news details |
|
|
| Dangerous compromises | | Joint anti-terrorism mechanism defies logic | |
by G. Parthasarathy
Speaking to a cheering audience primarily of his supporters from Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir on September 12 in Brussels, an impassioned General Musharraf thundered: “Kashmir runs in the blood of every Pakistani”. This was in tune with what he said earlier this year: “Kashmir runs in Pakistan’s veins and in my veins”.
He had also proclaimed on February 5: “Our agenda is same as before — the right to self-determination and plebiscite for the Kashmiri people”. In Brussels, in response to questions on whether he had given up on his hackneyed clichés on self-determination because of his new proposals for “self-governance” and “demilitarisation”, General Musharraf vowed: “Freedom and self-determination of people cannot be put aside”. He made it clear that there was no change in his approach to J&K and that his statements on “self-governance” and “demilitarisation” were merely “ideas” he had put forward.
What the General said in Brussels (where I was present) on terrorism revealed the true state of his thinking. Responding to a question on whether he would favour a “ceasefire” by militant groups in Jammu and Kashmir, General Musharraf retorted: “I don’t hold a whistle to control them. There are a lot of freelance terrorists operating (in J&K). One can try and influence them. A total ceasefire is impossible. I am against such attempts without moving forward (on Jammu and Kashmir) and then everything will fall in line. They will fall in place once the Kashmir issue is resolved”.
Thus, while on the one hand General Musharraf was now claiming that terrorism against India, sponsored on Pakistani controlled soil, was a “free- lance” affair, he was also not too subtly indulging in blackmail by insisting that terrorism would end only when the Kashmir issue was resolved to his satisfaction.
More importantly, he was effectively repudiating the solemn assurance he gave to Mr Vajpayee on January 6, 2004, that he would not allow territory under Pakistan’s control to be used for terrorism. Sadly, one cannot help getting the impression that there are some in India, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself, who are just too eager to let General Musharraf off the hook, by agreeing that he has no control over the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan and PoK. This is going to have serious and indeed dangerous consequences for our efforts to focus international attention on Pakistan sponsored-terrorism.
Over the past two years, the Manmohan Singh government has appeared both inactive and hesitant in exposing the involvement of Pakistan-based groups like the Lashkar-e-Toiba in terrorism not just in India, but also in Afghanistan and countries of the western world, like the US, the UK and Australia. But the decision in Havana to set up an “anti-terrorism institutional mechanism“ to “identify and implement counter-terrorism initiatives and investigations” defies all logic and comprehension.
If Pakistan is to join us in investigating terrorist acts on our soil, it will demand a role in the investigation of such acts. Are we proposing to let Pakistan have access to our information and investigative techniques and capabilities? Agreeing to such a “mechanism” would be akin to setting up a Joint Investigative Team of Dawood Ebrahim and the CBI to investigate the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts, or setting up yet another “task force” of Maulana Masood Azhar of the Jaish-e-Mohammed and the CBI to investigate the IC 814 hijacking, or the December 13, 2001, attack on our Parliament.
Have we forgotten that despite substantial evidence provided by us, Dawood Ebrahim continues to enjoy General Musharraf’s protection and terrorists from the Babbar Khalsa linked to the assassination of Chief Minister Beant Singh still roam around Dera Sahib Gurdwara in Lahore.
Dr Manmohan Singh seems to have fallen into the trap of buying the assertion by General Musharraf and his apologists that Pakistan, like India, is a victim of terrorism. In this he is not alone. President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, for their own reasons, routinely refer to the terrorist threat that General Musharraf himself faces. But one should never lose sight of the fact that the terrorist threat to General Musharraf is limited to fringe elements of groups like the Jaish-e- Mohammed, who turned against General Musharraf for his earlier support to the Americans against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. This threat has receded after General Musharraf’s deal with pro-Taliban elements in Waziristan and the free hand that the Taliban now has to attack NATO and Karzai government forces in Afghanistan.
Thus, the so-called terrorist threat that General Musharraf faces is from extremist Islamist and sectarian groups that have received ISI support. The threat, however, that India faces is from groups backed by the ISI, with the full knowledge and approval of General Musharraf. This distinction is now blurred, by the ill-advised proposal for a joint “mechanism” of issues of terrorism. As a result, following any future terrorist attack on Indian soil, we will be advised by the international community and Pakistan to sort out matters through this so-called joint mechanism. We have thus undermined our position of independently exposing Pakistani involvement in terrorism.
In Brussels, General Musharraf described the Kargil conflict as a “skirmish”, showed his clenched fist and proclaimed that he knew the topography of the Kargil like the palm of his hand. He also said that when India deployed troops on his borders after the attack on its Parliament he took counter-measures and forced India to withdraw. He made it clear that he would not stop cross-border terrorism.
Despite this, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has directed his Foreign Secretary to find an early solution to the Siachen issue. Given the propensity for double-speak by General Musharraf, what is to prevent him from taking over the heights in the Saltoro Range after we withdraw and thereafter claiming, as he had done during the Kargil conflict, that all this was the doing of the “mujahideen” or “freelance terrorists,” over whom he had no control?
Further, what is India to get in return for such a withdrawal? Will we not lose an important tool for bargaining in any future Kashmir negotiations by such withdrawal? An important question now being frequently asked is whether Indian security policies today are being made in New Delhi or Washington, which has been pressing for an early Siachen “settlement”.
Within six months of the unprepared visit of General Musharraf to Agra, India and Pakistan nearly went to war following the attack on the Indian Parliament by Jaish-e-Mohammed terrorists from Pakistan. One hopes that this will be borne in mind as plans are made for the Prime Minister to visit Islamabad and Chakwal also.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
