|
New
Delhi, 24 May 2002
IDC
has written extensively on the INDIA-PAKISTAN nuclear equation and
we sometimes worry about the state of affairs. The IAF and the Army
are not fully agreed on the Command and Control structure and no
Strategic Force has been established as yet. BARC and DRDO are also
involved. Management, Coordination and Cooperation in India are
difficult issues and all three are essential in Nuclear Management.
Pakistan may be bluffing about its capabilities but then they do
have a Rocket Force and Military men are in Command.
This
is a piece sent by an IDC watcher and is relevent for the times.
America's
Role
Rumsfeld
talks of preventing some nations acquiring nuclear weapons. How
about USA preventing use of Paki nuclear weapons (if they exist)?
How about USA taking control of the Paki nuclear installations,
assuming that USA has control over Musharraf?
It
is a dangerous game that is being played in the international fight
against terror. A diabolical distinction is sought to be made,
between friendly and no-so-friendly nukes. Isn't it a historic
blunder to assume that Paki nukes are aimed only at Bharat? What are
the chances that they will fall into Taliban hands, assuming that
Musharraf is not fully in control of events in Pakistan, assuming
that Omar means what he says when he claims that attacks will reach
the Whitehouse?
The
blowing straws in the wind are ominous; US Ambassador is pulling
out of Pakistan; 150 UK diplomats are being pulled out. Are
they afraid of the Talibs
operating in Pakistan? Who indeed is in-charge in Pakistan?
The
war against terror has clearly moved into Pakistan. What are the
chances that USA and UK troops will succeed in POK without Bharat's
help in eradicating the terror outfits using POK as a launching pad
for suicide terror attacks against Bharat? They will soon turn
against UK and US interests in Pakistan and other parts of the
world.
It
is time to tell USA and UK: stop lecturing to Bharat,
day-in-and-day-out reports appear in the US press about impending
terror attacks. Bharat is facing them day-in-and-day out. Is terror
in Bharat more friendly than terror on WTC? Enough is enough.
What,
pray, is the objective of the First War of the 21st Century
announced against Network Terror?
Indian
Leader's Threat of War Rattles Pakistan and the U.S.
By
Barry Bearak
NEW
DELHI, May 22 - Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee told Indian
soldiers along the tense frontier in Kashmir today to prepare for a
"decisive battle" against terrorism, words powerful enough
to rally his troops, threaten Pakistan and scare much of the world.
India
has a grim choice at hand: make good on its pledge to retaliate
forcefully against militant groups based in Pakistani territory, or
appear at home and abroad as a nation that draws a line in
the sand only to keep moving it back.
The
prevailing expectation is that the Indians will soon strike a
punitive blow, perhaps against the militants' training camps in the
Pakistan-controlled area of the disputed state. The overarching fear
is that such a provocative act might lead to swift
escalation, unleashing
the kind of nuclear combat that has long been mankind's worst
nightmare.
For
five days, the two nations have exchanged artillery fire across the
frontier. A million troops face each other. Defense councils meet.
Stock prices have plunged. Pakistan responded to Mr. Vajpayee's call
with a statement saying it would use "full force" if
attacked.
Worried
diplomats are scheduling visits to New Delhi and Islamabad, trying
to apply the brakes. The United States deputy secretary of state,
Richard L. Armitage, plans a visit.
At the Pentagon today, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said
that the administration was deeply concerned about the rising
tensions and that senior American officials were speaking with their
counterparts in both nations.
"There's
no question but that the entire administration has been in touch
with associates in Pakistan and associates in India," Mr.
Rumsfeld said. He said the "message, clearly to everyone, is
that it is a dangerous situation and that our hope and all of our
efforts are aimed at encouraging them to lessen the tension along
the border, both in Kashmir and elsewhere."
The
British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, heads here next week. On
Tuesday Mr. Straw explained bluntly, "India and Pakistan both
have nuclear weapons and the capacity to use them, and have talked
publicly about a possible nuclear exchange." He called the
situation "potentially devastating."
India
for now seems willing to listen to the envoys, but officials made
clear that India's clock is ticking. The alarm is specially set to
awaken the United States.
The
threat of a war that would jeopardize the American hunt for Osama
bin Laden is India's leverage to get Washington to pay attention to
what is sees as Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism against India.
