- Vajpayee’s hand of friendship for Pakistan
Columnist Muhammad Irshad discusses why the Indian PM is seeking a peace deal with Pakistan.
After 17 months of stony silence, the Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee extended a hand of friendship to Pakistan. Addressing a public rally in Srinagar on April 18, 2003, the first address in Held Kashmir by an Indian Prime Minister since 1986, Vajpayee emphasized that dialogue is precisely what India seeks. "Problems can be resolved by talks," he said. "We are ready.". "Problems cannot be solved by war," he added from behind a screen of bullet-proof glass. "Whatever questions there are, whatever problems there are, let us resolve them by talking." Recalling that two previous peace initiatives had failed during his tenure, Vajpayee said: "We again extend the hand of friendship, but the hands should be extended from both sides. The decision to live together should be made from both sides."
Mr. Vajpayee's peace initiatives reportedly took many of his own party members aback, including Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani. But his words were a much bigger surprise to the government and people of Pakistan. Hearing threatening and venomous statements coming from Indian leaders is a routine for Pakistanis since the inception, about 56 years back, but 'peace for Pakistan' is something extremely rare to be heard of from any Indian leader. Particularly, when only few weeks back, Mr Advani had challenged Pakistan for a 'fourth and final round of war', Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha had set off alarm bells in Washington when he said that India had a better case for waging "preemptive" war against Pakistan than the United States had for doing so against Iraq. Indian officials had hinted that they were considering limited military action against Pakistan, possibly in the form of air strikes on camps that India describes as training facilities for terrorists. And Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes, talking of the possibility of Pakistan using its nukes against India had stated, “if Pakistan has decided that it wants to get itself destroyed and erased from the world map, then it may take this step of madness." Now all of a sudden each one is talking about peace.
'Peace' is a beautiful word which could bring happiness to the millions and millions living in this part of the world. But one really wonders at the exact motive for extending the hand of friendship at this particular time ‘Though Peace is an all time requirement, yet nothing unusual has happened which could be necessitating peace requirement (say) since last month or even a month earlier' A closer look reveals that Mr Vajpayee may be seeking peace because of too heavy internal pressures. India is losing a lot by its arrogant posture of 'Not talking to Pakistan' and those losses are accumulating to lot of pressure on the Indian government, may be the accumulative loss is getting unbearable. Let us have a look at some of the events :-
Cynics here say India is only interested in peace talks because its attempt to threaten Pakistan with military force failed to curb cross-border terrorism. India mobilized several hundred thousand troops along its border with Pakistan late in 2001 after an alleged attack on India's parliament by Pakistan-based militants, but Pakistan dispatched its own forces, and a stalemate ensued.
"The Indian government got tough with Pakistan, it mobilized its forces on the border, and nothing happened," writes an Indian paper. "So now they have no choice but to start looking at possible talks." "India realized that the confrontational strategy did not yield results, that it was a total failure," says Suba Chandran, a security analyst at the Delhi-based Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies. It was the largest concentration of forces on the borders since 1971. The forces of the two nuclear neighbours stood eyeball to eyeball for about 10-tense months. India had done so in the hope of compelling Pakistan to change its Kashmir policy, and the failure in organising a meaningful diplomatic pressure has compelled them to think that dialogue is perhaps the only solution to solve the problems with the neighbour. This adventure cost them a lot in terms of military and financial losses.
Many Pakistani officials have noted with interest that the Indian leadership's public acknowledgement of its military and financial losses in Kashmir coincided with its peace overtures with Pakistan, a measure that may provide some explanation to the Indian public caught stunned by their Prime Minister's decision to normalise diplomatic relations with Pakistan. Defence Minister George Fernandes revealed in the Parliament on May 02, 2003, that 'The number of army personnel killed or wounded in Jammu and Kashmir and the western sector during the troop mobilisation, operation Parakram, from December 19, 2001 to October 16, 2002, was 1,874'. It may be worthwhile to note that the above revelation was made on the same day when Mr Vajpayee declared his intentions to restore ambassador-level relations with Pakistan, in the parliament. Later, there was confession of another 1,000 soldiers lost during counter-insurgency operations since January 2002. (It is a staggering high figure if you compare that the US-led coalition forces lost just around 150 personnel during the recent Iraq operations). It was further disclosed that the deployment cost the Indian exchequer more than Rs
8,000 crore. Troops were deployed from all over India for deployment in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Punjab sectors. The government also claims to have spent additional Rs 36,000 crore in running the state of Kashmir since the insurgency started in 1991. All these losses are compelling the Indian government to start 'Talking' to its nuclear neighbour.
