Following the hijacking of the Indian Airlines plane, the United States
turned down India’s request to declare Pakistan a 'terrorist state', but did
issue a strong warning to Pakistan. This should help Indians recognize the fact
that the US policy towards Pakistan is driven by its own economic and political
compulsions. The centerpiece of US policy remains what it has always been —
ensuring uninterrupted flow of oil from the Middle East. It is unrealistic to
expect America (or any country) to sacrifice this crucial economic interest by
taking what may be seen as an anti-Islamic stand by its allies in the Middle
East. India should follow a similar course and do what is best in its national
interest.
Most countries see foreign policy as a relentless pursuit of national
interest, though they may pay lip service to exalted notions like democracy and
human rights. Ever since its founding two hundred years ago, the US foreign
policy has been guided by the following statement made by its First President,
George Washington: “There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate
upon real favors from nation to nation.” Indian leaders should heed this sage
advice and follow a similar principle. Failure on this front by Indian leaders
at crucial points in history lies at the heart of India’s foreign policy
problems.
Then how does one account for
the undeniable change of attitude on the American side during Kargil? To
understand this, one must recognize that the greatest concern of America and the
West is a Chechnya or Kashmir type situation developing in the Middle East. For
this reason, when Kargil flared up, it chose to change its stand with regard to
India, but kept appealing for 'restraint'. In this, the US was acting in its
national interest. The key here is to recognize that it serves the US interest
for the Islamic warriors to be confined to areas like Kashmir — as far away
from the Middle East as possible. Once driven out of Kashmir they may move
closer to the Middle East and complicate things.
How about America's pressure on Pakistan? To keep it in line. By
cultivating India, the US is telling Pakistan to behave itself and keep its
terrorists under control. The moral of all this: the West fears Pakistan with
its Islamic militants no less than it respects India’s high moral position. In
a sense, the West is hostage to Islamic threats — even from a crumbling
Pakistan. This equation will change only when India pursues a policy that is
seen to have an impact on Western interests in the Middle East. This,
more than nuclear proliferation, is what the West is concerned about. If the US
were really that serious about nuclear proliferation, it wouldn’t have looked
the other way when China was helping Pakistan.
How long will this tight-rope balancing act go on? As long as it can be
kept up. This means as long as the Fundamentalist forces are not strong enough
to seize control of the Pakistani State, which probably is only a matter of
time. Even then one may see the West try 'constructive engagement' to prevent
them from being unleashed on Saudi Arabia. US officials (remember Robin
Raphael?) were talking about 'constructive engagement' with the Taliban less
than two years ago. India would be committing a grave error to depend on the
West to solve its security problems. The West has enough problems of its own
looming on the horizon.
In the circumstances, it is unrealistic for India to expect America —
or any other country — to take on additional security responsibilities simply
to suit India’s needs. One should not also forget that the growth of terrorism
in the region is due largely to India’s own failures — from appeasement of
hostile forces to missed opportunities. It began with Nehru’s referal of
Kashmir to the United Nations and continued with Indira Gandhi’s folly when
she threw away the victory in 1972 in exchange for a scrap of paper called the
Shimla Agreement. Then, with the proxy war raging in Kashmir, Sri I.K. Gujral
came up with his infamous Gujral doctrine including a policy of allowing
Pakistanis to visit India without visas. This of course was a godsend for the
ISI to spread its terrorist network. As a result, even if the US were to declare
Pakistan a ‘terrorist state’, it will not solve the problem for India. The
terrorists will not drop down dead just because of a declaration.
What
should India's position be? First and foremost, she should not waste any more time trying to ‘prove’ that Pakistan is a terrorist state when Pakistan has
declared itself one. Its terrorist manifesto, The
Quranic Concept of War, which is required reading for all its officials,
contains the following ‘terror doctrine’ endorsed by the late President Zia:
“The Quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to
the utmost in order to strike terror into the heart of the enemy,… Terror
struck into the hearts of the enemy is not only a means, it is the end in
itself. …Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is
the decision we wish to impose upon him.” Pakistan has put this terror
doctrine into practice in its proxy war in Kashmir. Its recent hijacking is
simply an escalation of the same war of terror. No more proof is needed.
This
being the case, with Pakistan a self-declared ‘terrorist state’, India can
make it clear that she will not sacrifice the lives of its citizens just to keep
terrorism from spreading beyond the LOC. The US has just issued a statement that
it reserves the right to strike at bases that indulge in terrorist acts against
Americans. India should interpret this as
a signal for a war against terrorism and declare a similar policy. This
means that India can and will strike at terrorist bases in Pak Occupied Kashmir.
Western countries must be made to understand that they and India should
fight terrorism together: India cannot
allow the war against terror to be fought in the West’s interests at India’s
expense.
India
can begin to implement this policy by taking more vigorous action against the
terrorists in Kashmir, nibbling away at their positions across the LOC. As long
as India commits itself to defending the indefensible LOC, it will be in a
strategically disadvantageous position. India should make the Sindhu River the
LOC, as a first step towards eliminating terrorism from the region. History and
geography have combined to make India the frontline state against Islamic
terror. Aggressive action against the terrorists will put a sense of urgency in
the minds of the West also — that they cannot keep taking Indians for granted
to exercise ‘restraint’. The Free World should work together to rid the
world of terror.
At the same time, Indians should recognize that the present intolerable situation is the accumulated result of leadership failures — from Nehru to Gujral. Their failures have turned India into a new colonial state, allowing Western nations to safeguard their political and economic interests at the cost of Indian lives. It is time for India to cure itself of this ‘softness’ by acting with vigor. The solution lies in India’s hands — not America’s.