KARACHI: Indian general calls for sustained dialogue: India-Pakistan stand-off
By Shamim-ur-Rahman
KARACHI, Dec 30: A former Indian general who has served in the occupied Kashmir has called for sustained dialogue to defuse the current eyeball-to-eyeball stand-off amid a rapidly deteriorating security environment in South Asia.
The general-turned security analyst, Maj-Gen Dipanker Banerjee, who serves as the executive director of the Colombo- based Regional Centre for Strategic Studies, said the current posturing of military assets of the two arch rivals, India and Pakistan, had once again pushed the region to the brink of a tinder-box-like situation, where the possibility of using nuclear capability could not be ruled out.
The big question is why New Delhi has chosen to adopt this threatening posture when the international coalition is in the neighbourhood, and why it is refusing to talk. What are other factors for the renewed Indian posture? To what extent the United States’ unilateral verdict on terrorism and indiscriminate bombing of already-battered Afghanistan has contributed to this? What will be the world community’s response, especially of the US-led coalition if India crossed the threshold? Why is it that the UN has not acted in the manner it did in the case of US policies vis-a-vis Afghanistan?
These were some of the questions I asked Dipanker Banerjee, who was recently here in connection with a two-day international workshop on the new paradigms of security resolution in South Asia, organized by the Department of International Relations, University of Karachi.
I asked him how to save the situation from a big disaster? How is it possible to bring the two countries to the negotiating table?
Gen Banerjee’s instant reply was: “There has to be a commitment to sustained dialogue. We have the possibility of conflict, which is very critical”.
To a question, he said the “current Indian forward deployments were new deployments. Pakistan has undertaken preemptive deployments.”
Given the present conventional military edge India enjoys over Pakistan, Islamabad cannot afford to have a policy of no- first-use of its missile and other deterrents, but India can, Banerjee said, adding that Pakistan had to fall back early on nuclear deterrent.
Will the Indians use preemptive air strike against Pakistan’s nuclear assets? He said: “The possibility of a nuclear war is not very unlikely because if miscalculations continue and the parties are allowed to drift, there is a possibility of a nuclear exchange,” said Banerjee.
Whether the stand-off was connected with the BJP’s electioneering in Uttar Pradesh? He did not rule out the possibility, though he was inclined to accept that it would not make much of a difference for the BJP.
Asked how could the impasse be broken and an armed conflict prevented with New Delhi dragging its feet even on a bilateral approach to address the core issue, not agreeing to a joint investigation, any sort of mediation or third party facilitation, and any role for the UN? Is there any possibility of evolving a regional mechanism for addressing such a situation? Why can’t SAARC be ushered into that role? Why does India not agree to third party facilitation or UN role when it is supporting the UN coalition in Afghanistan?
“Any violence would not be helpful. If Pakistan commits to stop violence in Kashmir, Indian commitment should be forthcoming,” he said.
When the restraining measures taken by Islamabad against Jaish and Lashkar-i-Taiba were pointed out to him as also the fact that these actions were not matched by the Indians whose security forces continued to act against the Kashmiri people, Gen Banerjee referred to the ceasefire New Delhi announced vis-a- vis Hizb-ul-Mujahideen last year. He believed that words were not being matched with deeds.
He said that Gen Pervez Msuharraf’s stand against terrorism and Taliban was commendable and if he took similar stand vis-a-vis the Kashmir situation, it would make an impact in India.”
Asked why India should expect Pakistan to unilaterally use its leverage while the Indian security forces continued to brutalize innocent Kashmiris, his answer was that if violence stopped and did not surface again, it would encourage India to reciprocate. Indirectly he put the onus of everything on Islamabad.
The general-turned-scholar was candid when he said that the “US action against Afghanistan and the UN resolutions had legitimized anti-terrorist actions. “Everyone seems to be happy with this situation. Russia, China and even India is happy because it provides the room for a similar unilateral action. It is a tinder-box situation between India and Pakistan.”
The terrorist attack on the Indian parliament has aggravated the situation in South Asia and this can be gauged from Banerjee’s comment that “had the attack on the Indian parliament been 15 minutes late, it would have been catastrophic as it could have resulted in the casualty of many parliamentarians. Public opinion would have called for a more swift retaliation. Fortunately it did not happen.”
Perhaps he was hinting at instant action rather than gradual build-up.
When asked why India was opposed to a facilitation of dialogue by a third party, Banerjee was of the view that “at this stage to involve outside elements on Kashmir issue will be unproductive. Earlier, efforts by the UN were not successful and no effective measures were taken which could improve the situation.”
He believed that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir is complex. Ethnic composition and history of Kashmir makes it difficult for facilitation by any third party. “The danger to third party facilitation is that facilitators assume the role of mediators, which is not desirable. It happened in Sri Lanka,” he said. Mishandling in Kashmir would have far-reaching repercussions for the region and could be a thousand times more catastrophic than Yugoslavia.
He emphasized the need for “sustained bilateral dialogue, and at an early stage bringing in the participation of Kashmiris, not only Hurriyet but also representatives from Laddakh, AJK, Northern Areas, because of their divergent views.
“These talks should be held on the principle of democratic process and observance of human rights and to ensure that no violations of these principles would take place. Talks must be held in an atmosphere of cordiality and all sides must ensure observance of these principles,” he said.
When asked why the SAARC platform could not be used for defusing the situation, he said that SAARC could not address security issues of the region as no bilateral issue could be discussed as per its charter.
He nevertheless emphasized the need for strengthening SAARC. He believed that sideline meetings during the upcoming SAARC summit in Nepal could be productive in defusing the situation.
He was not favourably inclined to the idea of evolving another multilateral mechanism for dealing with the regional security issues, without outside interference.
He believed that one way of checking cross-border terrorism was to erect fences. He said that fencing in Punjab checked illegal crossings. He also referred to Huntington’s revised theory of Muslim wars, which he believed would continue to prevail and was likely to affect this region as well as the US.
