Spasms of bellicosity

INDIA would do well to heed President Musharraf’s warning that it would be paid back “in the same coin” if it makes any hostile moves across the Line of Control in Kashmir. In a television interview the president referred to the threats being hurled at Pakistan by the Indian leadership and said that such an attitude would hurt India itself. Pakistani armed forces, he said, were capable of defending the country. Asked whether the US would help Pakistan in case of aggression from India, the president stressed the principle of self-reliance, saying that “by the grace of God, we have the strength to defend ourselves.”

Ever since the Sept 11 crisis, an inexplicable sense of wounded pride seems to have gripped India. One reason could be America’s polite ‘no’ to New Delhi’s offer of logistic support to the US in the context of the ensuing military action against Afghanistan. This it had done with unseemly haste, without even being specifically asked for it, and as it has transpired since, out of spite against Pakistan which, it thought, might be reluctant to extend any such help because of its close relations with the Taliban regime. Its only motive was to become a member of the world coalition and turn it into an anti-Pakistan enterprise. However, the US and NATO were quick to grasp the motive behind the Indian offer and refused to accept it. Not only that, when Pakistan decided to cast its lot with the anti-terrorism world coalition as a key player, India felt peeved by its now found importance and gave vent to it by maligning Pakistan as a “sponsor and abetter of terrorism.” Particularly galling for India must be the end of Pakistan’s international isolation.

All this is in bad taste and wholly uncalled for and distracting, particularly at a time when the world’s attention and concerns are riveted on the catastrophic happenings of Sept 11, their aftermath and the current US-led military offensive against Afghanistan. Instead of playing a constructive role in the wider context of the collective drive against the scourge of international terrorism or maintaining dignified silence, India is fuming and flailing against Pakistan all the time as if gripped by a black mood of bellicosity. For instance, George Fernandes, now back as defence minister, spoke of “specific action” in Kashmir. He avoided spelling out what exactly he meant by it, but said “hot pursuit” was not “action specific.” His threatening tone was echoed by India’s home minister, L.K. Advani, who said his government would consider attacking the so-called “terrorist bases” in Azad Kashmir. Not to be left behind, Farooq Abdullah, the held state’s ‘chief minister’, spoke of a fourth round of war that would be decisive. Mindful perhaps of the world coalition’s reaction to this off-season jingoism, he tempered the threat with the remark that India would make such a move after the military operation in Afghanistan was over. One wonders in what way this war rhetoric by some of India’s top leaders serves New Delhi’s real interests.

That India should choose to create a war psychosis in the subcontinent at this time — when the US-led world coalition has its hands full in Afghanistan — and try to draw Pakistan’s attention away from the exigencies of the on-going crisis is indeed unfortunate. All that such an attitude does is to betray the fixation India has about Pakistan. Tactically, too, from India’s point of view, these threats are wholly counterproductive, for the world coalition is not going to view it with the slightest degree of sympathy. Pakistan is a front-line state in the current war against terrorism, and nobody would allow India to disturb the world community’s agenda against the Taliban and Osama bin Laden at this hour. In the given context, the best option for India would be to help in whatever way it can the current campaign against terrorism but certainly not to hinder it directly or indirectly.

On the loose yet again

IN a most unequivocal and public denunciation of Ariel Sharon’s policies, the US State Department told Israel on Monday to immediately withdraw its tanks from all occupied Palestinian territories and not attempt any further incursions. The State Department official said that Israeli actions had contributed to a significant escalation in tension and violence in the region, and refused to endorse the Israeli demand that the Palestinian Authority hand over the suspects wanted in connection with last week’s assassination of Israel’s ultra-nationalist tourism minister. Rejecting the American demand, Ariel Sharon responded by sending in additional army units to occupy the Palestinian refugee camps in Rafah in the Gaza Strip, while six Palestinian cities are already under Israeli occupation in the West Bank. The stand-off between the two sides came at a time when the Israeli foreign minister was due to meet the US secretary of state in Washington.

Meanwhile, American, Russian and the European Union envoys are busy shuttling between Tel Aviv and the Palestinian Authority to press for an end to the escalating violence. The Palestinian Authority has outlawed the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the guerrilla outfit that claimed responsibility for the tourism minister’s killing — to avenge its leader’s murder by the Israeli security forces in August. Members of the outlawed PFLP have also been arrested, but the Palestinian Authority cannot be expected to put these people on trial, much less handing them over to Israel while the occupying Israeli army continues to kill innocent Palestinians deep inside the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Americans and other western governments would do well to continue to pressure Sharon to abandon his policy of indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians. It is precisely this very policy that has practically rolled back the ten-year-old peace process and given birth to the latest Palestinian intifada. The US-led coalition’s present international campaign against terrorism must not be allowed to become an excuse for the extremist Israeli leader to carry out his acts of terror against innocent Palestinians.

Water blues

MANY parts of Karachi seem to be perpetually faced with water shortage problem, even though tankers are ever ready to deliver water anywhere and at any time — for a price they choose to demand, of course. Clearly, something is amiss here. If there is enough water to supply through tankers then surely people can get it through the pipeline network as well. Strangely, the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KWSB) has never been able to shed light on this lingering dichotomy. One would have hoped that with the introduction of elected local government the problems vis-a-vis water faced by city residents would be attended. Unfortunately, before the situation gets any worse, it is important for the new civic set-up to straighten out matters in the KWSB and ensure that water supply to the consumers is more regular and reliable and dependence on tankers is drastically reduced.