[sacw] The Precipice at Kargil (Op-Ed in DAWN)

[aiindex@mnet.fr]

JUne 25, 1999
FYI
(South Asia Citizens Web)
=====================

DAWN
Jun 25 1999,
Op-Ed.

The precipice at Kargil

By Iqbal Jafar

FOR his devastatingly critical book on the South Asian
subcontinent and its
peoples, Nirad Chaudhri chose an intriguing title: The
Continent of Circe. Who
or what was or is Circe? I asked myself this question when I
bought the book
many years ago.

Circe, I found, was an enchantress who lived on the island
of Aeaea in the
Aegean Sea. When fog and storm took Odysseus to her island
lair, she caused
his companions to lose their human form, and thus began one
more of the
many ordeals of Odysseus. This is Greek mythology and, for
Nirad Chaudhri,
an interesting allegory for the subject of his book.

Myths and allegories apart, even a cursory survey of the
major political events
of South Asia during this century does create in one's mind
an image
suggestive of a thought that this subcontinent is, indeed,
under some kind of
spell that inhibits good and promotes evil. It is, however,
not a spell cast by an
enchantress. It happens to be wholly self-induced and
fostered by a kind of
death-wish such as the one that drives lemmings to the sea.

Only in February this year Indians and Pakistanis were seen
sobbing on each
other's shoulders like long-lost cousins. In that fitful
fever of friendship they
signed as many as three documents, and found no less than
twenty points of
agreement. But good things are not meant to last for long in
the Continent of
Circe. Now, only four months later, they are foaming at the
mouth and
scraping the ground under their feet like two ill-tempered
bulls, moments
before charging at each other.

All the ingredients of a full-scale war are in place: a long
festering dispute,
apparently not amenable to resolution through peaceful
means; failure and
suspension of diplomatic efforts to remove the immediate
cause of an on-going
localized armed conflict; the two armed forces moving closer
to each other
and to the expected battlefields; and, worst of all, an
ever-worsening hate
campaign in the media.

We have been there before, time and again, during the last
fifty-two years, for
we keep vacillating vigorously from the threshold of peace
to the brink of
disaster with equal zeal and ease. This time round, however,
the brink is much
higher and more hazardous, both literally and figuratively.
Conscious of the
consequences of a wider conflagration, the Pakistani media
has, for a change,
shown greater sense of responsibility as all the leading
dailies, with one
exception, have counselled restraint and caution.

The Indian media, no less conscious of the consequences, has
chosen to give
free rein to its ability to incite the people and encourage
the government to
solve the problem of Pakistan once and for all. The
consequences are
acceptable on the assumption (Times of India, June 16) that
"escalation will
impose additional costs for both India and Pakistan but the
burden will be
proportionately much higher for the latter". Hindustan
Times, in its editorial of
June 14, has given an advice that expresses the dominant
view today in India.
Without mincing words, it advised: "It is important that
India not fight on
Pakistan's terms that could make Indian soldiers fodder for
the Pakistani
cannons. The Indian military should be allowed to pursue a
strategy to fight on
its own terms with the goal of not only recovering the lost
territory but proving
the Pakistani aggression to be a highly costly misadventure
unsuitable for
replication in the future." The editorial concludes with
these ominous words:
"Kargil has left India with no choice but to do what it
failed to do in the past."

Meanwhile, public sentiments are also being aroused against
Pakistan almost
on a daily basis. Writing under a provocative caption,
Jackal's Trap, on June
14, Times of India editorialized thus: "The G-8 will have to
be enlightened
about Pakistan's mindset: a mixture of militarism, tribalism
and religious
fundamentalism which leads to barbaric practices like
mutilating bodies of
captured soldiers." Again, in the editorial of June 17, it
reverted to the same
theme with lurid details: "In an act of savagery with few
parallels, the Pakistan
army tortured six Indian soldiers, including a young
lieutenant, gouged out their
eyeballs, burnt them with cigarette butts, and chopped off
noses, ears and their
genitals." The editorial also claimed that the
"International Red Cross has
independently confirmed signs of injuries and torture on the
bodies, obviously
while in Pakistani custody."

