Defending the Frontiers
By Dr. M.K. Teng
After the Foreign Secretary level talks between
India and Pakistan, the meeting between the Prime
Ministers of the two countries in Bhutan, has
exposed the inconsistencies in the politics
followed by India in dealing with what the Indian
Government has called ‘ cross border terrorism’.
For quite some time, the Indian Government
repeatedly complained about the inability of
Pakistan to act against the terrorist regimes,
operating in that country, and accused it for the
26/11 attack on Mumbai. There is enough ground to
believe that the Indian Government has once again
buckled under the American pressure and agreed to
resume talks with Pakistan, ostensibly to smoothen
relations with Pakistan, but in reality to find a
settlement on Jammu and Kashmir, which Pakistan
has insisted constitutes the core dispute
responsible for destabilizing the relations
between the two countries. However, Americans have
not hidden their preference for a settlement on
Jammu and Kashmir, which underlines a territorial
adjustment altering very drastically, the
geographical boundaries of India.
During the Cold
War the Americans exhorted upon the Indians how
important it was to settle the Kashmir dispute in
the struggle to protect “open society and the free
world” from totalitarianism. After the end of Cold
War the Americans have spared no efforts to
support the Muslim Jihad Pakistan waged in
Afghanistan against the Soviet intervention though
the Jihad spilt over into Jammu and Kashmir,
ravaging the whole of the north of India. After
9/11 Al Qaeda attack, the Americans have been
vociferously seeking to persuade the Indian
leadership that a settlement on Jammu and Kashmir
was vital for a purposeful prosecution of the “war
against terror” in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In
the recent past, many quarters in the United
states have given expression to their
dissatisfaction with the Indian Government, often
in much less polite words, for its inability to
recognize the American concern for a settlement on
Jammu and Kashmir, which they claim could not be
ignored in view of the urgency with which the
Afghan campaign and the military operations
against Al Qaeda and Taliban were being carried
out.
Publicly the
American concerns find expression in crude words,
which are considered to be insolent in India,
where a fairly large section of people speak
English. Brian Trill of the Creator’s Syndicate,
an American think tank, writes in a paper
analyzing the military campaign in Afghanistan,
“Thus Kashmir, the dispute at the centre of the
bloody fissure between India and Pakistan, remains
the most important region to the U.S.
interests—and, ironically, it exists as one of the
few conflicts over which we cannot wield
significant influence. There has not been a call
for U.S. mediation, the boisterous Indian
population likely won’t stomach American pressure
and there is a need to reiterate the loathing the
Pakistanis feel towards the United States.
Particularly the Pakistani military with whom
power ultimately resides and which has the
capacity to undermine any progress—is well steeped
in distrust of the U.S.” Trill adds, “Indeed the
defining struggle of our time- unlike those of
previous generations that pitted competing
imperial aggressions and ambitions and competing
capitalist and communist ideologies against one
another—our challenge and foe exists outside the
State-system; it is the battle against
lawlessness, backwardness and statelessness.”
Another American Patrick Seale advocates, “an
immediate and vigorous US-UN effort to broker a
settlement over Kashmir—and if not a settlement
then at least a reasonably amicable settlement
which India, Pakistan, and the Kashmiris could
live with.” Seale further notes, “The US should
use its full diplomatic clout to bring this about
because Kashmir weighs heavily on the situation in
Afghanistan, So long as the Kashmir conflict
remains unresolved, the Pakistan military and
intelligence services will think that they need
Jihadi allies to put down the sizeable chunk of
the Indian army in Kashmir and keep Indian
influence at bay in Afghanistan, a country
Pakistan considers its strategic depth.”
There is enough
evidence to believe that the Americans are as
committed to fortify Afghanistan as a forward post
in their Asian policy as they were committed to
protect it in the aftermath of the Soviet
intervention. There is also enough reason to
believe that the Americans seek to strengthen the
Muslim power of Pakistan in a more effective way
than they did during the Cold War, for their
interest in the Himalayas is as deep as it was in
the Cold War era. Gilgit-Baltistan horn of the
northern frontier of Jammu and Kashmir, now under
the occupation of Pakistan, reorganized into what
is known as ‘Northern Region’ is vital to
Anglo-American- Pakistan alliance structure in
Asia, as it was during the Cold War era.
