Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Generally the New Year messages contain goodwill messages and communicate wishes for overall welfare and betterment. But Mr.Vajpayee's New Year message is not only loaded with justifications for creating war hysteria but also contains threats directed against Pakistan. Targeting the major roadblocks impeding the augured bright future, he made pointed reference to what he called Pakistan's consistent anti-India policy. In this connection he referred to Pakistan's refusal to accept Kashmir's accession to India.

Almost all Indian leaders have periodically justified Kashmir's takeover as legitimate and constitutional. The intriguing aspect of this wide spread assertion is that even those who fully comprehend the disputed nature of Kashmir and are well familiar how India avoided to hold the promised plebiscite and forcibly took over the state invariably demonstrate their loyalties with the incumbent regimes. I suppose it is quite natural to do so but to base their argument on justice and fair play is bit too much.

One need not to go into the details of how and why India took the Kashmir dispute to UN, agreed to hold plebiscite in accordance with the resolutions of Aug.1948 and Jan.1949, began to deviate from its commitments after Pakistan decided to join the western sponsored cold war alliances and gradually initiated a policy to delink the Kashmir dispute from the UN. The bilaterally worked out Simla Agreement once again committed the Indians to resolve the dispute though no progress was made in this regards. Similarly the Lahore declaration and Agra Summit also witnessed discussions on this dispute. At no stage the disputed nature of Kashmir was thrown to winds.

The fact that even Mr.Vajpayee himself categorically committed to discuss the Kashmir dispute clearly raises questions about what he referred in New Year's message the constitutional validity of Kashmir's accession. Why was the article 370 extending special status to Kashmir included in the Indian constitution? Was it meant to buy time for suitable environment to absorb it into Indian Union? Was it just one of the long string of tricks to sidetrack the efforts of the international community in order to wait for more suitable atmosphere?

A close scrutiny of Indian moves since the emergence of the dispute in 1947 clearly reflects a carefully contrived policy to deprive the people of Kashmir their legitimate right to self-determination. It seems the promises made to the people of Kashmir and the international community during initial phase of dispute were just part of a well calculated
Strategy. Admittedly one realizes that more than fifty years have passed since the dispute originated and conditions have undergone radical transformation in many ways but does this mean that promises made to the people involved and UN are no longer valid? Wouldn't this amount to establishing a bad precedent and there can be nothing worse than legitimizing a bad precedent. All this would mean that a carefully contrived long term policy could deliver whatever is deemed illegal that may even violate the rights of the people involved.

Perhaps it is time to remind those who really care for peace and stability of the region, exactly who has opted for continuous hostility in the region. It is not Pakistan that had opted for policy of continuous hostility towards India. On the contrary it has always been India that has not yet been able to reconcile itself with Pakistan's independent existence. Periodically but somewhat regularly questions are raised that tend to question the very basis of the movement which resulted in the establishment of an independent Pakistan. Even during the current crisis the Indians have not desisted from such pursuits generating the feelings among many Pakistanis that they have never been able to reconcile themselves with the partition of the Indian subcontinent.

It would only be appropriate to mention here that it has also been argued by some Indians that Vajpayee's visit to 'Minar-e-Pakistan' during his Lahore trip of 1999 was an acknowledgement of Indian reconciliation with Pakistan's existence. Perhaps it was a genuine effort. If this were the case then why would so many Indians be still writing and questioning the very existence of Pakistan? Is it possible to assume that Vajpayee was sincere and genuinely wanted to assure the Pakistanis about the India's reconciliation? I would like to believe so but the kind of behavior and attitude that has been recently demonstrated by Mr.Vajpayee tends to generate a totally different image and a confused picture.

Mr.Vajpayee's statements during the recent days are indeed sending mixed signals. Two sets of statements seem to be emerging almost regularly. First, the statement of the prime minister may be reflecting rationality on one hand but one of the important ministers would simultaneously issue a very strong statement generating a totally opposite view on the other. Second, the prime minter issues a strong and hawkish statement, which is accompanied by a softer statement by important minister. A combination of such statement clearly reveals a very well thought out strategy.

The main objectives of sending mixed signals appears to be twofold; to counter the international pressure which, for obvious reasons need to be catered for and to keep Pakistan confused and uncertain about the next Indian move. It is somewhat ludicrous to assume that Pakistan would lower its guards because of the confused signals. Since the Indians have hyped the war hysteria to an alarming pitch along with massive movements of the troops from various parts of India, it is expected that Pakistan would indeed be responding with a somewhat similar recipe.

Just before leaving for Kathmandu, Mr.Vajpayee stressed in Lukhnow that war with Pakistan was not a necessity and he would try to avoid it. It is interesting to note that having created the war hysteria, the Indian prime minister is also hinting at the possible employment of alternative peaceful approaches. However it seems appropriate to mention here that it was India that had deliberately created a war like situation and threatened Pakistan to undertake punitive military measures. Simultaneously Mr.Vajpayee also began to assert that if the war is thrust upon India and we should defend ourselves.

Contradictions and statements reflecting the opposite ends of the strands are being simultaneously issued sometimes with only a difference of few hours. Two trends can be ascertained; to keep all the options open and Mr.Vajpayees helplessness. The contradictory strands are helpful in assuring the international community that the Indians are not warmongers and they would everything to alleviate their fears and try alternative routes. While the Indians do care for the international opinion and employ all kinds of techniques and invest both money and efforts to bring it around to their way of thinking, this does not necessarily imply that they respect it. On the contrary, the Indians have a very high opinion about them and frequently indulge in ridiculing those who dare to take an objective of the situations.

The second trend that poses a difficult task to accurately assess the real intentions of the BJP is the ostensible helplessness of Mr.Vajpayee. Compared to his threats to use all weapons and many hard hitting speeches along with new year the message, the speech at Lukhnow generates conciliatory impulses though at the same times the Indian foreign minister continues to blow hot and cold. Ever since the day Mr.Vajpayee threatened to resign soon after PMO office was accused of corruption by a Shiv Sena member of the Lok Sabha, Mr.Vajpayee have not really been able to come out and demonstrate a firm grip on the party. On the contrary one often gets the impression that the extremists are really the in charge of party as well as the government.

Invariably the offer of resignation by any party leader is seen as the last trump card. Once this card is used, the position of a leader often deteriorates. His presence at the helm of affairs is more attributed to the necessity of keeping the coalition in tact rather than anything else. Being an experienced statesman, he needs to depend and demonstrate more of his rational approaches than succumbing to irrational and dangerous suggestions that invariably originate from the unreasonable party extremists.