Political rhetoric may not always be reflective of ‘real’ policy. Especially if it is for electioneering purposes. But when rhetoric becomes repetitive and its theme cuts cross policy statements, political positioning and press bytes, then the gap between rhetoric and responsible policy narrows considerably. As is increasingly the case with New Delhi’s Pakistan policy. The recent invitation to war from the Indian Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani ,while kicking off the Gujarat election campaign in Bhuj on Nov. 30, should pass off as sheer shrill. But the underlying message bears the stamp of policy.
As if beckoning a wrestler, Advani sought a face to face battle between two nuclear-armed states. “Let us fight it out face to face, We have fought thrice, let there be a fourth war,” Advani declared. Invoking New Delhi’s convenient explanation for strained relations with Pakistan, Advani, according to the Indian news agency PTI, “charged Islamabad with nursing a wound since the creation of Bangladesh.” Blaming Pakistan pointedly he said “killing of innocent civilians by attacking temples like Akshardham and Raghunath is unacceptable.”
Advani is not alone. His election rally rhetoric figures in interviews of politically powerful and strategically placed people like the prime minister, his key aide Brajesh Mishra, Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha and Sushma Swaraj, who all issue Paksitan-specific indictments. The list of Pakistan’s “terrorists” acts grows; ISI is training terrorists and opening madrasas along the India-Bangladesh border, it is supporting terrorist activities in the Northeast to destabilize India, Pakistan is trying to sabotage the Indian economy by creating trouble in Gujarat. The list is imaginative. It’s endless. Every day a “terrorist” from Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish is picked up by the Indian security forces. Spreading virtually across the Indian union, the BJP government sees these Pakistani planted “terrorists” as merely an extension of Al-Qaeda and the Taleban.
The contents of this policy are simple. Keep up the diplomatic pressure on Pakistan; combine the cold shoulder with hot rhetoric. Exerting pressure paid off earlier. Islamabad acknowledged and subsequently reined in cross-border infiltration. Perhaps additional and consistent pressure can force Pakistan to accept Delhi’s Kashmir solution; making an international border of the LOC.
India attempts to exert pressure on Islamabad by holding it responsible for every unfortunate terrorist incident taking place in the Indian-occupied Kashmir; by joining any ‘criticizing brigade’, whether the Americans, the Russians, the Afghans, to make an international pariah out of Pakistan; by developments including the Godhra findings, the DNA scandal in Indian Occupied Kashmir and the controversial Ansal Plaza ‘terrorist encounter’ point even a deliberate ‘engineering’ of Pakistan’s involvement cannot be ruled out. The pattern is unmistakable. As is the rationale for adopting this policy.
This blame game can get tiring. Probably only for Pakistan. For the Indians there is a method. India to some extent genuinely confronts the problem of violence and of terrorism and it also has a dispute to settle with Pakistan. India recognizes that despite Islamabad’s cooperation on the anti-terrorism front the international climate is conducive to exerting diplomatic pressure on Pakistan. More so in recent weeks and months.
Hence Delhi believes that there is more to be ‘milked’ from the anti-terrorism cow in relation to Pakistan. The recent developments on the North Korea-Pakistan nuclear front, the MMA’s victory in Pakistan, the allegations of Pakistan’s support for anti-American Afghan Pakhtoon leader Hikmatyar, the uneasy transition from military rule to civilian rule and the spate of attacks on temples in India and in Indian occupied Kashmir, are all developments that Delhi believes it can cash on. It may earn a more pliable Pakistan. Delhi’s refusal to attend the SAARC summit, is also part of the same psy-war strategy.
The political and military situation has not significantly improved in the post-election period. The policy of limited engagement with the APHC and the armed resistance advocated by Mufti Sayeed’s new government and by the Jethmalani Committee has not advanced the process of negotiations.
New Delhi’s rejectionist position on dialogue with Pakistan defies the wisdom of some within the Indian administration who recognize that without Pakistan a durable solution to the Jammu and Kashmir conflict is impossible; a position adopted by the Jethmalani Committee and the APHC. Solution-seeking is a distant dream.
Unable to break itself away from its post-Dec. 13 policy of coercive diplomacy, New Delhi merely heightens its anti-Pakistan rhetoric in response to increased guerrilla attacks. The tragedy of death and despair continues in Indian occupied Kashmir despite the elections. Innocent get killed. Many men in the service of the Indian state and those fighting the Indian occupation perish in the shadows of a policy that cannot foster a solution.
Unfortunately New Delhi’s decision to link resumption of dialogue with complete absence of cross-border infiltration and with peace in Indian occupied Kashmir is one that guarantees the continuance of the mindless cold war and hot rhetoric between the two neighbors.
Pakistan’s post-October coup stated and operational India policy has been one that of actively seeking diplomatic engagement. Concrete steps taken by Islamabad, even if some under external pressure, included stopping infiltration across the LOC, proposing a flexible dialogue approach to the Kashmir dispute and calling for resumption of a composite unconditional bilateral dialogue.
Pakistan has also refrained from rising to the rhetoric bait. Instead it repeats its offer for dialogue. But invitation to war got a sharper reaction from Islamabad. The Minister for Information and Media Development Shiekh Rashid Ahmad talked of Pakistan not wanting any war but of giving a “befitting reply” if India opted for any “adventurism.” In India no one should be under any illusion that a sovereign country Pakistan would “bow under threats and intimidation of any country.”
None of this rhetoric will pay. New Delhi surely knows that. Such a policy preference is understandable for short terms gains and political point-scoring. Not for substantive movement toward a settlement. Support at the international level cannot translate into a solution to the festering wound of Jammu and Kashmir. For that dialogue alone is the answer.
Arab News Opinion 9 December 2002
