KARACHI: New Delhi not prepared to let Islamabad off the hook
KARACHI, April 10: A leading Indian peace activist has said that “India is not going to let Pakistan off the hook this time as no soft liner is left in India for Pakistan.”
Talking to Dawn, Karan Sawhny, Director of the International Centre for Peace Initiatives, New Delhi, emphasized the urgent need for resuming talks but stressed that India, which has massed troops along the LoC and the international border with Pakistan, means business.
His straight forward arguments indicated the radicalization and frenzied polarization of the Indian society.
The conversation, which took place during the recently-concluded conference of the South Asian Editors’ Forum here, centred on the current stand-off between India and Pakistan over the core issue of Kashmir between the two countries.
His argument was that those who ordered the deployment of troops say they want to “settle” the matter with Pakistan once and for all.
He said that at present the mindset of the Indian leadership was that it could not pull back without achieving the objectives of mobilization. They were not willing to subscribe to the fatigue factor of the troops.
He nevertheless pointed out that general perception was that although India’s military had not reached a state of fatigue, Indian political and diplomatic costs had touched the ceiling.
The tenor was an indicator of the Indian strategic design to achieve its objectives by subjecting Pakistani troops to extreme fatigue and economic pressures.
When his attention was drawn to the possibility of Pakistan falling back on the weapon of last resort to defend itself, if Islamabad found it difficult to stall the Indian onslaught, Mr Karan said that it would trigger a catastrophic vicious circle not only in the region but far beyond. That was why he emphasized the urgent need for resuming dialogue.
Referring to Gen Pervez Musharraf’s policy of renouncing the use of Pakistan territory for terrorist activities, Mr Karan said: “India wants concrete demonstration by Pakistan of its changed policy. Pakistan has to show that it has changed. Not only Gen Musharraf and his few comrades, but the people as a whole have changed and they want to reverse the course.”
He was of the view that “for any prospects for peace in Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan will have to be firm in opposing the use of its territory or media to support terrorism.”
When I asked Mr Karan that while India was putting the onus of everything on Pakistan and blaming it for cross-border terrorism, what was India itself willing to do for the resolution of the conflict, such as troop withdrawal and end of brutalities against the Kashmiris by the security forces, he said: “India needs Pakistan’s support to reach a political accommodation in Kashmir.”
We did not go into details of the causes belli of the indigenous armed struggle against Indian occupation as Mr Karan, who is a frequent visitor to Pakistan in search for peace initiatives, said it would be naive to expect that the Indians would give up their stated position on Kashmir. The same was the case with Pakistan, he said.
When we came to hard realities of the partition, especially the current volatile situation, Mr Karan’s response reflected the hangover of history when he said that “if Pakistan wants to enjoy a constructive relationship with India, it must end support for violence.” But what he did not refer to was the cause of this violence and who was responsible for it.
He said that relations were also bitter because many people in India felt that Pakistan took advantage of the misrule in Kashmir to support the freedom movement launched by the JKLF.
I was surprised that even a scholar of Mr Karan’s standing was not differentiating between terrorism and the freedom struggle launched by the Kashmiris.
For many Indians, Mr Karan said, the old Pakistan policy of bleeding India had not changed. Indians felt that this was no longer viable. Pakistan, if it wished to enjoy peaceful and mutually beneficial relations with India, then it must end support to violence (in Kashmir and in India).
He emphasized the need for the Indian political establishment to find a settlement with the Kashmiris, saying that such a process required Pakistan’s cooperation. He did not rule out the possibility of a settlement on the basis of self-governance for the Kashmiris. This process could start if violence was stopped by all sides, he said. He also referred to the ceasefire India brokered with the Hizbul Mujahideen, but it was rejected by the APHC and Pakistan. He said that India felt no mercy for the Lashkar-i-Taiba and the Jaish Mohammed.
He said that India was also exploiting Pakistan’s precarious situation since Sept 11 as New Delhi felt uncomfortable with the US and other countries’ support to Pakistan.
He termed the Agra summit “a very positive development,” though it could not end hostility. “Many in India believe that Musharraf used Agra to foster his own and the army’s institutional interest.” Mr Karan said that as a result of Agra it was thought that conditions would be created for more dialogue. For a while “terrorist” incidents in Kashmir declined, but then the situation turned even worse. He seemed to be endorsing the official line on the terrorist attacks on the Indian parliament and the state assembly in the occupied Kashmir, which have been condemned by Pakistan.
He felt that Saarc could play an effective role in removing mistrust and evolving cooperation step-by-step. Saarc had valuable potential, but goodwill was the prerequisite for exploiting its full potential.
In view of India’s refusal to discuss the core issue of Kashmir and even opposition to third-party facilitation, I asked him if it was possible to address the issue in the context of Saarc declarations on terrorism?
Mr Karan replied by saying: “It is an excellent idea to defuse the situation, but it will be only symptomatic; it will not take us any further.”
He believed that a mechanism was necessary to defuse tension, and was of the view that people like Asma Jehangir and Maulana Abdul Sattar Edhi had the requisite credentials from Pakistan to be represented on that watchdog committee.
But can all that be achieved by snapping dialogue, by suspending “Samjhota Express” and the bus service, by denying PIA the right to fly to Indian destinations and beyond through its airspace? And on top of all this, by not recognizing the right of self-determination for the Kashmiris?— SR
