Ras Siddiqui February 19, 2000

Tags: Justice , Nuclear , Government , Military , Delhi , Kashmir , India , Pakistan , America , Bhutto , Nehru , Vajpayee , Leaders

/> if countries and individuals in power can afford to be foolish, I hope
that the readers here will forgive this scribe's attempt at "Qawwali" (a
repeated gospel) as I add my own few lines to the craziness that seems
to have overtaken South Asia recently.

Let us start with an article published in The Hindustan Times on
January 14th titled "Cost of Terrorism" by Prem Shankar Jha in which the
usual labels of "terrorism", "narcotics trade" and the possibility of a
"failed nuclear state"(Pakistan) are discussed.

But since we as Pakistani-Americans are now used to such tirades from the Indian Press, this name calling is usually taken with much salt and sent off into the mind's kill file. But not this time. Mr. Jha for the first time does not stop there but clearly states that India's patience with Pakistan is at exhaustion and warns the US and other countries that a war between India and Pakistan was inevitable and not far away.

M D Nalapat adds to this in Times of India on January 18th "No More
Waffling" that Pakistan is trapped in a "hate India" syndrome. This
because General Musharraf has demanded that Kashmir be discussed as the
root of the problem between the two countries (can anyone really argue
against this fact?). He mentions India's error in the "repeated forgiving" of Pakistan, which will only give up its "not-so-covert" war against New Delhi until India "retaliates in force" in a "big way". I want the readers to note here that this is not just the "hot pursuit" that Indians have been threatening against Kashmiri fighters. An open threat is being sent that after many years India finally needs to convince Pakistan as a whole that it means what it says. And now Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee has even put the icing on the cake and demanded that Pakistan return to India, the part of Kashmir that it now holds.

From any attempt at a "negotiated settlement" last year, Indians have
now come to this stand. They are basically saying that they are prepared to go to war, and prefer the bullet and even the risk of a nuclear war, over
negotiations with Pakistan on Kashmir. All one can say at this point is
"let us not be foolish". Kargil may have been a mistake but the invasion
and conquest of the former East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) by the Indian
Army in 1971 was hardly endearing to Pakistanis (even as this writer
believes that the fault was ours for not allowing the democratic
aspirations of Pakistan's majority to win, and our attempt to crush it
by force).

Mistakes, misunderstandings and downright hate have led us too long in
India-Pakistan relations. It is time to discuss the root cause of it now
and that is Kashmir. So unless one is foolish enough to contemplate a
war between India and Pakistan and expect a clear winner, it appears
that in spite of the foot-dragging from New Delhi, the only thing that
makes sense is the negotiating table (which India fears more than war?).
"India on the Defensive" Washington Post, Sunday January 16th, 2000
(report by Pamela Constable) is the ground reality in Kashmir. And
"Proxy war in J&K will be defeated: Advani" by Harih Khare in The Hindu,
Tuesday January 18, 2000 talks of a new "offensive strategy", one that
unfortunately could also produce a disaster and does not recognize this
ground reality.

Now to Pakistan and what is going on over there with the trial of
former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. General Musharraf may not be very aware of
how this trial and the resignation of Supreme Court Chief Justice
Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui (he sure surprised many people), is affecting
Pakistan's image internationally, so let us look at just one example.
The Sacramento Bee of California's Capital City in an editorial
"Pakistan's worst enemy" of Tuesday February 1, 2000 has certainly made
a very convincing argument that even though the Clinton Administration
is trying not to worsen relations with Pakistan, the Pakistani
leadership itself was not making things easy. Now the Sacramento Bee is
my hometown newspaper and is not the New York Times, Los Angeles Times
or Washington Post. If even it can point out something basically wrong
with what is going on in Pakistan then there is cause for concern. And
since I have not seen too many white crows (Safed Kawway) in my life and
am trying to fathom the trial of an elected former Prime Minister on
charges of "hijacking", "kidnapping" and "attempted murder", I still
find myself looking for that elusive white crow.

This scribe has now come to the conclusion that except for the policy
of promoting the just resolution of Kashmir with India, there is little
else that I can find agreement with in the policies of the current
military regime in Pakistan. Its first 100 days in power have been spent
wastefully, while looking for skeletons in a rather bare closet (A
friend of mine whom I consider to be a man of integrity has been in jail
for over 90 days now. I'd sure like to know what the charges are against
him). So lets not be foolish and go to battle against the Nawaz
windmill. It is time that the former Prime Minister went on an extended
vacation, preferably overseas. What Pakistani-Americans do not do well
is take sides when Pakistanis themselves cannot agree on something. But
in principle one has to support democracy.

Thus far, one elected Prime Minister in Pakistan has been physically
eliminated and two have had their character assassinated (Benazir and
Nawaz). How ironic it was recently to have Benazir Bhutto plead with
President Clinton on Pakistan's behalf to make a stopover there on his
coming trip to South Asia. No matter what her reasons, and from someone
who does not wish to see the owners of Bambino Cinema (Zardaris) running
the Pakistani economy once again, one can express thanks to her. So let
us as a people not be foolish and jump to the condemnation of our
elected leaders because they are now out of power and it is fashionable
at that time. This trial of Nawaz Sharif is making Pakistanis look very
bad abroad in spite of the popularity of the military takeover in
Pakistan.

