Pakistani jibe strikes 'terror'
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari's recent statements on India
and Kashmir have stirred heated debate in India and Pakistan over whether the
two countries might indeed be on course for a radical change in their
relations.
In an interview to the Wall Street Journal, Zardari observed that arch-rival
India "has never been a threat to Pakistan". What is more, he described
militants operating in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir as "terrorists",
denying them the honorable tag of "freedom fighters" that they have enjoyed
hitherto in Pakistan.
Zardari's comments are a significant shift from the traditional
Pakistani position on India and the armed insurgency in Kashmir. From its birth
in 1947, Pakistan has looked on India as an enemy. Successive governments -
civilian and military - have described India as a threat to Pakistan's very
existence. As for the insurgency in Kashmir, it is widely regarded in Pakistan
as a "liberation struggle" led by "freedom fighters".
It is these positions, long-held by the Pakistani establishment and shared by
the vast majority of the public, that Zardari negated in the interview.
Not surprisingly, his remarks drew angry criticism in Pakistan and sections of
Kashmir. "With whose authority has President Zardari made this obnoxious
comment about those we consider as freedom fighters in Kashmir?” asked Attiya
Inayataullah, a leader of the Pakistan Muslim League - Quaid-e-Azam (PML-Q).
"Pakistan has always pleaded the cause of Kashmiri people but Zardari is openly
referring to freedom fighters as terrorists and talking about trade with India.
It is tantamount to rubbing salt on the wounds of Kashmiris at a time when
their movement has turned into a popular uprising," thundered Hafiz Saeed,
founder of the banned Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), one of the most dreaded terrorist
groups active in Kashmir.
In Kashmir, separatists burned effigies of Zardari - the first time that an
effigy of a Pakistani leader has been burned in the valley.
Elsewhere in India, Zardari's comments evoked a response which while positive,
underscored the need for caution. India's junior Minister for External Affairs,
Anand Sharma, said Zardari's statement was "a welcome step" but Pakistan would
have to "honor the words with action in curbing terrorism".
"We need to wait and watch if he will be in a position to stave off the
hardliners within the Pakistan establishment, especially the army and the
Inter-Services Intelligence [ISI]," an unnamed senior Indian official was
reported in the Daily News & Analysis as saying. Describing Zardari's
position as a "tectonic shift that goes so much against the thinking of the
Pakistani establishment for the last 50-60 years", noted Indian strategic
analyst K Subrahmanyam pointed out that the "real question is whether this
position will last".
As feared in India, the apparent change in Pakistan's position on India and
Kashmir did not last. The Pakistan government quickly backtracked. Information
Minister Sherry Rahman issued a statement clarifying that there was "no change
in this policy".
"The president has never called the legitimate struggle of Kashmiris an
expression of terrorism, nor has he downplayed the sufferings of the
Kashmiris," she stressed. Interesting, she did not deny his statement negating
the "India threat".
Clarifications issued in Islamabad have not stopped heated debate on the issue.
What prompted Zardari to make the dramatic shift? Surely, he would have known
that the change in position would trigger opposition from within his country.
Did he mean what he said? If he did, can he deliver?
While some have dismissed Zardari's comments as "naive observations reflective
of his poor understanding of Pakistani and regional politics", others see a
larger objective or pattern behind them. In India, a widely held view is that
his comments were aimed at the Americans. Zardari was simply telling the
Americans what they want to hear - that he is a moderate who is committed to
cracking down on terrorism.
This is not the first time that Zardari has taken a different approach from
that of his compatriots on Kashmir. Soon after the civilian government took
charge in Pakistan earlier this year, Zardari told an Indian television news
channel that relations between India and Pakistan should not be held hostage to
the Kashmir issue and that the two countries could defer resolution of the
dispute to a time when an atmosphere of trust had developed. This is in sharp
contrast to the traditional Pakistan position on India-Pakistan relations.
Both military and civilian governments and politicians of all hues in Pakistan
have maintained that Kashmir is the "core issue" in India-Pakistan relations
and as long as this is not resolved, bilateral relations cannot, indeed should
not, be normalized.
