The year 2001 was especially different for the Sub-continent with its congenital warring neighbors – India and Pakistan going about conducting themselves in manners that kept the World community almost on its toes. The situation was made nearly nerve wrecking due to the fact that there was an engagement of the international coalition against a new kind of enemy- terrorists and a rogue regime supporting it in sub-continent’s immediate neighborhood. The Year began for the nations in the region with high hopes with Indian cease-fire peace initiative, which was subsequently raised to an unprecedented crescendo at Agra and ended with saber rattling on both sides of the border following suicide attacks on the Indian Parliament.

Both sides on South Asia’s most contentious border knew it by heart that the Sub- continent would not be seeing a formal armed engagement. The costs, if nothing else, are enormous, apart from the pressure from the international community that kept on urging restraint, while apprehensive predictions about the use of nuclear weapons, though seemed far-fetched kept floating. This was mainly due to the reason that India; militarily stronger of the two antagonists has bound itself by a pledge of no first use policy in respect of nuclear weapons. Besides, the Indian armed forces are believed to be sensitive to tolerance limits of Pakistan and are not likely to force it into a situation when it would have to consider the use of nuclear weapons. Above all, the presence of US fleet in the Arabian Sea would have been a deterrent against any possible nuclear adventurism¹.

That left the only option for diplomacy and political arm-twisting. India took the lead, inevitably as the nation aggrieved, by demanding deportation of alleged culprits, recalling its envoy from Islamabad, refusing air space for commercial use, and closing down road and rail communication etc. As Indian Minister of Defence would say "So far we have concentrated on the diplomatic offensive and this will continue till one concludes that an end of the road in terms of diplomacy is reached," with a note of warning that India’s decisions would be "very demanding" if its efforts to make Islamabad accede to these demands failed².

The non-military measures were accompanied by a fair amount of rhetoric from both the sides as well. It is in this context that the Indian Prime Minister’s New Year message and President Musharrf’s address to the nation become especially relevant to examine.

Building up to the Rhetoric.

Though New Delhi moved rapidly in getting its strategic units in place, this could safely be seen and believed to be a window dressing for its preparedness for psychological warfare with an overdose of diplomacy. There was ample perception that India just cannot go to any war or even what some over jealous political enthusiasts were to urge ‘hot pursuit.’ Shimon Peres, the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister was projecting the saner perception that it would neither be wise nor needed for India to attack the terrorist camps based in Pakistan. "I would not dare to advise the Indian Government to do it," even if its diplomatic offensive to fight terrorism failed³. Besides, the cost of war would have been self-evident. Apart from the direct costs of the conflict, there was the cost of displacement and disruption in the conflict zones and its impact on economic growth in the long term. Thus for India, and having deployed its forces and considering that redeployment is more tough and difficult than deployment itself, there were to be no other option except resorting to a diplomatic offensive and pressurizing Islamabad by mobilizing the international opinion in favor of its concerns against the states "sponsoring and sheltering terrorist organizations⁴." By a process of elimination, what was left as the only solution was ‘to come to terms with Pakistan with a sense of realism and constructive engagement, instead of becoming a prey to congealed mindset or hostage to emotional rhetoric, in order to pander to the masses. Just as a government should govern, leaders should lead from upfront⁵.’ Certainly India would have immense difficulty justifying any action against the terrorists across the international border. Surgical air strikes across the Line of Control (Loc) in Pakistan occupied Kashmir, thought by some as viable have no utility in molding Pakistan behavior even though one does not consider conflict escalation by counter air attacks. Having occupied the moral and diplomatic high ground in Kargil by not crossing the LoC, it would not have been in New Delhi’s interests in the international context to resort to naked aggression. "Nations go to war when they are certain of a certain cost-benefit ratio⁶."

The Musings:

The Indian Prime Minister’s address to the nation on the New Year eve was meant to convey and convince the nation as well as the world that New Delhi stands as seriously to pursue a peace root as it stands to effect a military offensive to achieve the general objective of going after the terrorists in a very comprehensive manner this time. The over all impression nevertheless was in favor of settling the issue without armed engagements.

Following is an extract from the text of Indian Prime Minister’s address, which hold relevance to this perspective:

"We leave an eventful year behind us, a year of trials and tribulations- earthquake at the beginning of the year and terrorist attack on our parliament at the end. We faced them with courage and self-confidence."

For a long time, the rulers in Islamabad relied on military confrontation, as exemplified by the wars of 1948,1965,1971. After failing, the anti-India forces in Pakistan are fomenting terrorism and religious extremism to instigate separatist tendencies in India. They failed miserably in Punjab. Terrorism bled Punjab; but in the end, it fled Punjab. The very certainty of failure is driving them in desperation to embrace a more dangerous agenda such as what they did on December 13. It was an attack on our sovereignty, on our national self-respect and a challenge to our democratic system. It indeed breached the limits of the nation’s endurance.

The fact that the terrorists failed in their core objective cannot diminish the diabolical nature of the conspiracy hatched by their mentors across the border. The only way to defend us against such attacks is by forcing Pakistan to stop cross border terrorism. Many political and diplomatic steps taken after December 13 are a part of this multi pronged strategy. India does not want war. India has never been an aggressor in her long history. We have a sovereign right to defend ourselves. Pakistan will be responsible for the consequences of encouraging terrorism against India and when expedient turning a blind eye to terrorist groups with transnational linkages operating from its soil.

It is unfortunate that anti-India forces in Pakistan have been allowed, even though many perceptive Pakistanis express serious concern over their government’s appeasement of terrorism, how Pakistan’s institution’s have been affected by Taliban appeasement, ostensibly to gain strategic depth in Afghanistan and a force multiplier for its anti India campaign in Kashmir. Taliban and Al Qaeda are not merely the names of organizations. They stand for an aberrant mental outlook and a highly regressive socio-political agenda, which rejects the ideals of pluralism, secularism, freedom and democracy.

India stood firmly behind the international coalition in its war against terror. The Islamabad leadership made a U turn, commendable nevertheless and joined hands. If the intention is to root out terrorism and extremism, then where is the problem? "Shed your anti-India mentality and take effective steps to stop cross border terrorism, and you will find India willing to walk more than half the distance to work closely with Pakistan to resolve, through dialogue, any issue, including the contentious issue of Jammu and Kashmir."

Last year I had affirmed: "In our search for a lasting solution to the Kashmir problem. We will not traverse solely on the beaten track of the past. Rather we shall be bold and innovative designers of a future architecture of peace and prosperity for the entire south Asia region. I continue to remain wedded to this commitment. My bus journey to Lahore in February 1999, my invitation to President Musharraf to come to Agra in July for summit talks and our oft-extended ceasefire are a testimony to India’s sincere, bold and innovative search for peace. This search continued even after betrayal of Kargil. Our efforts will be further intensified, if Pakistan demonstrates its matching sincerity to have peace with India.

Together, let us leave the past of futile hostilities behind. The common enemy that both our countries face is poverty, illiteracy, disease and unemployment. Let us join hands to fight this enemy. Without this commonality of interest Pakistan is runs the risks of being exposed before the international community as being opportunistic.

We have made certain legitimate demands of the government of Pakistan. Its sincerity to fight terrorism will be determined by its positive response to these demands. We also hope that our friends in the international community will bring requisite pressure on Pakistan to give up its double standards on terrorism⁷."

And The Response:

Substantial changes in mood from across the Indian border was beginning to manifest, due mostly to US initiatives which kept on praising and prodding the Pakistani leader alternatively, into taking some visible steps to assuage New Delhi’s feelings. Islamabad got the chiefs of two organizations, suspected to have masterminded the December 13 attack arrested, the manner not withstanding, their assets frozen and went ahead with a series of crackdowns on the rank and file, though it kept its options tough about the list of persons New Delhi wanted to be handed over on grounds of lack of evidence as well as asserting the fact that the fact that it’s for the Pakistani legal system to try out its own nationals if the evidence of their complicity could be made available. Besides it feigned ignorance about the persons in the list that are not Pakistan nationals, something which irked New Delhi and did not amuse the international community. But, steps taken were seen as being in the right direction, Washington urging India to give Musharraf a chance with President Bush praising him for cracking down hard on terrorist outfits. "Terror is terror and the fact that the Pakistan President is after terrorists is a good sign."

