Some 46 years before Mumbai witnessed a terrorist attack on November 26, India was in the midst of an invasion by China. After its unilateral ceasefire on November 21, we were licking our wounds. On that day, as I wrote in my diary which I maintained then, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru received a letter from the most unexpected quarter.
This was from President Ho Chi Minh of Vietnam. He had described the Chinese ceasefire proposals as being "very reasonable and conducive to a peaceful settlement of the border question."
There was an appeal to Nehru not to interfere in any way with the implementation of the Chinese unilateral ceasefire proposals. What pained Nehru was that there was no word about the Chinese occupation of extensive areas of Indian territories.
The Manmohan Singh government is equally pained because China has not given India any real support when New Delhi faces one of the biggest challenges following the terrorist attack in Mumbai.
The government expected that China would influence Pakistan to cooperate with India and tell Islamabad that what its terrorists had done could not be tolerated by any nation. Apart from mumbling a few words of regret, Beijing has been conspicuously silent.
I thought that much water had flown down the Yamuna since the border clashes and the many meetings between the two sides at the highest level would have changed China's mindset. But they have not if one were to remember the axiom that the taste of the pudding is in its eating.
It turns out that the outcry of Hindi-Chini Bhai-Bhai, even from the visiting Chinese soldiers, is mere rhetoric. Beijing nourishes the same old animus against New Delhi and tilts towards Islamabad to have an advantage of sorts.
In contrast, India has put shackles on the Dalai Lama because China does not want him to say whatever he likes from the Indian soil.
New Delhi has per force approached Washington for taking action against the activists of Lashkar-e-Tayyiba. It would have preferred China putting pressure on Pakistan and agreeing to New Delhi's demarche to take action against Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and handover its leader and two other persons to India to stand trial. It is Washington's pressure that has worked and it feels that some action has been taken against the activists of the terrorist organisation. But what about handing the three people who have been responsible for a series of attacks and bomb blasts in India?
I thought former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif would take an objective stand and see merit in the stand taken by India. But he has preferred to be hawkish because of internal compulsions. Sharif should recall how he was not consulted by General Pervez Musharaf, then Chief of the Army Staff, before sending the Pakistani army to Kargil and destroying the chapter of amity that Sharif had initiated with Atal Behari Vajapyee. I concede that President Asif Ali Zardari, similarly, was not aware of the plan by the ISI to arrange a terrorist attack on Mumbai. But he could have taken action when he came to know of the plan.
Obviously, Zardari's drawback is that he cannot challenge the army whose wing is the ISI. Had Sharif criticized the ISI, Zardari would have gained strength to tick it off. I still believe that the two together can do so. Otherwise, what is the use of documents like the Charter of Democracy which Sharif signed with late Benazir Bhutto at London? Both had promised to get rid of military dictation in the affairs of Pakistan. How can any country take Sharif or Zardari seriously when the real power continues to be with the armed forces?
Joint effort
True, India should not push the fledgling democracy to the point where it can break. But how does the Manmohan Singh government assuage anger in the country if it is not seen acting against Pakistan?
An open, democratic government has more obligations than the one led by the military.
True, the Zardari government is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. So is India. The best way would have been for the two to join hands against terrorism without ifs and buts.
Zardari is probably not sure how far Sharif would stand by him if the Pakistan President were to put the ISI on the mat. It means joining issue with the army.
Knowing that the Zardari government has no legs to stand on, New Delhi has joined hands with Washington which has taken upon itself the responsibility of fighting against terrorism globally. What the US is doing in chastising Pakistan serves its purposes. But in the process, India is getting sucked into "a strategic alliance" with America, something New Delhi does not relish.
It has tried to stay away from Washington's "desire to have a real alliance," but how long? America must have thought many a time before deciding to stay by the side of India.
The Pakistani army is fighting against the Taliban in the Federally Administered Tribal Area. The army, already beleaguered, may move its troops from there to the border against India. It would look legitimate and have the people's backing since they have their mindset when it comes to India.
Perhaps it would have been better if New Delhi had taken up the matter with the UN Security Council earlier. Pakistan's hand is as visible as daylight. Most member countries would have supported India because they are afraid of terrorists who can strike anywhere, any time. The only thing which may have handicapped India is New Delhi's belief that China would use the veto if the matter were to reach taking action against Pakistan.
I personally think that New Delhi going to the UN has exposed such member-countries which are pledging to fight against terrorism, but developing cold feet at the last minute. If not today, then tomorrow, the world powers will have to cooperate among themselves to combat and eliminate those who are out to killing thousands of people in name of Islam which says that taking the life of an innocent is like killing the whole humanity.
* Kuldip Nayar is a veteran Indian journalist and former parliamentarian. He was also a one-time diplomat. |
E-mail