The Hindu : Defining the victory

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, May 27, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Defining the victory

By C. Raja Mohan

NEW DELHI May 26. What would constitute a victory for India in the current military confrontation with Pakistan? What specific steps from Pervez Musharraf would let India claim its concerns on cross-border terrorism have been met? And when would India agree to ease the standoff with Pakistan?

As Gen. Musharraf, under growing intense pressure from the international community, begins to deliver on cross-border infiltration, the world will soon begin to ask India these questions. Having heated up the border with Pakistan over the last couple of weeks, New Delhi must now think through the conditions under which it would cool it.

Climbing down the ladder of military escalation is trickier than going up. By threatening to go to war that could escalate to the nuclear level, India has succeeded in mobilising international pressure on Gen. Musharraf to put the gun down. The first phase of India's coercive diplomacy, then, is largely over.

The second phase would make greater demands on India's diplomatic skills and political judgment than the first. Having deliberately drawn the world into its conflict with Pakistan over terrorism, New Delhi will now have to manage the international intervention with sophistication to realise its objective of ending to cross-border terrorism, once and for all.

Until now the deal between India and the West was quite simple. As the Indian military got ready to go to war, the United States said "hold back, give us time and we will deliver Gen. Musharraf''. But the focus would soon turn to what New Delhi will do in return.

Gen. Musharraf, in his interview to the Washington Post published today, has insisted that cross-border infiltration is not taking place now and demanded reciprocal gestures from India. But India is likely to insist on the broad sequence of events identified by the British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw — end to cross-border terrorism, reduction of tensions and political dialogue, in that order.

***

As the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, and his colleagues deliberate the next phase of the coercive diplomacy, here are a few guidelines.

First, trust but verify. Before India can contemplate any de-escalation there should be solid evidence on the ground that cross-border terrorism has indeed ended.

Second, make sure that Pakistan's offer is not just a tactical pause. India needs a strategic decision from Pakistan to put the gun of cross-border terrorism down; not hiding it for the moment.

Third, make it clear to the international community that de-escalation and substantive dialogue with

Pakistan will follow as a consequence of the gun being put down and not as a pre-condition or a quid pro quo.

Fourth, Mr. Vajpayee needs to hold firm to defined clearly strategic objectives but demonstrate tactical flexibility.

If India overplays its hand it will lose the support of the international community, and underplaying it would leave wiggle room for Gen. Musharraf on cross-border terrorism.

Fifth, don't let the lunatic fringe of ruling party define the terms of de-escalation. If the extremists and hardliners who baying for blood are allowed to dominate thinking, India will end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Sixth, take the Opposition parties into confidence, for internal unity is the key to successful coercive diplomacy. Finally, don't rub Gen. Musharraf's nose in the ground. Give him some space — not on terrorism but on the nature of the bilateral dialogue that will follow once violence ends.

***

The joint statement from the latest Indo-U.S. defence talks in Washington shows how controversially close the two sides have drawn on global issues.

Here is what they have to say on the International Criminal Court: ``The sides agreed that peacekeeping and coalition operations are important tools to enhance stability around the world.

In this context, they discussed the negative impact of an International Criminal Court (ICC) on such operations. They agreed on the serious inadequacies of the ICC and underlined the importance of cooperation between the U.S. and India to oppose its applicability to non-parties, as such applicability would be an assertion of jurisdiction beyond the limits of international law.''

At a moment when the Bush Administration has been pilloried by its European allies for "unsigning'' the convention on the ICC and abandoning international law, India has joined hands with the United States. New Delhi, of course, had a lot of reservations on the ICC and did not sign it like the Clinton Administration which promoted it.

Paradoxically what unites India and the Bush Administration on global issues is the intense commitment to the notion of "sovereignty''.

India's long-standing reluctance to yield on national sovereignty is shared by the ideologues of the Republican Right in Washington.

Welcome to the new world where India's "third worldism'' meets the American quest for freedom of military action!

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion