The Hindu : War rhetoric bodes ill for peace

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Dec 04, 2002

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

War rhetoric bodes ill for peace

By Amit Baruah

Is "policy" towards Pakistan made in the trenches of electoral politics or in the Ministry of External Affairs and the Prime Minister's Office? At a time when India and Pakistan are pulling their troops back from the International Border, why is the Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, calling for a "fourth war" with Pakistan?

It is becoming increasingly clear that India's Pakistan policy will have to bear the brunt of the BJP's desperation to win the coming elections in Gujarat. If you can't attack the minority community directly for fear of the Election Commission, then Pakistan and "Mian Musharraf" are fair game.

According to the Press Trust of India, this is what Mr. Advani said in Bhuj on November 30: "Let us fight it out face to face. We have fought thrice, let there be a fourth war." He said that if Pakistan fought with the Indian security forces (rather than killing civilians) he would have no reservations.

If what the Deputy Prime Minister wants is a "fourth war", then why pull back the security forces? Mr. Advani's party colleague, Narendra Modi, may be using the term "Mian Musharraf" for the Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf, but wasn't the General a "Mian" when the Vajpayee Government invited him to Agra in July 2001?

The call to war is a sign that the BJP-led Government has failed to foil Pakistani designs against India; it is a sign that the law and order machinery of the State doesn't work, and that terrorist cells operate unfettered in the country.

Mr. Advani, who is the Home Minister as well, might need to be reminded that we have had a good election in Jammu and Kashmir and that the Government of India took a step forward when it announced the pullback of troops deployed after the December 13 attack on Parliament.

India might have a case before the international community that we can't talk to Pakistan as long as Akshardhams and Kaluchaks happen, but India doesn't have a case for a "fourth war" with its neighbour.

In a globalised world, whether India likes it or not, the international community has been playing a critical role in New Delhi's dealings with Islamabad. So, does it make sense to alienate the international community with this kind of rhetoric?

For all the pundits who argue the "limited and conventional" war theory, Pakistan, which acquired nuclear weapon capability by dubious means, is not bound by any limits. If a war begins between India and Pakistan, it will not be limited and it will eventually become nuclear.

South Asia-watchers also believe that India's reluctance to say "yes or no" to participating in the SAARC summit in Islamabad is linked to the Gujarat elections. Before Gujarat, they argue, a decision on whether the Prime Minister, A.B. Vajpayee, will go to Pakistan or not is unlikely.

It is becoming evident that the Government has not been able to come up with any kind of policy towards Pakistan. For the next 10 days at least, anti-Pakistan rhetoric can only go up, not down. And, if that nullifies the gains made in Kashmir, then so be it. The ultimate national interest is the party's electoral interest.

And what is one to make of the recent broadsides against Bangladesh? That Islamic elements are operating in Bangladesh has been an open secret for some time; that the ISI has been using Bangladesh is also known. It is also known that leading lights of the ULFA are using Bangladeshi territory.

Why then the statements against the Al-Qaeda and the ISI at this time? Doesn't New Delhi have to deal with Dhaka in the long term? Are public pronouncements a method of ridding Bangladesh of Islamist terrorists?

If the policy towards Pakistan is to have direction and if India is to have any capacity to move Islamabad away from sponsoring terrorism, then it must be consistent. It can't pull back on Monday and a call for war on Tuesday. And if Mr. Vajpayee differs with his deputy on the need for a "fourth war", then he should say it. Silence on his part can only mean that he is with Mr. Advani on this issue.

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

Opinion

Stories in this Section

Resorting to jingoism

Attitudinal change required

Social equality: Lessons from the U.S.

GM mustard

Give realism a chance

War rhetoric bodes ill for peace

Late Prof. Swaminathan