- News>
- Newspapers
Never say neighbour again: The Pioneer
New Delhi, Mar 29: With calculated prudence India appears to have purchased a post-Iraq-war insurance cover from the United States vis-a-vis Pakistan. We do not step on your toes on the Iraq issue; kindly return the good deed and permit us subsequently to manage Kashmir in ways best suitable to us. This is the faith New Delhi has imposed in the messages it has posted to Washington ever since Mr George Bush Jr unilaterally launched Operation Iraqi Freedom.
New Delhi, Mar 29: With calculated prudence India appears to have purchased a post-Iraq-war insurance cover from the United States vis-a-vis Pakistan. We do not step on your toes on the Iraq issue; kindly return the good deed and permit us subsequently to manage Kashmir in ways best suitable to us. This is the faith New Delhi has imposed in the messages it has posted to Washington ever since Mr George Bush Jr unilaterally launched Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Aware that it would be irrational to expect the Bush Administration to do a "reverse" Nixon tilt-that is, post-Iraq expect the US to go after rogue states in earnest and turn similar heat on our western neighbour-India has sought to stride the middle-path. This, in the hope that a powerful international voice like the US would be useful, in coming months and years, in influencing the other four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to nudge Kashmir safely out of the international agenda.
After all, in principle, India may be united with Russia, China and France in opposing the ongoing war in Iraq, but barring Russia, the other four permanent members of the UNSC are not known to be exactly "friendly" to India on the Kashmir issue. China is Pakistan's stated ally; France keeps making noises on the need for India and Pakistan to sit down on the Kashmir issue; and, the US and the United Kingdom never tire of peddling the "dialogue" route, Pakistan being the former's "stalwart ally" in the war against terror (yes, that war is still supposedly on).
Therefore, in the hope of future diplomatic gains, or at least to insure itself against any possible losses, India has duly registered a "balanced" view on the Iraq crisis. Except, that voice would be scarcely audible to the Texan cowboy in his current disposition. Also, the hotspots on the international map (if the brutal gunning down of 24 Kashmiri Pandits in Nadimarg this week is any indicator), may reach searing levels by the time the Americans are through with Iraq, which, by current indications, appears to be nowhere in the foreseeable future.
So far, the world has been a helpless spectator as each and every hope articulated by the international community, including by the Americans themselves, in the aftermath of the allied attack last week, crashes daily all over the deserts and streets of Iraq. Saddam Hussein's loyalists are yet to be "shocked and awed," much against what the Americans had hoped for and long strategised about. Targets of opportunity and Saddam's decapitation, a swift precision-strike surgery intended to amputate Iraq's rotting head in a flash, is a receding goal now as the US enters the second inconclusive week of Gulf War II and presses an additional 1.25 lakh soldiers into the conflict.
Liberation of the Iraqi people was the avowed American intent when President Bush launched his diplomatic campaign against Iraq on September 12, 2002, at the UN General Assembly. Currently, the Americans themselves are being suspiciously viewed by the Iraqis as "occupation forces" rather than liberators. Those opposed to the war fervently wished for a "swift end" to the conflict, in order that Iraq's reconstruction gets under way at the earliest. Nine days on, Baghdad is yet to be breached.
A prolonged war is what President Saddam Hussein appears to have ordered for the Americans. And, even though the inevitable is staring everyone in the face, the time-frame required to reach that end would not leave untouched the decades-old regional crises in West and South Asia. Clearly, the former is showing signs of deterioration as President Bush diverts his focus from the Israel-Palestine conflict to the yet unseen treasure-house of weapons of mass destruction. While Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been asked by President Bush to lay off his settlement agenda lest increased Palestinian retaliation deflect attention from the Iraq crisis, Mr Sharon cannot be credited with infinite patience.
The second issue, namely Kashmir, is displaying clear signs of Pakistan's increasing adventurism on Indian soil, emboldened as it currently is by American patronage under the "war against terror" umbrella. This week's terror strike on Kashmiri Pandits is yet another instance of the perennial problem on India's hand. While a unilateral strike on Pakistan, citing overwhelming national security concerns, is not a viable option for India, the two countries have never stood further from the dialogue table than they do today.
