EVERY TIME THERE is an outrage in Kashmir, India blames Pakistan. Indian Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee is merely continuing where his predecessors have left off. The difference in his case, however, is that he needs to claim that Pakistan is behind the latest attacks and is prepared to let those personal political needs end in a war that could go nuclear. He needs to prop up his shaky coalition — and what better means than by claiming India is in crisis?
That way public attention shifts away from the coalition’s difficulties and he can assume the role of a savior whose job in protecting the nation must not be undermined or questioned. With India itself seen as threatened, the coalition partners are forced back into line and there is the added bonus of even the opposition having to zip its mouth. But to the point of endangering the country with nuclear war?
Externalizing one’s problems is a political trick as old as time. It is precisely the same devious trick that Ariel Sharon is playing on the Israelis. He needs Palestinian extremists to keep his shaky coalition in power precisely as Vajpayee needs Kashmiris and a perceived threat from Pakistan to hold his motley team together. Both of them bawl out the one and same devious song: The country is under attack as never before from terrorists. Stand firm with me and you will be safe; it is your only hope.
The obvious difference is that Vajpayee does not have Washington to provide the accompaniment. Pakistan does not figure on the White House’s list of supposed state sponsors of terrorism, announced this week — whatever prime minister Vajpayee may claim to the contrary. The most obvious reason for that has to be that Pakistan is, as it claims, not involved in aiding and abetting the Kashmiri militants. Presumably if Washington had reason and evidence to believe that it was, it would have said so. Whatever cynics might think, it would be disastrous for the Bush administration to deliberately turn a blind eye to Pakistani involvement with the militants simply because President Musharraf has proved such an invaluable ally in the war against Al-Qaeda and Afghanistan’s former Taleban regime. Such duplicity would inevitably be discovered sooner rather than later. Whatever one thinks of the limited horizons and understanding of American public opinion, it loathes hypocrisy when it sees it. Its anger with the Bush administration would be awesome if it concluded that the White House has condoned one form of terrorism to counter another — and worse, in doing so had created the possibility of war between nuclear capable foes. Yet Washington knows that Pakistan sympathizes greatly with the separatist aims of the Kashmiris and provides a refuge and base for those who have fled from Indian rule. It is just as well then that there is no strong Indian lobby in the US. If there were one half as powerful as the Jewish lobby, the White House would have already condemned such sympathy as tantamount to sponsorship of terrorism, as it did this week when it condemned Iran and Syria for their support of Palestinian efforts to rid themselves of occupation.
But Washington’s attitudes are not at issue. It is trying to halt the slide toward war. It is Vajpayee who frightens. By talking in almost apocalyptic terms of it being time for a “decisive fight” over Kashmir and now refusing any talks with Islamabad, he has increased tension with Pakistan immeasurably. He may have imagined that he was playing specifically to the Indian public gallery with his bellicose language, but he is being unbelievably dangerous. This is precisely the sort of aggressive talk that has to be avoided at present. Words such as these have been enough to tip other countries into outright war in the past. It seems that Vajpayee is prepared to head toward the abyss of war — which could become nuclear war — just to maintain his power. That is beyond belief. It is megalomania, and it is evil.