Strategically, Indians are missing a lot by their failure to establish an air link with Kabul and play an effective role in Afghanistan's reconstruction. Because of an overflight ban, a route Delhi-Kabul flight that should take not more than 90 minutes is now taking almost the whole day to reach Kabul via Dubai or Iran (Despite Washington's request – at Islamabad's behest – against it, India went ahead and opened consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad, kilometres from the border with Pakistan. Isn't it strange that India wants to politically encircle Pakistan, but wants Pakistan's co-operation to lift ban and help India to encircle her easily). It is not only the time factor but the associated rise in the cost of Indian goods that makes Indian influence less effective in Afghanistan, and the Indians do confess that putting overflights ban on their part was a blunder and are now desperate to have these removed. Pakistani officials are fully aware that the advantage of lifting ban on over-flights is much more for the Indians than Pakistanis, and know that this is the immediate commercial and strategic benefit the Indians want to draw from their peace overtures to Pakistan.
Because of the same ban, the flying time on all Air India flights from Delhi to Gulf, Europe and USA has increased by at least an hour, while all Air India flights on Mumbai-Delhi-Gulf, Europe and US routes return to Delhi before proceeding to outward destinations. In the past one year Air India alone has lost about 100 crore on fuel charges. The Airline was already running in loss in the previous years and this extra burden is likely to create serious financial problems for the Airline.
When India stopped overflights for Pakistan, on January 1, 2002, in the same breath, they had stopped the only Railway link between the two countries, in the shape of Samjhauta Express, which was operating since July 1976 after the signing of Simla Agreement. This has caused huge loss in revenue to the Indian Government, besides adding to the travails of the Indian citizens desirous of visiting Pakistan, reports the Indian daily, 'Tribune'. Discontinuing the popular train service has caused a loss of over Rs100 crore in one year to the Indian exchequer as approximately 25,000 trains were prevented to ply between the two countries. A loss of Rs25 crore has been incurred due to the discontinuation of train freight services while Rs48 crore were lost on account of the passenger ticket charges. According to the paper, since the closure of the rail link the importers and exporters of the region have also suffered losses worth crores of rupees. Consignments worth Rs1 crore have been damaged as these could not be sent to Pakistan.
There are many other contributing factors which must have affected Indian thinking. These factors
would include:-
'In May 1998, Pakistan's tit for tat reply to Indian nuclear blasts, was a real turning point. Indians were hoping that Pakistanis were only bluffing and nuclear technology being costly and complex was beyond Pakistan. India set the ball rolling of this highly explosive nuclear race in the sub-continent by three nuclear blasts on May 11, followed by two more on May 13. This Indian exhibition of its nuclear weapons capability was considered a mortal blow to South Asian hope for a nuclear free future. After these explosions, the pitch of India's threats towards Pakistan also became very high, for example, Indian (then) interior minister, Mr. Advani saying 'Islamabad should realise the change in the geo-strategic situation in the region.' And Lt Gen Krishan Pal saying 'We will launch a decisive attack on Pakistan very soon, after that there will be complete silence on Siachin front'. The Indian PM also gave an oblique threat of using nuclear weapons against Pakistan. There was a U-turn in the Indian attitude after Pakistan gave a befitting reply on May 28 in the shape of counter-nuclear blasts.
