Let us Not be Foolish

Ras Siddiqui
Feb 19, 2000

This article will cover an array of news items and thoughts, which
hopefully will culminate into something substantial regarding the crisis
in - relations currently heading into dangerous waters. And
if countries and individuals in power can afford to be foolish, I
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 recently.

Let us start with an article published in The Hindustan Times on
January 14th titled "Cost of " by Prem Shankar Jha in which the
usual labels of "", "narcotics " and the possibility of a
"failed nuclear state"() 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 's patience with is at exhaustion and warns the US and other countries that a between and was inevitable and not far away.

M D Nalapat adds to this in Times of on January 18th "No More
Waffling" that is trapped in a " " syndrome. This
because General Musharraf has demanded that be discussed as the
root of the problem between the two countries (can anyone really argue
against this fact?). He mentions 's error in the "repeated forgiving" of , which will only give up its "not-so-covert" against New until "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 finally needs to convince as a whole that it means what it says. And now Indian Prime Minister has even put the icing on the cake and demanded that return to , the part of 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 , and prefer the bullet and even the risk of a nuclear , over
negotiations with on . 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 (now ) by the Indian
Army in was hardly endearing to Pakistanis (even as this writer
believes that the fault was ours for not allowing the democratic
aspirations of 's majority to win, and our attempt to crush it
by force).

Mistakes, misunderstandings and downright have led us too long in
- relations. It is time to discuss the root cause of it now
and that is . So unless one is foolish enough to contemplate a
between and and expect a clear winner, it appears
that in spite of the foot-dragging from New , the only thing that
makes sense is the negotiating table (which fears more than ?).
" on the Defensive" Washington Post, Sunday January 16th, 2000
(report by Pamela Constable) is the ground reality in . And
"Proxy 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 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
Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui (he sure surprised many people), is affecting
's image internationally, so let us look at just one example.
The Sacramento Bee of California's Capital City in an editorial
"'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 , 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 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 "", "" 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
of promoting the just resolution of with , there is little
else that I can find agreement with in the policies of the current
regime in . 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 .

Thus far, one elected Prime Minister in 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 's behalf to make a stopover there on his
coming trip to . No matter what her reasons, and from someone
who does not wish to see the owners of Bambino Cinema (Zardaris) running
the Pakistani 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 takeover in
.

Now let me address the Pakistani & Indian-American communities in the
US. Isn't it time we resolved and moved on? How long will we
wait for the Americans to come and help ? And will
Indian-Americans wait the same length of time for the US to help them?
The situation in 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 " as the Indian establishment would have us
believe. 's first Prime Minister Jawahar Lal had made a
documented commitment to include the will of the Kashmiri people in the
future status of the State of Jammu and . 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 . 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 . 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 Link Editorial
recently pointed , it is not in the interest of Indians as a whole to have labeled by the United States as a state that is a sponsor of . I 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 ? To the world and ourselves we will always collectively be
South Asian "desis". We cannot promote a in . After the
introduction of the nuclear dimension, a between and
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 's special
envoy R.K. Mishra working on for 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 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
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 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 , 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 . One can even go as far as to say that this is the kind of Viagra that can unfortunately get carried away with and become encouraged to the pursue a solution (while 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 to Kashmiris who cry for "Azadi" (freedom). In an article "Use Leverage on While We Can" (Los Angeles Times, January 18, 2000) he dissects the Pakistani 's top individuals and it's intentions of suppressing the Kashmiri pursuit of "autonomy". Concern for "Islamic extremism" in today rules the print 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 " 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 at the moment. And if one is allowed to suggest something to 's 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 or . It is time to be flexible in diplomacy and inflexible on the issue of jump starting
the . And one hopes that will have a plan for an interim
civilian ready just in case President Clinton wants to drop
in for a social call. It is always good to remember "the ides of March".