India’s coercive diplomacy

Patron Lt Gen (Retd) SARDAR F.S. LODI looks at the modern version of gunboat diplomacy.

After the December 2001 firing incident outside India’s parliament building in New Delhi India found it fit to blame Pakistan as she has done on every such occasion. She created a lot of hue and cry about the incident and claiming it was an attack on India’s sovereignty itself. The Prime Minister of India Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee declared in his New Year message among other things: “The world has come to look at India with renewed respect, recognizing a strong and prosperous global power in the making.” This was reported by THE HINDUSTAN TIMES in its issue of 1st January, 2002 under the heading ‘We shall triumph over terrorism’, A.B.Vajpayee.

While talking of “Pakistan’s designs” Mr Vajpayee was more aggressive in his tone and the content of his talk, he said, “It often happens that the road to the future is rendered difficult by roadblocks placed by the past. One such roadblock for us, indeed the biggest, is Pakistan’s consistent and continuing anti-India policy, beginning with its refusal to accept the constitutionally validated and democratically endorsed accession of Jammu & Kashmir to India.” Surely Mr Vajpayee was forced to say this with his tongue in his cheek and in violation of International law and United Nations resolutions on the subject.

It may be worth reminding Mr Vajpayee and the world at large what the first Prime Minister of independent India Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said in a broadcast over All India Radio on November 2nd 1947 with regard to Kashmir. He said: “We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people (of Kashmir). That pledge, we have given ...not only to the people of Kashmir but to the world. We will not and cannot back out of it.”  Pandit Nehru went on to say, “We are prepared, when peace and law and order have been established to have a referendum held under the auspices of the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just reference to the people, and we shall accept their verdict. I can imagine no fairer and juster offer.” Can the Indian Prime Minister forget all this and still hope that India will be a global power.

Prime Minister Vajpayee explained in his speech. “For a long time, the rulers in Islamabad relied on military confrontation, as exemplified in 1948, 1965 and 1971, to settle this issue in their favour. After failing abjectly in their endeavour; the anti-India forces in Pakistan decided to foment terrorism and religious extremism as the principal means to instigate separatism in our country. I must say that they are nursing a dangerous delusion. What they could not achieve through open military aggression, they never will achieve through cross-border terrorism.”

It is surprising to note that India is accusing Pakistan of ‘open military aggression’ in 1948, 65 and 71. This is an attempt to falsify history and hoodwink world public opinion. India sent troops into Kashmir in 1947, which started the Kashmir war. In 1965 India attacked across the international border at Lahore and later at Sialkot. In 1971 India attacked by land, sea and air to dismember Pakistan, a member of the United Nations. India is also blaming Pakistan of ‘instigating separatism’ in their country. If the reference is to Kashmir it must be realised that the Kashmiris are fighting for their right to decide their future. It cannot be termed as ‘separatism’ as Kashmir is not a part of India but an internationally recognised disputed territory, which India should be honest enough to admit.

Mr Vajpayee blamed Pakistan of other things as well when he said. “They failed miserably in their evil designs in Punjab. Terrorism bled Punjab; but, in the end, it fled Punjab. It could not dent Hindu-Sikh unity. Similarly, the terrorists and their mentors are doomed to fail in Jammu and Kashmir, too.”  He forgot to mention that India had attacked the Sikhs most holy place in Amritsar, which was an unforgivable insult to the Sikh religion and the entire Sikh community worldwide. The Sikhs have not forgotten that insult even today.

Coming to the firing outside the Indian parliament Mr Vajpayee said. “The terrorist attack on our Parliament on December 13 has shown beyond a shadow of doubt that the anti-India forces in Pakistan are prepared to wreck any havoc on our soil. It was an attack on our sovereignty, on our national self-respect, and it was a challenge to our democratic system. Although India has been a victim of cross-border terrorism for the past nearly two decades and has lost tens of thousands of innocent men and women and security forces, the outrage of December 13 has breached the limit of the Nation’s endurance.”

The Indian Prime Minister went on to say. “It is useful to presume that more such terrorist strikes can take place. The only way to defend ourselves against such attacks is by forcing Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism. And this precisely is the objective we have set ourselves in our current multi-pronged strategy.” The blame is fairly and squarely on Pakistan. The strategy formulated by India is to have Pakistan declared a terrorist state, and convince the world that the Kashmiris struggle for freedom from Indian occupation is in fact a terrorist act. Some feel India is succeeding in her designs.

Prime Minister Vajpayee’s speech has been mentioned in some detail to show how well planned the Indian designs are. Under their overall strategy, India started to put pressure on Pakistan by moving her troops to forward locations. Her three strike formations were brought forward to their battle locations as well. Indian-held Kashmir was reinforced with the addition of four extra divisions and a corps HQ. The Indian Defence Minister Mr George Fernandes also announced that the missiles were in place. A near war situation was thus created which was a cause of worry to the United States and her coalition partners. India’s object was to convince America of Pakistan’s double-dealings. But the United States saw through the whole game and did not react as India had anticipated. Although India blamed Pakistan for the attack on the United States Information Centre in Kolkata and later the Indian army domestic area in Jammu as well.

After the firing incident outside the Indian Parliament, which India made the centre-piece of her propaganda against Pakistan, some experts were rushed off to the United States to gauge the reaction there. This is reported by THE INDIAN EXPRESS newspaper in its issue of January 11, 2002 under a somewhat sad heading of ‘uncertain alliances’. The author says, “My primary instinct as I reached the US on December 15 was to assess how the government and people of this country are reacting to the terrorist attack on (Indian) Parliament on December 13.” To his disappointment the US media mentioned the incident as being the work of “militants from Kashmir who India claims operated with the support of Pakistan.”

The report went on to lament that Pakistani denial of links with this attack and (President) Musharraf’s messages of sympathy to India were given high prominence. The media also projected the fact that India had yet to come up with hard evidence about Pakistani involvement in the incident. The report continues with some dismay and arrogance that: “Armchair American experts in the audio-visual media, instead of taking note of the terrorist strike as an act of terrorism needing an appropriate punitive response, proceeded to theorise on Kashmir being a disputed territory and this unresolved dispute being the cause of violence in New Delhi.” The report goes on to say. “These pundits were then critical of India for having deployed troops on the Pakistan border and for announcing the intention of taking decisive action.”

It was evident that the drama played out outside the Indian Parliament did not hoodwink the world as India had expected. The United States blamed only the militants from Kashmir and was certainly displeased with India for having massed her troops on the border with Pakistan and creating a tense situation. But the author’s efforts did not go in vain as he did discover a 30 years old barmaid, Catherine Scott at the Buena Vista Bar near the Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco who was critical of Pakistan.

India’s compulsion of trying to blame Pakistan for all her ills was explained very well by Brian Cloughley, a former army officer now living in Australia who is familiar with South Asia and often writes about the region. In his article “India’s Internal Wars” published by THE NEWS daily in its issue of January 14, 2000, he says. “If Pakistan’s Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence were to be involved in the tiniest fraction of what is claimed by India, then it would be a wondrously omnipotent and omnipresent organization. What the Indian establishment cannot and will not accept is the fact that there are lots of Indians—millions upon millions of them —who object to being ruled badly by New Delhi or by their own state administration which are corrupt and incapable of providing justice and decent government.”

The author goes on to say. “These unfortunates then rise up and attack, grasping industrialists, corrupt local officials, crooked state bureaucrats, venal police in the pay of Brahmin feudalists, and judges in the pockets of politicians, who are in cahoots with tyrannical landlords. They rebel against the whole vicious system that keeps over three hundred million of India’s peoples in poverty-stricken starvation and conditions of near or actual slavery.” Add to this the people of the disputed territory of Kashmir kept in virtual bondage by a large army of occupation and the insurgency in seven north eastern Indian states and the picture is somewhat clear. 

India continues to maintain military and political pressure on Pakistan, every so often the Indian Prime Minister or some other minister or state official makes a statement to the effect that no dialogue is possible with Pakistan as long as terrorism continues in Indian-held Kashmir. When there was a news item that India was withdrawing its strike formations from the border, a denial was promptly issued by India’s Defence Minister. A policy maker in India had recently stated that military pressure to be effective must be made to look genuine and be of a somewhat volatile nature. Owing to the tense border situation Pakistan is not taking any chances and, therefore, appropriate defensive measures have been undertaken for the safety of the country. 

India has consistently refused to enter into a dialogue to settle all disputes including that of Kashmir and is relying on military and political pressure to force Pakistan to do her bidding which would not be acceptable to any country. It is only through dialogue pursued in this case over a period of time, which can bring down the heated atmosphere in both countries. A spirit of give and take can then be attained and a path created for lasting peace in South Asia which is certainly the desire of the people on both sides of the deep divide.

But India’s obduracy is a stumbling block for peace in the region. Colin Powell the US Secretary of State visited India and Pakistan recently as part of efforts by the international community to ease bristling tension between Nuclear armed India and Pakistan who came to the brink of war in May this year. Before his arrival the Indian Government thought it fit to announce some negative statements on the peace effort. The Indian Foreign Ministry spokeswomen Nirupama Rao told a media briefing, “we will put across our concerns to (Powell). Firstly, our concerns about the fact that infiltration is continuing. And that terrorism remains a state policy of Pakistan.” She said India did not agree with comments from the international community that Pakistan is a ‘stalwart ally’ in the fight against terrorism “Pakistan has gone back on its pledges to stop the infiltration,” she said.

An Indian government official said that New Delhi will tell Mr Powell that forcing Pakistan to clamp down on militancy in Kashmir is crucial to Washington’s global campaign against terrorism. “It is in the interest of the international community and the US war on terrorism that Pakistan delivers on its commitment, stated publicly and privately, to end cross-border terrorism on a permanent basis,” the official said. In spite of the political manoeuvres that India resorted to Secretary Powell after meeting the Indian Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister said that the tension between the two countries had reduced. He wanted India to reduce the tension further and to release all the political prisoners held in Indian-occupied Kashmir where he hoped the elections would be fair.

India still did not agree to a dialogue with Pakistan to settle the disputes. While in Pakistan Mr Powell met the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and the President. He was of the opinion that infiltration into Indian-held Kashmir had been reduced. He was of the opinion that even when it is completely eliminated some people will still get through. Mr Powell said that Kashmir was now on the international agenda. Something India never accepted and termed it a non-issue and her internal concern only. These are positive developments for Kashmir and for peace in the region.

It is the opinion of many that India’s aggressive attitude towards Pakistan was given a major boost after the September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. Which upset India’s well laid out and long-term plans for the region. She suddenly found that from a potential strategic partner of the United States, Russia and Israel she was left suspended halfway in space and Pakistan took a front seat with the United States. A seat that she will continue to occupy for many years to come. India has since made every effort, including crude and base ones to unseat Pakistan from her place of prominence to India’s advantage. India’s frustration increases with every failure.

In the end it would be appropriate to mention that both India and Pakistan are poor countries and their first priority should be to uplift the social condition of their masses, a large number of whom live below the poverty line. India’s scenario is somewhat more pathetic in view of the patchy monsoon rains this year which could affect agriculture output and stifle a nascent economic recovery of the world’s second most populous country. The June-September monsoon is crucial to India’s economic performance as agriculture contributes 25 per cent to India’s GDP and employs 70 per cent of India’s more than one billion population. Her priorities need a change from external high dreams to internal problems of her people.