International focus on Iraq, particularly if the war crosses the two-week mark, could well see relations between the two South Asian neighbours dip drastically. Worse for India, the global war against terror, which New Delhi had once hoped would target Pakistan's state policy of sponsoring terrorism, is making a quiet exit from Washington's must-do list, Osama bin Laden a rarely cited figure in American rhetoric these days.
Admittedly, the international media is acutely aware of the repercussions of Gulf War II on existing international "flashpoints". The Guardian, on Monday, listed India-Pakistan relations, North Korea, and the Israel-Palestine conflict as the three possible casualties of the heightened international focus on Iraq. While it is prudent for India to bide its time and not make any noise that would annoy President Bush, it is also time it recognised the worsening nature of the job at hand, namely keeping Jammu & Kashmir away from the bullets of terrorists trained in Pakistan under the Musharraf regime's patronage.
So far, only empty platitudes have come India's way from the US and its extended diplomatic family. The British Foreign Office may well assure India that, "Iraq is the No 1 issue but we are determined not to lose sight of other issues," but the tone and nature of attention on the "other issues" itself must serve as a crucial warning to India. On Thursday, the US and Britain issued a joint statement asking Pakistan to "strictly respect" the Line of Control. The advice immediately loses its sense of direction when coupled with the suggestion that, "Differences between India and Pakistan can only be resolved through peaceful means and engagement." This sounds notoriously similar to the advice the international community sent Washington's way when it was readying to strike Iraq. But then, the sole supowerpower has one rule-book for the rest of the world and quite another for its own consumption.
Nine days into the war, the US-led military strike on Iraq, complete with spectacular fireworks over the Baghdad skyline, pyrotechnics which could be easily mistaken for New Year celebrations, is being brought live into our living rooms, courtesy an emotionally numb media that has failed to register the difference between tragedy and entertainment, between war and spectator sport. It is in times like these that international hopes are caressing the rather distant dream of a more settled world-order post-Iraq, a world rid of deadly weapons of mass destruction and a dangerous dictator who once revelled in gassing his own people when opposed.
Reality however has scripted a different story, particularly for India. Long after Gulf War II is over, a neighbouring country, pathologically hostile and in possession of nuclear weapons will continue to be ruled by a military dictator, a man whose life's calling is to secure the liberation of the Kashmiri people. It is this rogue state and its dictator, backed by the Americans, that India will have to learn to contend with, with or without US-dictated support, and independent of the posture New Delhi strikes on Iraq for the benefit of President Bush.
Bureau Report
Aware that it would be irrational to expect the Bush Administration to do a "reverse" Nixon tilt-that is, post-Iraq expect the US to go after rogue states in earnest and turn similar heat on our western neighbour-India has sought to stride the middle-path. This, in the hope that a powerful international voice like the US would be useful, in coming months and years, in influencing the other four permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to nudge Kashmir safely out of the international agenda.
After all, in principle, India may be united with Russia, China and France in opposing the ongoing war in Iraq, but barring Russia, the other four permanent members of the UNSC are not known to be exactly "friendly" to India on the Kashmir issue. China is Pakistan's stated ally; France keeps making noises on the need for India and Pakistan to sit down on the Kashmir issue; and, the US and the United Kingdom never tire of peddling the "dialogue" route, Pakistan being the former's "stalwart ally" in the war against terror (yes, that war is still supposedly on).
Therefore, in the hope of future diplomatic gains, or at least to insure itself against any possible losses, India has duly registered a "balanced" view on the Iraq crisis. Except, that voice would be scarcely audible to the Texan cowboy in his current disposition. Also, the hotspots on the international map (if the brutal gunning down of 24 Kashmiri Pandits in Nadimarg this week is any indicator), may reach searing levels by the time the Americans are through with Iraq, which, by current indications, appears to be nowhere in the foreseeable future.
So far, the world has been a helpless spectator as each and every hope articulated by the international community, including by the Americans themselves, in the aftermath of the allied attack last week, crashes daily all over the deserts and streets of Iraq. Saddam Hussein's loyalists are yet to be "shocked and awed," much against what the Americans had hoped for and long strategised about. Targets of opportunity and Saddam's decapitation, a swift precision-strike surgery intended to amputate Iraq's rotting head in a flash, is a receding goal now as the US enters the second inconclusive week of Gulf War II and presses an additional 1.25 lakh soldiers into the conflict.