Thus there were expectations galore when Musharraf worked up to the much-awaited address to the nation. The President announced his government’s decision to ban the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad along with three other sectarian and religious extremist outfits with the determination to break away from Islamic fundamentalism and chart a new path towards becoming a modern, dynamic, Islamic welfare state. For this purpose, the General announced his intention of regulating the functioning of mosques and Madarsas so that they did not become centres of fundamentalist indoctrination and terrorist activity and reforming the syllabi to bring the education in line with mainstream education system. The General denounced terrorism as playing havoc with Pakistani life, killing hundreds of people in sectarian conflicts, filling the nation with hatred and intolerance, destroying the sanctity of its holy places, and projecting it as a retrogressive, non-performing state and pledged to deal firmly with it. In a significant pronouncement aimed at addressing the concerns of New Delhi on cross-border terrorism, Musharraf said that while Pakistan would continue its moral and political support to the Kashmir movement, no individual or organization would be allowed to indulge in acts of terrorism in the name of Kashmir. He made a passionate plea to the Indian Prime Minister for resolution of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes of the people of the State. "I would like to recall your own words at the SAARC summit in Kathmandu. You said mindsets have to be altered and historical baggage has to be jettisoned. I take the offer. Let us sit across the table in that spirit and resolve our differences…. Prime Minister, it is our joint responsibility to resolve the issue⁸."

President Musharraf had his audience fixed. The masterly oratory was meant for the international community, United States in particular, especially in the context of world-wide concern over the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan and the perception that it has become an exporter of terrorism. There was also an expectation of a reward that was evident from the request that the General made, urging the US to mediate in the Kashmir dispute. The diplomatic deceit, if it can be called that, can be understood from the fact that a similar attempt to regulate the functioning of the madarsas in August last year, came to naught and his crackdown on fundamentalist Islamic militia like the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) in the same month was called off almost immediately after it started⁹. While welcoming President Musharraf's crackdown on Islamic militants New Delhi nevertheless choose to wait and judge his commitment by "concrete action taken." "Should the government of Pakistan operationalise its intention and move purposefully towards eradicating cross border terrorism, India will respond fully and would be prepared to resume the composite dialogue process¹⁰." The Indian Minister of External Affairs said at a press conference in response to Pakistan President’s address:

"The government of India has noted that the major portion of the address of the president of Pakistan … relates to reforms to modernize Pakistan. We wish the people of Pakistan well in this endeavor. To the extent that these reforms have a direct nexus to external developments, we welcome them. We welcome the now declared commitment of the government of Pakistan not to support or permit any more the use of its territory for terrorism anywhere in the world, including in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The commitment must extend to the use of all territories under Pakistan's control today. We would assess the effectiveness of the commitment only by the concrete action taken. Consequently, we expect Pakistan to cooperate with India in stopping all infiltration across the international border and the Line of Control (in Kashmir). The government notes the decision of the government of Pakistan to ban Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, the two terrorist organizations involved in the December 13 attack on the Indian parliament. We look forward to an effective and full implementation of this measure, so that its members do not continue activities under other names. There would be a similar need to address other terrorist organizations targeting India, as also the parent organizations that spawn them."

There were mixed reactions to the Islamabad initiative¹¹. While some were to dub this as a diplomatic escapade by the shrewd General to wriggle out of a tight situation, others nourished a fair expectation that Musharraf deserves a break now that he has prepared himself to trap the lion in its own lair. This was based on what The Times Of India would say, "how perceptions can be colored depending on which side of the border they originate from." The address was taken to be a bold and historic initiative and an exercise in political courage. "Only a man of the general’s exceptional courage could have attempted the bold and sweeping reforms he had outlined for Pakistan¹²." Few saw it in terms of an "exercise in semantics," as being "full of trademark gimmickry, packing enough flourish to appease international opinion, but not going far enough," as playing "to the US gallery" and so on. The address was also interpreted as an attempt to put the onus on India for de-escalation of tensions. "Instead of squarely addressing India's concerns in a speech that was billed as a move to defuse the regional crisis, Musharraf used the occasion for PR with relish. He played to the US gallery, portraying himself as a reformer willing to overhaul Pakistan's fundamentalist complexes. But when it came to India, Musharraf was far from placatory. In contrast to Vajpayee's New Year message, Musharraf's words were strident¹³."