Since the allegation about the torture of six Indian
soldiers has opened a
floodgate of hatred against Pakistan in India and is
disturbing if true, I looked
for its confirmation by independent sources. In the first
place, I have not come
across a single eyewitness account of those bodies by even
an Indian reporter.
Second, Pamela Constable, reporting for Washington Post from
Delhi, did
quote (June 12) Mr. Jaswant Singh's allegations about the
torture of six Indian
soldiers, but went on to add: "Although India's accusations
could not be
corroborated independently, they seemed to all but ensure
failure for talks
scheduled here Saturday between Singh and Pakistani Foreign
Minister Sartaj
Aziz aimed at defusing tensions in Kashmir."

Finally, I contacted the office of the International
Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) itself. What the ICRC has confirmed is that it has
issued no statement,
report, or finding regarding the alleged torture of Indian
soldiers, nor is it the
practice or function of the ICRC to do so under such
circumstances. The story
is, thus, obviously false, but it has achieved the purpose
for which it was
fabricated; the enraged Indian public is now demanding revenge.

In a situation where mass hatred is about to reach a
critical point, talking sense
can be very risky. George Fernandes tried to play it cool by
exonerating the
government of Pakistan, to keep the doors of negotiations
open, and by
talking about safe passage for the infiltrators, to bring
about a quick end to the
conflict. The media and the politicians promptly condemned
him for being a
fool, if not a spy, and demanded his resignation.

In Pakistan too something similar is going on. While the
hate campaign is
getting into high gear here as well, a 'heretic' has also
been discovered: none
other than the prime minister himself. While talking to the
newsmen on June
19, he was reported to have said that Kargil-like situation
would be repeated
elsewhere so long as the Kashmir dispute was not resolved.
He, therefore,
stressed the need for a negotiated settlement of the Kashmir
dispute, and went
on to say that Pakistan would be prepared to look even at
proposals falling
outside its 'stated position' of the past fifty-two years.
This was a constructive,
pragmatic and a courageous statement for a Pakistani prime
minister to make.
However, while the Indians have raised the roof over Kargil
part of the
statement, the Pakistani super-patriots are trying to howl
him down for having
considered even the possibility of going outside the 'stated
position'.

Now, what is the stated position that the prime minister is
willing to deviate
from? The stated position is that the question of accession
of the State of
Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan be decided through a
free and
impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the
United Nations in
accordance with the Resolution 47 of 1948 of the Security
Council, and the
Resolution of August 13, 1948, of the United Nations
Commission for India
and Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan had agreed to what was
proposed in
those resolutions. All this sounds very simple so long as we
do not bother to
know the modalities of implementation laid down in those
Resolutions whose
compliance we insist upon. It is time to remind ourselves of
those modalities
that we tend to ignore while arguing for the implementation
of those
resolutions.

Under both the resolutions the first step was
demilitarization of Kashmir. The
process of demilitarization as laid down by the Security
Council and, later, by
the Commission on India and Pakistan required that:

* Tribesmen and other Pakistani nationals who had entered
the State for the
purpose of fighting, and Pakistani troops would be
withdrawn; and

* On being notified by the Commission that the tribesmen and
other Pakistani
nationals have withdrawn, and the Pakistani forces are being
withdrawn, the
Government of India would begin to withdraw the bulk of
their forces in stages
to be agreed upon with the Commission. (Emphasis added)

Now, would any of the critics of the prime minister favour
the idea of vacation
of Azad Kashmir by the Pakistan Army and of entire Jammu and
Kashmir by
all non-Kashmiri militants, while India withdraws only the
bulk of its forces and
that too in stages and within a time-frame that the
resolutions do not specify?
And what does bulk mean, if anything? No wonder, therefore,
that the
resolutions could not be implemented despite half a century
long process of
negotiations, advice and well-meaning interventions.

It should be obvious by now that search for a feasible
solution of the dispute
over Kashmir has to begin with the acceptance of two
self-evident
assumptions: one, the dispute cannot be solved by use of
overt or covert
force; two, the will of the people being the decisive
factor, neither Pakistan nor
India can claim whole of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as
it is divided into
Muslim and non-Muslim majority areas that are historically,
culturally and
administratively separate and identifiable.

What the prime minister has said now should have been said
long ago, and
now that it has been said, the Indian leadership should
respond in a
constructive manner, instead of basking in the warmth of
hate and revenge.
Unfortunately, however, the prime minister is not likely to
get a positive
response under the present circumstances. The Continent of
Circe has its own
rules of the game where right things happen at the wrong
time and the wrong
things happen at the right time. For the present, we the
South Asians would
rather go to war first, with our 'ultimate' weapons too, and
talk later. We
certainly would like to talk later, but to whom? one may ask.
(ends)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/act
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications