 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 8 - 14 July 1999 Issue No. 437 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 8 - 14 July 1999 Issue No. 437
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Features Focus Books Travel Living Sports Time Out Chronicles People Cartoons Letters TakingTiger Hill
By Gamal NkrumahWith Kashmir, nothing is quite as clear-cut as it first seems. Hopes for the long-awaited peace deal rose on Monday, as it appeared that Islamabad had finally succumbed to American pressure and pledged to work harder at reducing tension in the region. According to international media headlines, India and Pakistan came tantalisingly close to resolving their differences, and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reaffirmed his acceptance of the "spirit of Lahore."
Washington's foreign policy focus has now shifted from Kosovo to Kashmir. At the end of a day of marathon talks on Sunday, US President Bill Clinton and the visiting Pakistani premier declared in a joint statement their commitment to peace in Kashmir. Sharif surprised his erstwhile benefactors by his positive engagement once the marathon meeting got underway. With only a little American prodding, Pakistan pledged to take "concrete steps" for the restoration of the Line of Control in accordance with the 1972 Simla Accords that formally ended hostilities between India and Pakistan following a bitter conflict that straddled three wars -- 1948-49, 1965 and 1971-72.
Military victories are fickle. In 1948-49, Pakistani troops successfully crossed into Kashmir and forcibly seized a third of the state's territory, which today has a population of three million. India, meanwhile, held on to the Muslim-majority two-thirds of Kashmir, which now has a population of nine million. In the aftermath of these events, Pakistan clinched a deal with its neighbour whereby a de facto division of the disputed territory was agreed on paper. Much to India's chagrin, however, Pakistani-backed Kashmiri separatists have since shown nothing but the utmost contempt for demarcation lines. As a result, the two South Asian neighbours both officially continue to lay claim to Kashmir in its entirety.
Victory is short-lived, too. The Indians learned their lesson and embarked on a programme of rapid militarisation. Today, they are the undisputed regional power, both economically and militarily; nor are they shy of flexing their muscles. According to the Washington Post, while Clinton was in Geneva in June making a speech to the International Labour Organisation, his national security advisor, Sandy Berger, slipped out to receive an alarming letter from Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee, informing him that India might have to attack Pakistan. Clinton promptly authorised his officials to announce publicly that it was Pakistani regulars, as India said, and not Kashmiri separatists, as Pakistan alleged, who were to blame.
The morality of the means protagonists use to settle scores cannot be judged in advance -- they can only be judged in hindsight. It is too early to pronounce on India's half-baked victory in the latest slanging match over Kashmir. The hard facts are that India is enjoying broad international sympathy for its predicament in Kashmir, while Pakistan is seen as the fall guy. Since the end of the Cold War, Pakistan is no longer viewed in Washington as strategically important. Instead, it has to put up with being branded as an Islamist, terrorist-supporting state.
Pakistan has always maintained that it never violated the Simla Accords, or crossed the Line of Control which divides Indian and Pakistani-ruled Kashmir. Officials protest that the world remained silent when India crossed the Line of Control in 1984 and occupied the Siachin Glacier. Why the double standards, especially when it is common knowledge that Islamabad does not really have much leverage over Islamist militants and Kashmiri separatists?
"In 1988, India sent its troops to occupy the Qamar Sector of Kashmir. Since 1996, Indian troops have cut off the Neelum Valley from the rest of Azad [Pakistani] Kashmir. Pakistan allows the United Nations Military Observers Group to monitor its side of the Line of Control, but India does not," explained Shakil Akhtar, counsellor at the Pakistani embassy in Cairo.
Many miss the point that war is about advantage and not about fair fights. The run-up to the current conflict in Kashmir was deceptively calm: Atal Bihari Vajpayee made a historic trip to Pakistan in February and bilateral talks commenced amidst high spirits and a certainty that a new chapter in Indo-Pakistani relations was unfolding. The triumph was premature. Out of the blue, news of Islamist and separatist infiltrators crossing the Line of Control hit the headlines in late May.
