The Hindu : U.S. role in Indo-Pak. ties

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jun 26, 2003

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

U.S. role in Indo-Pak. ties

By Rajindar Sachar

Has the U.S. demanded Indian troops for Iraq as a quid pro quo for restraining Gen. Musharraf?

WHAT GAME is the U.S. playing in India-Pakistan relations? The query has become relevant in the context of the sudden freezing of relations after the optimism generated by Atal Behari Vajpayee's Srinagar speech.

For no apparent reason, we have Pervez Musharraf on television making two very damaging statements. One, that notwithstanding the fact that Pakistan was "pushed into" Kargil by the `mujahideen,' it could happen again. And two, he challenged the validity of the Kashmir elections, which have been acknowledged as fair and free even by international observers. Inevitably, Mr. Vajpayee talked of a "fourth defeat" for Pakistan.

Gen. Musharraf was perhaps tempted by the strategy of L. K. Advani in appealing to the U.S. to "rein" him in — it seemed to suggest that India was helpless in controlling cross-border terrorism, which is contrary to New Delhi's stand.

Did Washington take it as a sign of weakness and introduce a not-so-subtle trade-off? Has the U.S. demanded Indian troops for Iraq as a quid pro quo for restraining Gen. Musharraf?

Our answer to the U.S. ploy should have been a categorical `no'. Instead, Mr. Advani prevaricated and suggested that Pakistan's restraint across the borders could be helpful in making up New Delhi's mind in favour of sending troops to Iraq. Did this give U.S. strategists the opportunity to nudge Gen. Musharraf to talk tough? That is one way of rationalising the bellicosity of Gen. Musharraf's interview.

As it is, Gen. Musharraf is mired in serious domestic problems. The apparent support he has within the Pakistan Army apart, all the Opposition parties in the National Assembly want him to give up his uniform — which he will not because his survival depends on it. The General has deliberately and cleverly increased the pitch of India-Pakistan tensions.

So that, while on his current tour of the U.S., he can pretend to be misunderstood and use dove-like language to get Washington's `approval' to keep his job as both Army Chief and President.

As for the U.S., it is reeling under the response of Iraqi nationalism. The Iraqis have realised that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not the only item on Washington's agenda. The real agenda was what was spelt out by the U.S. Secretary of State over a decade ago to I. K. Gujral, who, as India's Foreign Minister, met him in 1990 to discuss the evacuation of Indians from Iraq.

His response was direct and acerbic: "Oil is our civilisation, we will not let demon (meaning Saddam Hussein) sit on it". This is public knowledge. If, in spite of this, India wants to burn its fingers by sending troops to Iraq, it will be an accomplice in aggression. Indian troops cannot be allowed to spill Iraqi blood — we have thousands of years of civilisational contact and amity.

The Iraq venture is not going to be a picnic for the U.S. There are no welcome hugs or arches as there were at the time of the breach of the Berlin Wall. In a recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting, the U.S. Army Chief made it clear that Washington needed a large peacekeeping force and that conditions in Iraq were more serious than in Bosnia. The U.S. forces have, after all, been in Bosnia for over eight years and there is still no end in sight. Are our politicians ready to do the dirty work of the neo-conservative group controlling George W. Bush?

The BJP may not be sensitive to the compulsions and the sacrificial spirit of nationalism. Surely, the Congress should be sensitive and appreciative of the hostility to foreign troops. The presence of British forces in our country during the World War II period generated tremendous anger and resentment.

Must our young soldiers, besides falling victim to Iraqi bullets, also be demeaned and disgraced by being treated as an occupation army? There is another angle to the U.S. request for Indian troops. Apparently, it has been suggested that the troops will be posted in the Kurd-dominated area where there is massive resentment against Saddam Hussein. The Kurds are fighting for separation from Iraq.

Neighbours Turkey and Iran, which have sizeable Kurdish populations, would not want any trouble. But Kurds are waiting for an opportunity and will not sit quiet. In such a situation, the Indian troops may have to fight them and would not Pakistan exploit the situation, though illogically, as an excuse to foment terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir? The implications of sending Indian troops to Iraq are thus horrendous and unimaginable. The chapter must be closed at once.

I am surprised at the attitude of the Congress and the BJP (Vajpayee-Sonia meeting) on the issue — working for a consensus and holding consultations with Iran. Do they seriously believe that Iran would want Indian troops to be sent to the region when it is being accused by the U.S. of forming part of the "axis of evil" and is mischievously being targeted for a regime change? The Congress spokesperson and the Foreign Minister made the same noise about developing a consensus. This when millions of people in the U.S. and Europe have already demonstrated against a war, which, as has been well established, was fought by the U.S. and Britain on the basis of lies, deception and forgery.

Why this temptation to send troops? Is it the hope of pocketing dollars from reconstruction money already guzzled by U.S. multinationals? Or is it the fear of legislation banning outsourcing being contemplated in the U.S.? It is misplaced and not based on an understanding of the inner logic of capitalism. Let us not sell Indian honour for a pot of silver. Our heritage is noble. Our young generation deserves better. Or has neo-liberalisation, backed both by the BJP and the Congress, made us so impervious that self-respect and honour have ceased to be the measure in Indo-U.S. relations?

After a Pakistan parliamentary delegation visited India as part of unofficial diplomacy and returned with better people-to-people understanding, the journalist and Rajya Sabha member, Kuldip Nayar, managed to collect a dozen MPs, from the BJP and the Congress included, for a reciprocal visit. It is understood that Mr. Vajpayee appreciated it as a logical extension of his efforts to improve relations with Pakistan.

But then, those in the BJP leadership who want to exploit India-Pakistan tensions to their electoral advantage pulled out their MPs at the last minute. The Congress, which is becoming a soft Hindutva party, followed suit with equal vigour. It is a pity that the political parties cannot rise above petty electoral considerations.

Fortunately, non-official groups in Pakistan have not fallen for the trap and have welcomed the delegation. There is no doubt that peace-loving people in both the countries will view this reciprocal exchange as a beneficial one. Let people of both the countries rise above petty manoeuvrings and give a valiant push to India-Pakistan friendship.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

Stories in this Section

The politics of travel

A major tragedy on the rails

Where is the strong defence?

U.S. role in Indo-Pak. ties

A quantum leap?

Under the ground, behind the curtain

Civil services reform