"The
Americans are asking us for some time to let them sort things out,
and India is not going to do anything hastily," a senior Indian
official said this week. "At the same time, it is not going to
be an indefinite wait."
Regularly
in private, and increasingly in public, Indian leaders are talking
resentfully about the United States, which to them has declared a
global campaign that defines terrorism too narrowly, as evil that
occurs within the 50 states.
Specifically,
the Indians are disappointed with American coziness with Pakistan, a
nation they accuse of fighting a proxy war against India with
guerrillas instead of uniformed soldiers. That war continues apace.
"There's
no doubt that the overwhelming amount of terrorist infiltration into
Kashmir is planned by the Pakistan Army," said C.
Raja Mohan, one of India's leading journalists. "India
knows it, America knows it. How long will it be allowed to go on? I
think America has to be asking Pakistan that question."
The
Indians want the United States to use the full weight of its power
to get Pakistan to abandon its support for the anti-Indian attacks
in Kashmir, just as it successfully pressed Pakistan after Sept. 11
to jettison its support for the Taliban. United States officials
have in fact been urging Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf,
to rein in militants within his borders. They say they are pleased a
crackdown has taken place, although one official said it is
difficult to find the precise pressure point that would make the
general fully change his ways.
"What
do you come up with that will convince the general we're serious,
when we need him so much?" one American official asked.
India
insists Americans are either being guiled or turning a blind eye.
The United States military needs Pakistan's help in capturing the
remnants of Al Qaeda. Would the White House hurt the chances of
snaring Mr. bin Laden for the sake of halting anti-India attacks in
Kashmir?
"Our
observation is that General Musharraf has a divided agenda,"
said a senior Indian intelligence official. "He provides
limited support to America on his western border with Afghanistan
while assisting the terrorists - sometimes the very same terrorists
- on his eastern border with India."
Five
months ago, in the fashion of the United States, India proclaimed it
was ready to fight an all-out war against terrorism.
India
declared that the last straw came on Dec. 13, with an attack by a
five-man squad at the national Parliament building. India reacted by
mobilizing more than half a million soldiers along its 1,800-mile
border with Pakistan.
Just
as now, the world fretted. America pressed General Musharraf. He
responded on Jan. 12 with a bold speech, decrying terrorism, making
promises. Hundreds were arrested, including some of the best-known
militants in Pakistan.
The
Indian intelligence official, recalling those months, pulled out a
sheet of statistics. The numbers are often guesswork, a compilation
of clues, he admitted. But in January and February - perhaps because
of especially bad weather, perhaps because of a crackdown -
infiltration into Kashmir decreased. Then, in March and April,
things reverted to the violent norm, he said. By then, most of those
arrested had been released.
The current crisis was set off on May 14, when militants attacked a
crowded bus, then stormed the family quarters of an army camp,
killing 32 people, including many women and children.
Yet
another straw had been added to the last one. In India's eyes,
Pakistan was calling its bluff. Retaliation seemed required. Many
Indians are impatient, arguing that it is time to attack inside
Pakistan. "Our credibility is already at the zero level, and I
don't think anyone will ever take us seriously again if we don't
quit yapping and take some action," said Satish Nambiar, a
retired Lieutenant General.
But
others wonder why India has wedged itself into such a corner,
risking either terrifying hostilities or a humbling loss of face.
The
idea of a limited war is folly, writes V. R. Raghavan, a retired
Lieutenant General and now a defense analyst. "Once war breaks
out," his analysis goes, "the military dynamic of
obtaining a favorable outcome takes control. The spiral of
politico-military escalation that begins to unfold has a momentum of
its own, which even experienced statesmen find difficult to
control."
Still
others say that the mere threat of war already has brought India a
diplomatic bonanza. Just as Pakistan has employed its usefulness to
the United States to good effect, India can now threaten to undo
that usefulness and imperil the fight against Al
Qaeda.
And
what if Washington and its allies are unable to exert more pressure
on Pakistan, and India finds no alternative but to attack?
"That's
O.K., too," said another Indian official. "If you bomb,
you at least get some deterrence. Tell me, what do you get by not
bombing?"
Back
to Top
Disclaimer
Copyright
|