Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 2003, pages 43, 63

The Subcontinent

 

Post-Iraq War Reverberations Threaten Peace in the Subcontinent

 

By M.M. Ali

While the United States and Britain were busy with the preparation and execution of the war on Iraqi, Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government kept the heat on in the subcontinent. Most significantly, New Delhi has attempted to universally apply the doctrine of "pre-emption" as put forward by Washington on the eve of the Iraq war. In March and April Indian leaders, including Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha and Defense Minister George Fernandez, indulged in a barrage of military threats against Pakistan. Fernandez said India could "wipe Pakistan out of existence," while Sinha determined Pakistan to be a fit case for a "pre-emptive" strike.

India, of course, knows that the analogy does not hold. It also knows that taking to arms against another nuclear power (Pakistan) over alleged cross-border violations around a disputed territory (Kashmir) can only spell disaster for the subcontinent, and perhaps the whole world.

Taking note of the vitriolic statements being issued by Indian leaders, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was quick to point out that there was "no parallel" between Kashmir and Iraq. Richard Haas, State Department director for policy planning, warned India that attacking Pakistan is "simply not wise." As quoted in the April 18 Washington Post, Haas further said: "You don't have the years of effort in the Security Council or anywhere else where diplomacy has been exhausted."

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage reportedly is scheduled to visit India and Pakistan to initiate a dialogue between the two countries in an effort to reduce tensions. While Pakistan always has welcomed third-party intervention or mediation, India has resisted it. Washington, for its own reasons, has been hesitant to offer direct mediation between India and Pakistan. This has emboldened New Delhi not to agree to a negotiated solution of the long-standing Kashmir dispute. A biannual CIA report submitted to Congress, however, accused India of helping Libya develop missile technology. Reacting sharply to the CIA report, Indian Defense Minister Fernandez, deflecting the charge, lashed out at Washington: "It has been proven what America has been saying about WMD [weapons of mass destruction] in Iraq was not right," he was quoted as saying by the Press Trust of India April 12. "What has happened in Iraq is not acceptable…"

Advocating a negotiated settlement of the Kashmir dispute and decrying the belligerent rhetoric of government leaders, Indian journalist Taveel Singh wrote in the April 13 Indian Express: "This [pre-emptive strike talk] will be music to the ears of local hawks, fanatics and general loonies but will do nothing to bring peace to the subcontinent."

Veteran Indian author and journalist Kushwant Singh in his latest book, End of India (read end of secular India), attributes the present malaise to the rise of extremist Hindu nationalism in the country under the BJP. "India is going to the dogs and, unless a miracle saves us, the country will break up," observed Singh in the April 17 Washington Post. "It will not be Pakistan or any other foreign power that will destroy us," he warned. "We will commit hara-kiri."

Under severe pressure from Washington, and with an eye on the upcoming Indian elections, Vajpayee—who had rejected any talk of meeting with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf—told a Kashmiri audience on April 18 that he was now willing to talk peace with Islamabad. While Pakistan has welcomed Vajpayee's overture, no one is willing to place any bets on it. In fact, Bal Thackeray, head of the militant Hindu extremist group Shiv Sena, immediately questioned Vajpayee's statement. "The changing stance of BJP will not help the party in the coming elections," he warned. "[India's] Muslims would not vote for them."

India will engage in negotiations with Pakistan for a meaningful settlement of their disputes only when the U.S., which today enjoys considerable influence in Delhi and Islamabad, intervenes to broker a resolution of the issues. Relations between India and Pakistan today are at their lowest ebb, with diplomatic ties almost nonexistent. Peace between the two countries could bring relief to over a billion people who currently are living in abject poverty while the two governments continue to squander their precious wealth on military spending. Nor need such an effort from Washington await total peace and economic recovery in Iraq. One does not have to be linked with the other.

 

In and Around Pakistan

For all practical purposes, democracy in Pakistan is at a standstill. The stalemate continues between the government and the opposition benches over the LFO (legal framework order—the ordinances passed by Musharraf's military government before the National Assembly was reconstituted following last October's elections). The parliamentary opposition wants the LFO abrogated, but the government refuses to budge. As a result, the National Assembly (NA) sessions are adjourned under loud protests, with no work done. The story is the same in the Senate. Indications are that the opposition's main objections are to President Musharraf continuing to serve simultaneously as commander-in-chief, and to the National Security Council (the military heads and civilians who oversee the workings of the government).

Prospects for resolving this crisis are slim at best. Musharraf has so far been unable to perform his ceremonial duty of addressing the joint session of the NA and the Senate. Led by Prime Minister Jamali, however, with Musharraf calling the shots from behind, the federal government continues to operate. One can't help but wonder if the British parliamentary model really is appropriate for some developing countries, or whether each would be better off designing its own. The one thing that is certain is that there are no textbook answers—and that there is nothing sacrosanct in the arrangement of political institutions.

Across the border, the trouble in Afghanistan is far from over. The many warlords that had been bought out—or so it is thought—by the U.S. are back at their old game of running their fiefdoms at will, defying the Karzai government in Kabul. Southern Afghanistan, especially, with its porous borders with Pakistan, remains an unstable area. U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad has accused Pakistan of causing border clashes, an allegation Islamabad vehemently denies. Washington knows very well that, just as Kabul is unable to rein in its many warlords, Islamabad is severely handicapped in trying to control those elements with divided loyalties hiding in the mountainous terrain along the Afghan border. Interim Prime Minister Karzai recently visited Islamabad to discuss the issue.

Pakistan, therefore, has its hands full. Domestically, it has serious law-and-order problems. Its prospects for political democracy, as indicated above, are not terribly bright. Relations with India have hit bottom, and now there is the Afghan issue.

In its half-century of existence, however, Pakistan has managed to survive from one crisis to the next. When one talks to Pakistanis the response is, "We will, insh'Allah, make it through"—and so far they have done so. Perhaps that is how developing countries have survived through the decades. For that matter, there exist no ideal conditions or model states anywhere!

Prof. M.M. Ali is a Washington, DC-based specialist on South Asia and a consultant with the United Nations Development Program.

---

< Prev		Next >