The Hindu, one of India’s leading Dailies in its editorial was all in praise for the Musharraf initiative that "raises the visions of a truly promising turn in the crisis-ridden bilateral relationship." The steps ranged from the banning of anti- India terrorist organizations to a declaration that any form of terrorism to promote the Kashmir ‘cause’ would not be tolerated by the Pakistani state. "By staying the course and taking irreversible actions to translate these and other new policies into a definitive reality, he can foster the long-term interests of Pakistan as a terrorism-free zone and as a fraternal neighbor of India." It is a positive sign, not withstanding his portrayal of India as a purveyor of "state terrorism" in Kashmir. "By announcing a categorical ban on the activities of both the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), Gen. Musharraf has certainly met a prime Indian demand. If the LeT and the JeM outfits are furious with the Pakistan President, the reason can be traced to the genuine fears of these terrorist organizations that he might act decisively against them under the watchful eyes of a newly awakened world. Gen. Musharraf has pointedly responded to several specifics of India's checklist of what Pakistan should do. In a balancing act, he will not hand over to India any of the Pakistani fugitives who figure in a list of terrorists and criminals whose extradition New Delhi has repeatedly sought. Yet, he is willing to consider the transfer of non-Pakistani conspirators who might still be at large in his country. No less significant is the assurance about bringing to justice any Pakistani group whose complicity in last month's attack on India's Parliament could be established. In a larger perspective, Gen. Musharraf's compulsions go beyond the need for a new equation with India in the present global anti-terror milieu. Of far-reaching scope in this context are the reforms that he has announced so as to rescue the Pakistani society from the practitioners of a false theology of terrorism itself. A stable and modernizing Pakistan will be in India's best interests as well. Gen. Musharraf's efforts towards this end are, therefore, as important as a brave new vision of peace that India and Pakistan might be able to project¹⁴."

Some analysts put the basis of New Delhi’s suspicion on the "fact that the general has not changed his tune on his own. He has been forced to do so. Evidently, anyone who has been compelled to take a step cannot but be half-hearted about it. After all, he had happily lived with terrorism till September 11. Before that date, he had seen nothing wrong with his policy towards the Taliban, as he told the BBC. But now he blames the fundamentalists for all the ills of Pakistan. Having been a close ally of the Taliban and, by association, of the Al-Qaeda, and having had no compunctions about the jehadis using Pakistani soil for their vicious campaign against India, how can General Musharraf now simply ignore his own highly dubious past record? If he is sincere, he should acknowledge that, either wittingly or otherwise, he had allowed the religious extremists full freedom to pursue their ‘Kalashnikov culture’ and is, therefore, fully responsible for Pakistan’s descent into the black hole of frenzied Islamic militancy. The Pakistan People’s Party has hinted at this complicity. In India’s view, it was not a helpless acquiescence but a satanic ploy to use the jehadis to cause mayhem in India and try to grab Kashmir. It has taken not a genuine change of heart but intense diplomatic pressure from the US and the international community for General Musharraf now to pose as a wronged innocent. But even after all the humiliating U-turns, he is still trying to retain what he can of the debris of his Kashmir policy. He cannot repeat Kargil, of course, which was his personal foray into adventurism. But he has promised to continue providing moral, diplomatic and political support to the subversives in Kashmir¹⁵."

It was almost obvious for New Delhi to be skeptical of Islamabad’s intentions. In the first place, the General persisted with the assertion that Pakistan would continue to extend moral and diplomatic support to Kashmir. Then there was his open call to the US to intervene in the Kashmir valley and his point-blank refusal to hand over Pakistani nationals suspected of terrorism against India. There was also a measure of anger at General’s refusal to acknowledge that the Pakistani state was behind much of the terrorism directed from that country’s soil¹⁶."