'Given the American involvement in Iraq, the Indians attempted to take advantage of the situation and began to promote the idea of subjecting Pakistan to somewhat similar pre-emptive strikes. Alarmed, Americans quickly issued warnings to the Indian leadership from undertaking a similar course of action against Pakistan. The American pressure was mainly the product of realisation that both India and Pakistan are nuclear weapon states and a war between them could easily cross the conventional threshold. Inspite of the American rebuff, the Indians, till late have been harping on the same issue. But the American rebuff did disappoint the Indian leadership.
'Prem Shankar Jha, a columnist for the leading magazine Outlook, says the peace moves are intended to fend off future US intervention in the region. "The basic feeling is that if we start talking, we can keep away further intrusion by the US. I think both sides agree on that."The US has made clear its main concern in the region is nuclear proliferation – India and Pakistan announced themselves as nuclear powers in 1998 and came under US sanctions thereafter. The sanctions have since been lifted, but India, in particular, worries that increased US engagement in the region could translate into renewed pressure to discontinue its nuclear weapons research, which the Hindu nationalist government here considers one of its major achievements. "The fear among the Indian establishment is that if they don't start talking to Pakistan, the Americans will try to cap their nuclear programmes," says, an international studies professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi.
'The Indian businessmen are pushing Indian leadership for talks with Pakistan because they see tremendous potential for Indian goods in Pakistan. The current trade between the two countries stands at $ 204 million, with different estimates for smuggling ranging from $2 billion to $4 billion. 'Like over-flight rights, Indians are very keen to get the status of most favoured nation from Pakistan, so they could flood Pakistani markets with Indian goods and products like tyres, tea, iron ore etc', observed a Pakistani official.
'Pakistani officials have also noted that military tension with Pakistan had also diminished India's potential for foreign investment , particularly in its burgeoning IT industry. At the height of border tension with Pakistan, last year, tens of thousands of foreigners, including 60,000 Americans were forced to leave India, a development that curtailed foreign investment in India.
'Premature transfer of Mr Robert Blackwell, a staunchly anti-Pakistani US Ambassador to India. Blackwell resigned from his post in New Delhi because of policy differences with Washington over Pakistan and Kashmir. Some of Blackwell's statements on infiltration in Kashmir troubled Pakistan and ran opposite to the view Pakistan was getting directly from other US officials.
'On December 31, 2001, India also handed over to Pakistan the list of twenty fugitives from law (of which fifteen already had Interpol red corner notices) who were allegedly residing in Pakistan, with the request (‘’) that they be apprehended and handed over to India. Pakistan has not taken any action on this list so far.
'The world's rejection of a much publicised statement of India's newly created Defence Intelligence Agency. The DIA boss Lt-Gen Kamak Devar had claimed in March that his agency had handed the specific details of about 70 Kashmiri guerrilla training camps in Pakistan to US. There was no response to this from any world capital including Washington.
'India's failure in getting Anis Ibrahim, the brother of Dawood Ibrahim extradited after his brief detention in Dubai. Despite strong pressure from India, the UAE authorities stood the ground and maintained that since Anis Ibrahim was a Pakistani citizen, he cannot be sent to India, a measure cheered by Indian Muslims.
'With cunning and deceit, in the typical Indian style, Indian Army, violation all the existing peace agreements, occupied Siachin Glaciers in 1984. Since then it has been a morale booster for them, but the accompanied price is becoming a burden everyday. Currently, Pakistan maintains three battalions, while India has seven battalions defending Siachen. Pakistan spends Rs 10 million a day, which amounts to Rs 3.6 billion a year. Indian expenditure is Rs 14.40 billion a year. On an average, one Pakistani soldier is killed every fourth day, while one Indian soldier is killed every second day. Ninety five percent casualties have been due to extreme and intolerable weather conditions. The number of wounded is nearly twenty times more, while the number is in thousands of those traumatized.
'Today, a billion Indians are energy deficient, and India badly needs energy for the desired growth. The energy is cheaply available in the shape of pipe-line gas which could come from Iran or Turkmenistan-Afghanistan. But in both the cases the economical land route has to be through Pakistan. Unless some understanding with Pakistan can be ensured, that dream of development has to be delayed' ‘But for how long' remains to be the million dollars question.
Yet a much bigger question in the minds of every Pakistani is, 'is Mr Vajpayee serious' India's 78-year-old prime minister has been for all his adult life an activist, then leader in the RSS, a militant wing of the Hindu nationalist movement. Making peace with Pakistan has never been his party's preference. Furthermore, he leads a shaky and cantankerous coalition, a fact that renders decision-making arduous and risky. Mr Vajpayee also has a history of running away from peace initiatives at the last minute. His Lahore bus journey was unquestionably a historic event. In Lahore he recognised Kashmir as a thorny issue, but back in India he said that he never talked about Kashmir under India, he was only referring to Kashmir under Pakistan. In Agra, he agreed to a lot of peace proposals but when it came to signing the final draft, he kept finding faults till President Musharraf got fed up and flew back without signing any agreement. In Srinagar he talked of peace, but only two hours later, at the Airport talking to journalist, he modified his offer and attached strings, such as
'Pakistan must end the cross border terrorism first'.
Now this cross-border terrorism is a hypothetical tool for keeping Pakistan under pressure. Supposing the Indians are sincere in their cross-border accusations, and Pakistan insists that no such thing exists, then why not increase the UN observers along the Line of Control (which India disagrees). And why should India blame Pakistan of sending the infiltrators, when they have about three times more army, why don't they ensure that no one enters their borders. How can Pakistan fight terrorists when India has failed to contain violence in Jammu and Kashmir, despite the fact that it has a large presence of its army (more than moths) in the state. As a matter of fact it is 2900 km long porous border we are talking about, and if Pakistan deploys the whole of its army, there will always be gaps for those desirous to cross over. Americans have a similar porous border with Mexico and they have not been able to control it. Pakistan also has a porous border with Afghanistan through which smuggling worth billions is being accomplished. India is fully aware that it is beyond Pakistan to have a complete control of the border, thus the easy way of embarrassing Pakistan is by continuous talk of cross-border terrorism. Sincere peace efforts demand since appraisal of others problems and thus a sincere India would just not talk of cross-border terrorism.
So with the knowledge of possible pitfalls, the Pakistan government rightly chose to accept Peace in the best spirit. Prime Minister Jamali immediately showed willingness to cover the extra mile for the sake of peace in the region. Pakistan made a major peace overture to nuclear rival India on April 28, with a telephone call from Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali to Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, state television reported. Jamali asked Vajpayee to resume negotiations with Islamabad, offered to visit India 'in the cause of peace,' and urged the two arch enemies 'to resolve outstanding issues through dialogue,' according to Pakistan Television.
Inspite of a long list of failures of such talks, and fully knowing that every peace initiative by Pakistan will be met with doubts, hostility, confrontation and continued blackmailing under the guise of cross-border terrorism, Pakistan must in the best spirit and with sincerity go for peace talks. The question of Kashmir will of course stand as the great obstacle to a final peace between India and Pakistan. It is nearly impossible for Messrs Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali and Atal Behari Vajpayee to reach an agreement over this thorny dispute in the initial meetings. What they can do, however, is to appreciate each other's perspectives, try to link those with Kashmiri aspirations, and UN resolutions and begin the process of searching for the alternatives that lie between the rigid positions. The so-called democratic India is keeping Kashmiris worse than bonded labour, we have to struggle till they get their freedom in the shape of Plebiscite. Mr Jamali also needs to cover the extra mile for the sake of those Muslims who are being burnt alive in India (as was done in Gujarat), for the sake of those poor children who are being slaughtered after being snatched away from their mother's laps (as
is being done in Kashmir). Mr Jamali needs to plead for protection of those millions of Kashmiri women who are being raped, tortured and humiliated with their bodies being disfigured with burning cigarette butts,(as is being done everyday), he also needs to appeal for some breathing space for those poor souls who take birth as Muslim-minority in India. It is only through peace that we may be able to emphasise that Muslims in India need to be treated at least equal to their animals. But what will matter most is the spirit with which both the leaders lay the foundations of future Indo-Pakistan relations, the abode of a billion people who all need peace to alleviate them out of poverty and lead them on a road to real progress!