The run-down from the eight-week Kashmir War is bound to be marked by a similar pattern of deception. For the war is not yet won and the Kashmiris' fate not yet sealed. Last February's Lahore Understanding is hanging in the balance. Now New Delhi is hoping to reach a swift agreement with Islamabad, having recently captured key strategic mountain positions that only last week served as strongholds for Islamist and separatist infiltrators.
Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and US President Bill Clinton outside Blair House, Washington DC. Sharif has been under fire from opposition parties in Pakistan for selling out to the Americans and Indians (photo: AFP)
There are those who believe that the doves in Pakistan are hard at work. Sharif dispatched former Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik to New Delhi for secret talks with Vajpayee. Over tea, they looked into ways of mending fences. Meanwhile, unconfirmed reports about meetings between top military officials of the two nuclear rivals were flying about.
The pessimistic version of events is that Pakistan has no intention of fulfilling its side of the bargain, but is only trying to get the Indian army's artillery and bombing campaign temporarily halted. Already, the Pakistani military elite have been jibbing at their premier for bowing to American pressure. Former Chief of Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) Gen. Hamid Gul, warned of a civil war if the Pakistani government forced the Mujahidin to withdraw from Kargil under international pressure. "An international conspiracy is being hatched against [Pakistan]," he said. Gul's is not a lone voice. Islamist and other opposition groups are raising hell in Islamabad. What is not clear is how far their threats are part of a purely domestic power game.
Undoubtedly, troubles lie ahead. Even if Pakistan acquiesces, will the Kashmiri separatists be content to follow suit? "We must watch against the enemy from within, who could be more dangerous," warned Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Farouk Abdallah.
India's Ambassador to Washington Naresh Chandra was even more direct when he described the problem as the "Talibanisation of Kashmir."
Abdallah's and Chandra's fears raise a whole flurry of questions. Successive Pakistani governments have put defence spending far above the basic needs of a poor developing country -- education, health and social services. The International Monetary Fund's $5.5 billion bailout in November 1998 did little to stop the downward spiral -- Pakistan today has less than $1.5 billion in foreign reserves. The US has now warned that it may withhold $100 million if Pakistan creates a climate of confrontation. Ultimately, Islamabad wants a dignified role in the resolution of the Kashmiri conflict. The separatists, however, may have another agenda.
An American-brokered peace deal, meanwhile, remains unacceptable to New Delhi, and India's premier has declined the American president's invitation to visit Washington.
Indians fear the war-mongering ideas of the Pakistani military will prevail. Gen. Mohamed Aziz, chief of the general staff, and Gen. Pervez Musharraf, chief of the army staff, "have spent their careers supporting one Mujahidin movement after another," as one Indian political analyst put it. Their appointments in a recent military shake-up is indicative of the hawkish nature of the powers that be. Yet Islamabad continues to deny that it is determined to escalate the conflict further.
Given that Pakistan now holds the high altitude positions that Indian troops vacated last winter, the recapture of the strategic 4,950-metre Tiger Hill by the Indians on Sunday may yet prove to be a turning point. Indian troops stormed Tiger Hill after intensive round-the-clock airstrikes and massive artillery bombardment. The mountain towers above the road that links the Ladakhi chief city of Leh with the Kashmiri state capital of Srinagar. Long cut off by Islamist infiltrators, the only supply route between the two Indian-held towns will be closed again by snow in early September. The Indians had to act fast.
Kashmiri separatists dispute New Delhi's account of these events, claiming that Indian forces suffered heavy losses and that fighting continues on the lower slopes of Tiger Hill. Needless to say, New Delhi denies the separatists' claims and describes the current fighting as "mopping up operations." Sayed Salauddin, head of the United Jihad Council, an umbrella organisation that groups together 14 Islamist and separatist parties, played down India's counter-claims and pointed instead to heavy losses which he said cannot be sustained politically for very long.
So what is to be done? "Pakistan must pull its troops back across the Line of Control and return to the negotiating table, for composite, bilateral talks on all aspects of Indo-Pakistani relations, including Kashmir," India's ambassador to Egypt, Shiv Shankar Mukherjee, told the Weekly. "India now seeks concrete peace proposals from Pakistan."