In expressing willingness to defer resolution of the Kashmir issue to a future
generation, Zardari had in fact endorsed the Indian approach of improving
trade, people-to-people contact and so on in order to build an atmosphere of
trust in which resolution of the Kashmir issue would be easier.
Zardari's description of Kashmiri militants as terrorists is therefore "not an
off- the-cuff reply", a retired Indian diplomat told Asia Times Online. "It
could be part of a larger attempt aimed at undercutting the military's role in
the political arena. It is part of the ongoing tussle between the civilian
government and the military."
Pakistan's perception of India as a threat to its existence has its roots
partly in the immense structural asymmetry between the two countries. The size
of India's territory and population as well as its economic and military might
dwarf that of Pakistan.
Fueling this insecurity has been the rhetoric of a section of Hindu
nationalists in India, who have periodically reaffirmed their determination to
undo the historical reality of the formation of Pakistan in 1947 by
establishing a unified Hindu state, Akhand Bharat, incorporating Pakistan and
Bangladesh. The "existential threat" posed by India was confirmed in the minds
of many Pakistanis in 1971, when India played midwife in the breakup of
Pakistan and the subsequent birth of Bangladesh.
India has long argued that Pakistan needs an "India threat" to deflect public
attention from more pressing domestic issues, such as sectarian conflict and
economic problems and to maintain its unity. Indeed, in the context of the
multiplicity of dissensions which plague Pakistan, distrust of India serves as
an effective rallying point to consolidate national unity in times of crisis or
of political difficulty. Similarly, "liberating Kashmir from Indian occupation"
serves as a national rallying cry for Pakistanis.
Indian analysts have often argued that it is the Pakistan military that has
contributed the most to keeping alive the perception of an "India threat". This
has been used by the military to justify huge budgetary allocations to the
armed forces, all in the name of defense preparedness with regard to India.
Indeed, the Pakistan military has used the "India threat" and the Kashmir issue
to justify its control of the country's foreign and defense policy, even its
role in the political arena.
It is the Pakistan military that has gained the most in keeping alive the
hostility with India. And it will be the military that stands to lose the most
if relations between India and Pakistan improve.
Are Zardari's comments challenging long-held positions on India and Kashmir
aimed at eroding the clout of the military in Pakistan's political life? Are
his comments trial balloons to test the response of political parties, the
public and most importantly, the military? Is this part of a larger attempt at
building national consensus on a solution to the Kashmir problem?
If Zardari is indeed committed to what he said about India and Kashmir, he will
have to do more than issue statements, only to backtrack. He will have to reach
out to political parties like the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) to be able to
stand up to pressure on the issue from the military.
Indian intelligence officials say that former president Pervez Musharraf faced
significant opposition from within the military and the ISI when he announced
his u-turn on Pakistan's policy towards the Taliban in 2001. "The opposition
Zardari is likely to encounter from the military and ISI will be far more
fierce," an official of India's external intelligence agency, the Research and
Analysis Wing (RAW), said. While there is a perception that Zardari is slowly
consolidating his hold, the rumbles of discontent in the armed forces with
Zardari's statements on India cannot be ignored, he pointed out.
Indian officials admit that the Pakistani government has taken several steps to
welcome Indian investment in Pakistan and to improve bilateral business and
trade. But there have been contradictory signals from Pakistan in recent
months. The 2003 ceasefire has been violated several times since the civilian
government took over. It is likely that the ceasefire violations are being
orchestrated by sections of the ISI and military that are determined to
embarrass the civilian government and weaken it. "This has served as a reminder
to Delhi that it cannot assume that it is the civilian government that is in
charge in Pakistan," the RAW official said.
For Delhi, confirmation that Zardari meant what he said with regard to India
and the terrorists in Kashmir will require his government to act against
anti-India terrorist groups based in Pakistan.
Sudha Ramachandran is an independent journalist/researcher based in
Bangalore.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