The American
opinion is aware of the significance of
Afghanistan and Pakistan to the future foreign
policy formulations of the allied powers in Asia.
The Commander of the allied troops in Afghanistan
strongly pleads for a long military presence in
Afghanistan committed to “winning or buying over
dissidents, expanding the Afghan army and police
and reforming and strengthening the Kabul
government.” Former American Secretary of State
for foreign affairs Henery Kissinger, the American
Vice- President Joe Biden, Jhon Kerry, the
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, say the same thing in different words.
An American journalist warns that the withdrawal
of the United States from Afghanistan and Pakistan
will have catastrophic consequences. “NATO will
fold. So will Pakistan”. That is exactly where
the Indians are required to make good the forfeit
to keep Pakistan and the Muslims on the American
side while they fight the Muslims in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Iran and elsewhere in the world.
There is hardly
any doubt about the existence of pressures on the
Indian Government to resolve its differences with
Pakistan and the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir.
There is a visible uneasiness pervading the
pronouncements of Indian leaders and an ominous
sense of helplessness spread across the national
discourse on the whole gamut of relations between
India and the other countries of the world,
particularly the neighboring countries. The solemn
statement of the Indian Prime Minister that “India
could not change her neighbors” and therefore,
India was bound to buy peace with them, at the
cost they demanded is a counsel of despair.
Apparently the Indian Prime Minister is convinced
that after all, the decades of the Indian
commitment to “Panch-Sheel and Peaceful
Coexistence”, “Non- Alignment”, “No first Use of
Nuclear Weapons”, and “Non-Violence”, India is
isolated in a world where the force is the
ultimate arbiter of all inter-state relations. But
why then does the Indian Prime Minister shirk from
telling the truth to Indian People that, India
needs a complete reappraisal of its foreign policy
postulates and the Indian political class needs to
come out of its intransigence, which has brought
the country to such a pass? Indian Prime Minister
must tell the nation about what is the “Strategic
Partnership” between the Indians and Americans
worth, if it underlines the demolition of the
northern frontiers of India with the objective of
excluding India from any future balance of power
in Asia, which the Americans consider necessary
for the stability of the “new world order”. For
the people of India, these questions need to be
answered.
The Americans are
using the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir as a
lever to smother India into submission. Pakistan
is also using the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir,
as a lever to secure submission of India. And
China is also using Jammu and Kashmir as a lever
to smother India into submission. The USA, China
and Pakistan have common strategic objectives to
follow. Pakistan seeks to (a) open the way for the
eastward expansion of the Muslim power of Pakistan
into Jammu and Kashmir; (b) demolish the northern
frontier of India to establish its hold on the
Himalayas and (c) assume a central role in the
shaping a future balance of power in Asia. The
Americans are eager to (a) consolidate their
military presence in Gilgit-Baltistan region to
extend the reach of the Anglo-American-Pakistani
alliance over the Himalayas; (b) use the Muslim
power of Pakistan- spread over the Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Jammu and Kashmir for penetration
into Central Asia; and (c) to acquire a factorial
role in determining the future balance of power in
Asia. The Chinese are keen to consolidate their
hold on the Indian territories south of McMohan
Line under their occupation; (b) establish its
reach over the eastern Himalayas and reach out to
Central Asia; and (c) to join United States and
Pakistan in the establishment of a triangular
balance of power in Asia, in which the Muslim
power of Pakistan acts as the balancer, or the
laughing partner.
Government of
India should realize that the British fortified
the northern frontier of their empire in India,
which was forged by the Sikhs. It should also know
that the Sikhs laid down the northern frontier of
India on the ground which had been cut centuries
before the Sikh empire was founded, by the Hindus
of Kashmir, who Sanskritised the Himalayas. The
triangular balance of power in Asia, the Anglo-
American- Muslim alliance and the Sino- Pakistan
axis seek to realize, can only be achieved by the
de- Sanskritisation of the Himalayas.
If the Americans
fight for the safety of their borders in a country
as far away as Afghanistan, how is it that the
Indians do not deem it was necessary to secure
their borders In Jammu and Kashmir? Do the Indians
believe that after they got rid of Jammu and
Kashmir, the Americans, the Pakistanis, and the
Chinese would guarantee the neutrality of their
borders?
*(The author heads Panun Kashmir Advisory)
Source: Kashmir
Sentinel
|