and his moves to persuade the Sikh leader Master Tara Singh not to cast his lot with India, were reflective of this mindset. Independent India's leaders like Sardar Patel, however, thwarted Jinnah's ambitions.

Pakistan's obsession with "parity" with India was reflected in its President, Gen Pervez Musharraf's statement on April 11, 1999, when he proclaimed that "low-intensity conflict with India" would continue even if the Kashmir issue was resolved, as India was a "hegemonic" power. It is this mindset that propels Pakistan's military establishment to infiltrate and set up cells of the Lashkar-e-Taiba in urban centres from Delhi to Hyderabad.

It is also why Pakistan provides protection to terrorists ranging from Dawood Ibrahim to leaders of the Babbar Khalsa and allows terrorists and separatists to infiltrate through Nepal and Bangladesh. The attacks by terrorists of the Babbar Khalsa on cinema complexes in New Delhi and the gunning down of Lashkar activists in Ahmedabad, Delhi and Ayodhya are signs that we will inevitably face unexpected terror strikes, such as the December 13, 2001, attack on Parliament. Has New Delhi given any thought about how it will respond to such developments?

What is the rationale for Gen Musharraf's charm offensive? The gullible proclaim that he has had a "change of heart"? Dr Ayesha Agha Siddiqa, a well-informed Pakistani academic, recently observed that the peace process has led to greater people-to-people interaction and initiatives to address differences. There has, however, been no movement on crucial areas such as trade, Siachen and the Sir Creek dispute — a dispute that can be resolved fairly easily. She says that the perception among the decision-makers in Pakistan is that the peace process is a "tactical retreat" that was inevitable after the events of 9/11. Dr Siddiqa notes that the only persons who matter in Pakistan in this peace process are those in the army establishment. She states that in the eyes of the armed forces "New Delhi still remains the top enemy that will have to be fought or vanquished". Dr Siddiqa acknowledges that while the Pakistan army is professional, its connection with jihadi terrorist organisations cannot be severed.

She adds: "Reports indicate that the connection (with jihadi groups) has not been severed. So while Musharraf could say a lot of positive things, he would find it difficult to put his money where his mouth is". In these circumstances, there is no point in New Delhi drawing satisfaction, as our Home Minister, Mr Shivraj Patil, is given to doing, merely by stating that the number of incidents of terrorist violence has fallen. The pattern of terrorist violence has changed because of the current compulsions of Gen Musharraf.

Terrorist strikes are now more carefully calibrated and targeted in Jammu and Kashmir. Further, after its visit to Pakistan and meeting with Hizb-ul-Mujahideen leader Syed Salahuddin (evidently in the presence of a senior ISI official) the so called "moderate" Hurriyat Conference led by Mirwaiz Farooq, appears to be all set coordinate its political moves with the terrorist violence unleashed by Hizb-ul-Mujahideen militants. The peace process with Pakistan has relaxed tensions and led the international community to remind Pakistan to abide by its pledges not to allow terrorist activities directed against India from territory under its control.

But our diplomatic efforts to highlight the dangers of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism have been inadequate, primarily because we seem so anxious to claim progress in the peace process that we have often glossed over the dangers of continuing links between the ISI and such groups as the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Babbar Khalsa. New Delhi has also not actively exposed the inseparable links between groups like the Lashkar and other international jihadi terrorist organisations. The tendency to overstate "achievements" and gloss over differences in our relations with Pakistan and China could boomerang on us eventually. Public opinion should not be misled on such sensitive issues. Further, we have, in recent years, undermined and degraded our covert capabilities to respond to terrorist strikes from countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. This has led to these countries believing that we will neither respond covertly, nor with precision strikes, to terrorist outrages.

When the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) assassinated our Assistant High Commissioner in Birmingham, Ravindra Mhatre, in 1983, the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, responded immediately by ordering the execution of the death sentence against JKLF leader Maqbool Butt. Pakistani moves to occupy Siachen were pre-emptively thwarted by her shortly thereafter. Incidentally, the official car I was travelling in as Consul-General in Karachi was attacked and smashed by a JKLF mob the day after Maqbool Butt was hanged. The Consulate premises were damaged by a stone-throwing mob. The flag car driver and I narrowly escaped getting hurt. But such was Gen Zia-ul-Haq's apprehension of retribution by Indira Gandhi that he immediately ordered that full compensation should be paid for the damage caused to the Indian Flag car and the Consulate premises! There is no substitute for strong and decisive leadership in dealing with terrorists and those who support them.

(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
PM's Washington visit

Is Indo-Pak peace process really `irreversible'?

Caution on drugs

Only a copy of the copyrighted software

Frail arguments for tax trail

No special dispensation

Collect taxes like the bee — gather honey from flowers without causing pain

Universities are too important to be surrendered to dictates of the market

Sticklish issues