Role of perceptions in Indo-Pak relations

In the past the border areas had served as a haven for terrorists, who, the Indian government said, after obtaining training and arms in Pakistan, crossed over into India and fanned out all over the country.  There has been a steady one-way traffic of illegal immigrants from Pakistan to the border areas.  The importance of the problem lies in the fact that not only human traffic but arms and narcotics find easy access into India.  Reports from various parts of the country confirm that they smuggle arms and narcotics in large quantities.  Unfortunately, there are many godfathers, agents, touts, etc. on the Indian side who not only provide shelter and food to the illegal migrants but all help needed to remain unnoticed.

The defence forces with the help of local people and the police must break up these gangs, round up the agents and touts and send the godfathers to prison.  What is needed is not a fence along the border but a highly efficient intelligence machinery capable enough to identify the illegal migrants and stop the trans-border commerce in humans, drugs and arms.   In August 1986 the Indian Parliament adopted a resolution in pursuance of Article 249 of the Constitution whereby the Centre assumed special powers to create a security belt to deal directly and swiftly against large scale infiltration, illegal traffic in arms, drugs and secessionist and terrorist activities on international borders.  Not only the entire border of Pakistan from Kashmir to Kutch but our borders with Bangladesh and China also need to be protected.  It is time India told its people the real and full story about Pakistan’s role in the unrecognised war in Jammu and Kashmir which the latter has been waging since its first invasion in October 1947.

It is an open fact that the Government of India has, from the beginning, been ignoring the political, social, economical as well as cultural needs of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.  The successive governments of the National Conference, alternated by the direct rule of New Delhi, proved a disaster in the real sense of the term

Terrorism, it is said, has become endemic to modern society.  It continues to be generated by recurrent social crises, arising from the increasing marginalisation of some sections of society caused by the indiscriminate spread of capitalism and the free market economy, through the much vaunted process of globalisation.  At its root the terrorist movement is born out of frustration and despair. Despair caused by social marginalisation, economic decline and political defeat.  Someone once said that “young hope betrayed, transforms itself into bombs”.  Perceived injustice, if allowed to continue unresolved, would transform into despair and then violence.  According to Leon Trotsky the two emotions central to terrorism, are despair and vengeance. The causes of these issues and the form they take, whether it be terrorism or otherwise, must be studied and understood in a scientific and objective manner.

With the start of cross-border terrorism, the Kashmir dispute assumed alarming proportions.  Pakistan’s historical record of its commitment to honour its agreements and treaty obligations, which it freely entered into, not only with India, but also with other countries has been extremely poor.  The 1947 Standstill Agreement with Jammu and Kashmir, the 1948 UN Resolution, 1949 Karachi Agreement, 1954 SEATO and CENTO agreements, 1966 Tashkent Declaration, 1972 Simla Agreement, 1988 Geneva Accords with Afghanistan, 1999 Lahore Declaration, and so on, stand out.  When the Kashmir agitation picked up steam the Berlin Wall was being pulled down, the mighty Red Army had been forced out of Afghanistan by rag-tag bands of Islamic guerillas a year earlier and geographical boundaries were being redrawn across Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Thus it was no surprise then that the votaries of azadi thought that India too would close shop in Kashmir. But this did not happen.

Pakistan’s waging a covert war through trans-national terrorism has a strong religious base.  It was during the regime of General Zia-ul-Haq that Islamabad began to use terror as a weapon to fight war.  The strategy had found a sound footing from a book Quranic Concept of  War written by Brigadier S. K. Malik.  In it, the Holy Quran was interpreted as requiring the believers to use terror as a weapon of war.  Unfortunately, the military dictator at that time, strongly recommended the book and its conclusions by stating that it brings out the “Quranic philosophy on the application of military force, within the context of the totality that is “JEHAD”.  The volume concluded that “jehad”, the Quranic concept of total strategy, demands the preparation and application of total manpower, and the military instrument is one of its elements.  It went on to say further that “The holy Quran lays the highest emphasis on the preparation of war.  The test of utmost preparation lies in our capability to instil terror into the hearts of the enemies”. The merging of the concept of jehad, war and terrorism has also been pursued by Pakistan in the trans-national terrorism it imposes in Jammu and Kashmir.  Incidentally, a combination of jehad terrorism war has also been pursued by Pakistan in Afghanistan for nearly three decades.

India is the victim of sustained low-level aggression by secessionist forces encouraged and abetted by Pakistan.  The present thinking on terrorism can be divided into two schools of thought.  One school of thought places the terrorist beyond the pale of civilized society and considers him anathema to civilization and stigmatises him as a plain murderer who needs to be eliminated.  But the second school of thought encourages an in-depth study of, and a systematic approach to understand and eradicate, the reasons that bring about such upheavals.

The rational political, social and economic aspirations of peoples which when frustrated continuously give rise to full blown terrorism of the modern day, must be sifted out of the process of terroristic actions and looked at separately. Those political aspirations must be addressed honestly and seriously. The solutions that are employed must be made effective–legally and constitutionally, politically, economically and socially. The overall gained impression from the cross-border terrorism is that it relates to the second school of thought.  Peace is more than the simple absence of war.  It entails active engagement in the battle for identifying and rectifying the root causes of conflict.

The problem of cross-border terrorism took an alarming shape during 1988-89 for which solid ground had been prepared by the parties concerned.  First, on the part of New Delhi it was a time to face realities on the ground and examine carefully the causes for the sense of alienation that the Kashmiris feel.  The government is well advised to go into the history of the Kashmir issue in order to understand and appreciate how and when things went wrong and how the impasse of this particular type came about.

It is an open fact that the Government of India has, from the beginning, been ignoring the political, social, economical as well as cultural needs of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.  The successive governments of the National Conference, alternated by the direct rule of New Delhi, proved a disaster in the real sense of the term.  Farooq Abdullah’s behaviour during his curtailed first term in 1983-84, has been described as that of “a little boy with a toy”, and during the second as “a virtual abdication of governance.” He acquired the sobriquet “disco chief minister” because he was frequently sighted in discotheques in Indian cities, and he spent much of the rest of his time playing golf or vacationing abroad.  His colleagues in government earned a reputation for corrupt practices.  In a nutshell, the Kashmiris feel that Delhi’s behaviour has been atrocious in that it has chosen to ignore them completely.