Kargil conflict is not yet over
By Reeta Sharma

IS the Kargil conflict over? Almost all the leading national dailies and magazines have declared that the war is over and that India has the edge over Pakistan. It succeeded in exposing the latter’s role in the conflict. However, keeping in view the record of the USA elsewhere in the world, besides the vested interests of the degenerated political hawks, at least I do not believe that the Kargil conflict is over. I view it as the beginning of larger differences between India and Pakistan.

With each historical event, be it a damaging war or a pact to maintain peace, Pakistan has stubbornly refused to learn a lesson in its own interest. Right from its first onslaught against India in 1947-48 — which forced it to return to the table for ‘talks’ — to 1965, when it was once again pinned to the table and 1971 when the badly humiliated Pakistan had to resume ‘talks’, to 1999 when it stands fully exposed to the world for its moves promoting terrorism, Pakistan has consistently sold lies to its own people. Today, it is a victim of its own futile and false propaganda against India. But has it learnt a lesson from Kargil?

For an answer to this question just read a few statements made by their leaders and officials. Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan, says: "Today we have calmed down the volcano of Kargil but tomorrow the volcano can erupt somewhere else, as the lava is boiling. Nobody can suppress the Kashmiris’ struggle for freedom".

The Foreign Minister of Pakistan too displayed no restrain or understanding of diplomatic relations while boasting, "There will be ten more Kargils if the Kashmir problem is not dealt with". Both the Pakistan’s political leadership as well as its army, which are ridden with fundamentalism, will never let the Kargil conflict to be over.

The stand taken by the hardliners in Pakistan is more than clear. They have openly attacked Sharif for the "agreement" in Washington with President Bill Clinton. They have termed it as a "sellout by Sharif". A well-known Pakistani columnist, Ayas Amir, has called the agreement a failure of leadership and "nerve". Pouring venom, he writes: "The Bismarcks will cover for the Napoleons and the Napoleons for the Bismarcks. Begin with all the models of the Shaheens and Gauri missiles and all the replicas of the Chagai Hills, which adorn our various cities, on board the best of our naval cruisers and in a solemn midnight ceremony dump them far out into the waters of the Arabian Sea. If this Kargil crisis has proved anything, it is that the possession of nuclear weapons does not confer immunity from taking stupid decisions".

Hardliner Aliffudin Turabi Naib Mir of the Jamaat-e-Islami has stated: "We gained a great deal in Kargil which was our finest hour, but we have thrown it all away in Washington. We cannot allow anybody to play with our victory, our hard-earned gains".

No wonder, the deadline for Pakistan to clear the Kargil area had to be extended by one day. Sailing under false colours, Pakistan does not seem to have even the remotest sense of guilt about its direct role in Kargil. Finally, however, it stands fully unmasked. It is amazing when one looks back to review Pak’s consistent lies in this regard. Although India was crying hoarse over the Pak army’s involvement in the conflict, it took General Anthony Zinni a minute to show Pak all the lies in its face. He put before the Pakistani Army Chief, General Pervez Musharraf, satellite images taken over Kargil to prove the army’s direct role. However, Musharraf took two months to admit this fact to the world.

Hours after his admission on July 16, the Pakistan government finally took back the two bodies of its army officers through the International Committee of the Red Cross. India, holding sacred the dignity of the dead, offered a guard of honour by soldiers of the Rajputana Rifles.

Even though the role of Pakistan has been exposed to the world, India cannot heave a sigh of relief. The war is not over. Observers of international affairs, too, have expressed views which warn us to look beyond the obvious. Anyway, the year 1999 is not 1947, 1965 or 1971. There is a sea change in the ethics and morals of the wars of today. These days any action can be distorted, or painted black. Binding forces like the UN can be reduced to the status of mere puppets, and bullies can indulge in brutalities to brighten the prospects of their economy at any nation’s cost.

Observers feel that Kargil is primarily nothing but an offshoot of the Kashmir issue. And we have all along viewed it as a bilateral issue. But with a joint statement by both Clinton and Sharif, does it still remain a bilateral issue? Why should America’s President state that he has "personal interest" in this matter. Kudos to India’s "restraint" on the Kargil issue appears like one hand clapping in appreciation and the other hiding behind with a sword.

A US State Department official has issued a statement saying,"We are not being pulled in as a mediator. We are aware of some people’s desire to have us involved. But we know we won’t be able to do anything if both the parties don’t want us". Does it not always begin on a similar note everywhere else in the world?

Analysts, both in the USA as well as in India, have expressed views which are paradoxical in nature. Stephen Cohen of Brookings Institution of the USA, says. "The USA has a specific role between the two sides — facilitating. There is such a thing as a facilitatory without being a medicator." However, S.Balwant, a publisher and a political analyst, counters it by saying, "The USA had a specific role of learning the truth about Pakistan’s blatant defiance of the LoC and in exposing the same to the world. Beyond this, the USA is assuming a role which is being very carefully called facilitatory. It does not take long for the USA to assume the role of being a policeman of the world from a facilitatory."

Apprehensions are being expressed about President Clinton’s ‘personal interest’. Washington could be interested in using the situation as a handle to pressurise India on CTBT and WTO. With this new development, Kashmir may not remain a bilateral issue. Pakistan was always itching to make it an international issue. With Clinton taking ‘personal interest’, can India be confident of keeping Kashmir a bilateral issue?

In this regard, Cohen has further been quoted as saying: "The USA has taken up the South Asian conflict a little late in the game. An action policy earlier might have preempted the present crisis. We were obsessed with getting India to sign the CTBT instead of focusing on Kashmir. India may not be able to resolve problems with Pakistan on its own, when Islamabad could provoke a crisis any time. It seems others will get involved. And when India went overtly nuclear, it became everybody’s interest. New Delhi can’t complain now, if they get the attention."

Similarly, Prof Robert Wirsing of the University of South Carolina, and the author of the book, India, Pakistan and the Kashmir Dispute, says: "The USA has acquired the status of a mediator. This Kargil conflict will be dragged on, with a formal additional participant in Washington. You may not call it mediation but facilitation is mediation. Kargil has given gains that Siachen never acquired. Bilateralism has no life left in it because of the asymmetrical power balance between India and Pakistan with the weakening of Pakistani economy".

In fact, a staunch supporter of Nawaz Sharif, Mushahid Hussain, was already celebrating the Kargil issue, saying: "Never before has an American President spent three hours with a Pakistani Prime Minister talking about Kashmir. If this is not internationalising of the Kashmir issue, then what is?"

Kamal Mitra Chenoy of JNU, Delhi, in this regard has been quoted as saying, "In a sense, the Americans have already intervened and this will continue. As the CTBT deadline nears, we can expect more and more interest in Kashmir. In fact, Kashmir was internationalised long before Kargil, with Pokhran II".

However, before taking up the question of internationalising the Kashmir issue, we all need to find answers to questions like why would Pakistan be not interested in arming the Mujahideen? And who would support Pakistan in such continued efforts? Why would certain powers like to go in for kosvoisation of Kashmir? Can Pakistan resist these games, keeping in view their addiction to false propaganda for 50 long years? Does Pakistan has the political maturity to perceive the lurking horror? Do we in India have a sound national leadership to guide the nation in the coming days?