Now let me address the Pakistani & Indian-American communities in the
US. Isn't it time we resolved Kashmir and moved on? How long will we
wait for the Americans to come and help Pakistan? And will
Indian-Americans wait the same length of time for the US to help them?
The situation in Kashmir is a dangerous stalemate. Would it not be best,
if the three parties (let us not forget the Kashmiris, including the
Hindu Pandits) to this conflict are locked up in a room till they can
come up with an agreement? The situation is indeed complicated. This is
not just a "Proxy War" as the Indian establishment would have us
believe. India's first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru had made a
documented commitment to include the will of the Kashmiri people in the
future status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. That is where the
Indians perceive their defeat. Shaikh Abdullah the "Kashmiri Lion" also
messed up the future of his people and complicated an early resolution
in favor of Pakistan. That is where we lost. The Kashmiris themselves
have been suffering ever since and have resorted to an armed struggle
since 1989 which has the support of their majority and Pakistan. But what can
and should we do now?

We as Pakistani and as Indian-Americans have been interacting with
each other here in the United States for years. As a Pakistan Link Editorial
recently pointed , it is not in the interest of Indians as a whole to have Pakistan labeled by the United States as a state that is a sponsor of terrorism. I hope that some Indian-Americans read that very carefully. In the United States, we as people of South Asian origin are fully entitled to support our respective countries. But let us not be foolish. America can support or
drop any country at any time in its own interest. Are we forgetting Iran
and Iraq? To the world and ourselves we will always collectively be
South Asian "desis". We cannot promote a war in South Asia. After the
introduction of the nuclear dimension, a war between India and Pakistan
will have TWO losers. And we as "desis" must resist the temptation to
promote such an occurrence at any costs.

What we have to collectively find out at this time is, what solution
were Nawaz Sharif's special envoy Niaz Naik and PM Vajpayee's special
envoy R.K. Mishra working on for Kashmir last year? Would it even be
realistic to divide the land of the state 50/50 (a suggestion I can
support)? A Track II diplomacy continuation may be the only safe way
left to go. Unfortunately, thus far the only good reference I have found
on this subject is from The Statesman (Calcutta) Saturday 16 October
1999 "Special Article: Niaz Naik III" by veteran writer A.G. Noorani.
What one has to find out is whether this interaction between Naik and
Mishra was a non-starter like the Siachen Accord in 1989 when an
agreement on the glacier was "agreed upon" and then revoked by India as
a misunderstanding?

Now to continue along the lines of foolishness let us enter into the
American mainstream. Since Indian and Pakistani-Americans do not hate
each other and have learnt to coexist quite well here in the United States (several Pakistanis have married into the Indian-Muslim Community), they continue to lobby for their countries of origin in Washington and in the letters
to the editor and opinion pages of American newspapers. But have we seriously ever thought of what America wants out of the Kashmir problem? (That will be a topic of another writing since this one is already too long).

The currently trend in American newspapers is that of demonizing of Pakistan, something that Indian readers can feel elated about but question. Jim Hoagland in "Turn-the-other-Cheek Diplomacy" in the Washington Post of Thursday, January 27 has been especially unkind towards Pakistan. One can even go as far as to say that this is the kind of Viagra that India can unfortunately get carried away with and become encouraged to the pursue a military solution (while Pakistan is being put on the mat). But let us not be foolish. America has its own interests in keeping the Kashmiri ball in the air.

South Asian "expert" Selig Harrison does not do justice to Kashmiris who cry for "Azadi" (freedom). In an article "Use Leverage on Pakistan While We Can" (Los Angeles Times, January 18, 2000) he dissects the Pakistani Military's top individuals and it's intentions of suppressing the Kashmiri pursuit of "autonomy". Concern for "Islamic extremism" in Pakistan today rules the print media in the US. Little is said of who left this mess for the Pakistanis to deal with in the first place.

The Kashmiri pursuit of "autonomy" also makes an appearance in another article in the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday, February 2, 2000 by "Pakistan Analyst" Mansoor Ijaz. Maybe this is a coincidence but here again in this article "Azadi"(freedom) seems to mean autonomy (a Washington inspired translation?).

In conclusion and one last time, let us not be foolish. The cards being dealt are going against Pakistan at the moment. And if one is allowed to suggest something to Pakistan's Military today it is "be very attentive towards what the world is saying". It is time to be very suspicious of all "released" or "escaped" militants or "hijackers" tied to Kashmir or Afghanistan. It is time to be flexible in diplomacy and inflexible on the issue of jump starting
the economy. And one hopes that Pakistan will have a plan for an interim
civilian government ready just in case President Clinton wants to drop
in for a social call. It is always good to remember "the ides of March".