Liberation of the Iraqi people was the avowed American intent when President Bush launched his diplomatic campaign against Iraq on September 12, 2002, at the UN General Assembly. Currently, the Americans themselves are being suspiciously viewed by the Iraqis as "occupation forces" rather than liberators. Those opposed to the war fervently wished for a "swift end" to the conflict, in order that Iraq's reconstruction gets under way at the earliest. Nine days on, Baghdad is yet to be breached.
A prolonged war is what President Saddam Hussein appears to have ordered for the Americans. And, even though the inevitable is staring everyone in the face, the time-frame required to reach that end would not leave untouched the decades-old regional crises in West and South Asia. Clearly, the former is showing signs of deterioration as President Bush diverts his focus from the Israel-Palestine conflict to the yet unseen treasure-house of weapons of mass destruction. While Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been asked by President Bush to lay off his settlement agenda lest increased Palestinian retaliation deflect attention from the Iraq crisis, Mr Sharon cannot be credited with infinite patience.
The second issue, namely Kashmir, is displaying clear signs of Pakistan's increasing adventurism on Indian soil, emboldened as it currently is by American patronage under the "war against terror" umbrella. This week's terror strike on Kashmiri Pandits is yet another instance of the perennial problem on India's hand. While a unilateral strike on Pakistan, citing overwhelming national security concerns, is not a viable option for India, the two countries have never stood further from the dialogue table than they do today.
International focus on Iraq, particularly if the war crosses the two-week mark, could well see relations between the two South Asian neighbours dip drastically. Worse for India, the global war against terror, which New Delhi had once hoped would target Pakistan's state policy of sponsoring terrorism, is making a quiet exit from Washington's must-do list, Osama bin Laden a rarely cited figure in American rhetoric these days.
Admittedly, the international media is acutely aware of the repercussions of Gulf War II on existing international "flashpoints". The Guardian, on Monday, listed India-Pakistan relations, North Korea, and the Israel-Palestine conflict as the three possible casualties of the heightened international focus on Iraq. While it is prudent for India to bide its time and not make any noise that would annoy President Bush, it is also time it recognised the worsening nature of the job at hand, namely keeping Jammu & Kashmir away from the bullets of terrorists trained in Pakistan under the Musharraf regime's patronage.
So far, only empty platitudes have come India's way from the US and its extended diplomatic family. The British Foreign Office may well assure India that, "Iraq is the No 1 issue but we are determined not to lose sight of other issues," but the tone and nature of attention on the "other issues" itself must serve as a crucial warning to India. On Thursday, the US and Britain issued a joint statement asking Pakistan to "strictly respect" the Line of Control. The advice immediately loses its sense of direction when coupled with the suggestion that, "Differences between India and Pakistan can only be resolved through peaceful means and engagement." This sounds notoriously similar to the advice the international community sent Washington's way when it was readying to strike Iraq. But then, the sole supowerpower has one rule-book for the rest of the world and quite another for its own consumption.
Nine days into the war, the US-led military strike on Iraq, complete with spectacular fireworks over the Baghdad skyline, pyrotechnics which could be easily mistaken for New Year celebrations, is being brought live into our living rooms, courtesy an emotionally numb media that has failed to register the difference between tragedy and entertainment, between war and spectator sport. It is in times like these that international hopes are caressing the rather distant dream of a more settled world-order post-Iraq, a world rid of deadly weapons of mass destruction and a dangerous dictator who once revelled in gassing his own people when opposed.
Reality however has scripted a different story, particularly for India. Long after Gulf War II is over, a neighbouring country, pathologically hostile and in possession of nuclear weapons will continue to be ruled by a military dictator, a man whose life's calling is to secure the liberation of the Kashmiri people. It is this rogue state and its dictator, backed by the Americans, that India will have to learn to contend with, with or without US-dictated support, and independent of the posture New Delhi strikes on Iraq for the benefit of President Bush.
Bureau Report