It is however just fair to look at Musharraf initiative in the context of his package of radical reforms. For long India – Pakistan relations have remained hostage to a vicious cycle of competitive security in exploiting each other’s vulnerabilities. Wherever they don’t exist, they are deliberately created for exploitation. This explains why and how so many opportunities have been missed- the end of cold war era bi-polarism, the Lahore and Agra Summits not to mention the May 1998 nuclear tests, which found the release of both the nations’ pent up fury and frustrations against each other. The events of September 11, October 1 and December 13 have not left much room for victory dances by any side. Similarly, it is naïve to dismiss the initiative as being made under pressure, particularly since both the countries have a standoff at the border and are poised on the brink of a war. The general’s initiative can be helped along to make a break out of the logjam¹⁷.

¹K Subrahmanyam The Times of India 2 January 2002

²'Tough Measures if Diplomacy Fails’ The Hindu 1 January 2002

³PTI; The Hindu 10 January 2002.

⁴PM Seeks Pressure on Pak. to Abandon Terrorism; PTI The Hindu 4 January 2002.

⁵India-Pakistan Face-off -- Testing Time for Sagacious leadership: B. S. Raghavan Business Line 3 January 2002

⁶Ashok K. Mehta; The Pioneer 4 January 2002

⁷We Shall Triumph Against Terrorism" Source: Frontline, January 18, 2002 p130-131

⁸The Hindu 13 January 2002:

The following are the highlights of the Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf's address to the nation

* Bans Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad.

* Rules out handing over of Pakistanis wanted by India.

* Considers taking appropriate action against non-Pakistanis wanted by India.

* Warns India against crossing border

* Offers fresh dialogue with Atal Behari Vajpayee on Kashmir.

* Pledges to continue moral, political and diplomatic support to Kashmir cause.

* Says no organization to be allowed to indulge in terrorism in the name of religion.

* Says he will not to allow Pakistan's territory to be used for terrorist activities.

* Bans extremist groups such as Sipah-e-Sahaba, Tehrik-e-Jaffria, Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat Mohammedi.

* All madrasas to be registered by March-end this year

* No new madrasa to open without Government permission.

* Foreign students for admission in madrasa have to seek permission of Government.

* Any group found involved in December 13 attack on Indian Parliament & October 1 attack on the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly to be dealt with severely. Highlights of address The Hindu 13 January 2002

⁹Thus Spoke Pervez; Editorial The Pioneer 14 January 2002

¹⁰Hindustan Times 13 January 2002.

¹¹Voices Hindustan Times 14 January 2002

- Pervez Musharraf clearly stated that the solution to the Kashmir issue lies in peaceful means and dialogue.
George Bush

-Musharraf's declared intention to put an end to the activities of extremist organizations operating from territory under Pakistani control would be judged by concrete actions to halt terrorist actions. Russian Foreign Ministry

-The apologetic attitude of President Musahrraf cannot ward off threat of war. He is willing to meet Vajpayee but not ready to talk with national political leaders. Pak opposition party PML N

-The military regime's refusal to crackdown on militants despite warnings from democratic forces has actually led to heavy military build-up by India on border. Pakistan Peoples Party

-We welcome Musharraf's appeal for a normalization of relations with India and the resolution of differences over Kashmir through peaceful means and dialogue. Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister

-In the half century since Pakistan was born from the partition of colonial India, no Pakistani leader has faced a more menacing set of challenges than Pervez Musharraf confronted in his speech. Report in the New York Times

-Positive tonality of Pakistan's intentions should be translated into tangible deeds... Russian envoy to India

- We hope Musharraf's promise to crackdown on militant groups will be implemented without fail. Japan foreign ministry

-General Pervez Musharraf’s words effectively spelled out the cause of Kashmiris and outstripped India's propaganda. India was trying to delude the international community since September 11. Hizb chief Syed Salahuddin

¹²Look How Hope is Spelled out Between the General’s Lines; Jehangir Karamat The Indian Express 14January 2002

¹³Brahma Chellaney Hindustan Times 14 January 2002

¹⁴A positive gesture from Pakistan Editorial The Hindu 14 January 2002

¹⁵Not Trustworthy yet Editorial Hindustan Times 14 January 2002

¹⁶Half-way Handshake Editorial The Times of India 14 January 2002

¹⁷Jehangir Karamat The Indian Express 14January 2002

Compiled from media sources

By

Arabinda Acharya