Periscope on Pakistan

The words used in the Lahore Declaration: all dispute including Kashmir’, for example, were interpreted in Pakistan as indicative of India’s desire to resolve the Kashmir dispute. But as the euphoria about it subsided, it became fairly clear that India had no intention of loosening its stranglehold on Kashmir. Behave yourself, victor India claims to have completely routed the (Kargil) intruders. But what followed was not the behaviour of a victor. A victor, having defeated the enemy, proceeds to negotiate peace. India used that as an excuse to run away from peace. It said Pakistan had first to restore the trust that Kargil dashed. The only way that trust could be restored, explained India, was for freedom fighters in Held Kashmir to lay down their arms before their 7 lakh army. When Nawaz Sharif, co-signatory to the Lahore Declaration, was ousted by the military, India said it could not talk to a military regime. From then on it has been a rapid slide to a complete about-face. It began with Vajpayee tellinghis home audience that he had told Nawaz that in any settlement of Kashmir, Kashmiris could never be a party. Then he said that Kashmir being an integral part of India, no talks could be held on its future. A couple of days back Vajpayee revised his nuclear doctrine to announce that India would exercise the right of first nuclear strike against Pakistan. His latest pronouncement is that he would talk to Pakistan only when Pakistan surrenders Azad Kashmir to India. He did not say what would be left to talk about in the unlikely event of Pakistan giving Azad Kashmir to India? The way Vajpayee is going, the only subject that would then remain to be discussed is: how to roll back history and undo the Partition.

Not Gandhiland anymore, Bill
In Pakistan we are used to hearing such crazy claims and demands from across the border and treat them with the contempt they deserve, but voicing them just before the visit of President Clinton, are these supposed to send a message? The message could be that in coming to the world’s largest democracy he should not be under any illusion. If he thinks that he is coming to the land of an ancient culture’ on which Gandhi left a stamp of peace, he would be wrong. India, under Vajpayee, is a highly belligerent, violent, expansionist and irresponsible country, with a long and bloody record of human rights violation against its minorities. It also has a false and highly deceptive veneer of secularism. He should, therefore, be thinking more about reining in its crazy leadership than being carried away by the dream of its huge market potential.