West must realise that India will not submit to political blackmail

[Guest guest]

>BJP News

>bjp-l (AT) ofbjp (DOT) org >vaidika1008 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com >[bJP News]:

West must realise that India will not submit to political blackmail >Thu,

13 Jun 2002 15:43:48 -0700 > >Title: West must realise that India will not

submit to political blackmail >Author: M.V. Kamath >Publictaion: Free Press

Journal >June 13, 2002 > > Who do the western powers - not to speak of

Japan - think they are fooling? Do they really believe there is > going to be a

war between Pakistan and India? If the United States which has stationed some

6,000 of its > soldiers on the strategic border between Pakistan and

Afghanistan and has obtained rights to use several of > Pakistan's airfields at

will wants to, it can lock up all of Islamabad's nuclear bombs, if not Musharraf

himself, > and ask Pakistan to behave itself. Instead of doing so, the United

States has taken to the cheap way of > spreading fear in the world of a nuclear

holocaust in south Asia. > > The US, the British and several other governments

have advised their nationals to leave India. Leave India? For > what? Lest the

people are instantly incinerated by a nuclear bomb? There is no panic anywhere

in India; not in > Delhi; Not in Bombay, reportedly the very first city to be

targeted. Not even in Rajasthan and Gujarat, not to > speak of Punjab, which

are border states. Then why this needless panic-mongering? Two answers are

possible. > One is to tell Pakistan that a war is imminent and that it might be

decimated by India. The other is to blackmail > India into doing what the

western powers want it to do. Washington and London, Tokyo and Lisbon must know

> by now that India is not going to submit to political blackmail, come what

may. India has lived with crises in > the past and no doubt it can handle one

more imposed crisis in the near future. > > If the United States wants to be

nice to Musharraf that does not have to be at the cost of India. If the United

> States wants to patrol the border it can do so on the Pakistan side of the

LoC. India can hardly oppose that. > The U.S. for example, can station its

troops in Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir. It can see for itself where the ISI >

camps for training terrorists are and get them dismantled. Washington surely

knows that it is waging a war > against terrorism to which Musharraf is

committed. And if there are terrorist camps in Pakistan they have to be >

bombed and demolished, just as the United States is determinedly bombing all

suspected al Qaida camps in > Afghanistan. And if the United States is

unwilling to do so, it should not complain if India proceeds to do so in >

everybody's interests including those of Pakistan itself. > > Is this a matter

of argument? Musharraf has now admitted that terrorists indeed are crossing the

LoC to > spread murder and mayhem in Indian territory in Kashmir. He now wants

other nations - the United States, > Britain, even Russia - to help him get out

of his quandary. As recently as June 6, satellite images sourced by > the

Hindustan Times showed terrorist camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir buzzing

with activity. A report in the > paper says: "The jehadi assembly line is still

in place. Credible intelligence inputs show terrorist launch pads - > the points

at which terrorists are thoroughly briefed by ISI operatives about their

missions in India after their > stints in terrorist training camps - are also

operational. The evidence suggests that terrorists already stationed > in Jammu

&; Kashmir and their mentors in Pakistan are not about to wind down militancy in

India. Transcripts of > an intercept which are with the Hindustan Times convey

the impression that Musharraf's current crackdown is > temporary". > > Now if a

newspaper can have such inside information, surely, so can the CIA - and in a

vastly superior manner? > Don't US satellites take aerial photographs of that

thin strip of land between Pakistan and the LoC where some > 3,000 terrorists

are just waiting for orders to move into India? According to the Hindustan

Times information, > functional terrorist camps adjacent to the Pakistani

Army's Chakothi cantonment close to the LoC (grid > reference MT 853 083) are

operative. Also operative is a launch pad (grid MT 569 086) on the banks of the

> Kishenganga. Why can't Washington order Musharraf to close these - and other -

camps immediately or face > the consequences? What is the point of patrolling

the LoC, when what is more relevant is to get the camps > closed now and for

ever? The nations attending the very first summit of the Conference on

Interaction and > Confidence Building Measures in Asia, namely Russia, China,

Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Iran, Israel, > Kazakhistan, Kyrgyzstan,

Mongolia, Palestine, Tasikistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan have a duty to perform.

They > have to demand that Pakistan, a co-signatory to the Declaration, should

implement it without fail or face the > consequences. Terrorism is not

eliminated by words but by vigorous and meaningful action. Truth to say, >

Musharraf is totally unreliable. He first instructs his representative at the

United Nations, Munir Akram, to state > that Pakistan will use nuclear weapons

if push comes to shove. > > When the western - indeed, the entire world

protests he says that of course, use of nuclear weapons is > ridiculous and one

shouldn't even discuss it. Then, not long after - on June 4, in fact - he

changes his tune > again and says that the possession of nuclear weapons

implies that there are circumstances under which they > will be used, though it

is "irresponsible" for a leader to discuss it. What is irresponsible: for a

leader to discuss > it or for the same leader to sanction the use under

undefined circumstances? Then there is that other question > that needs to be

looked at. What right has Pakistan to speak on behalf of Muslims in Jammu &;

Kashmir? > According to Musharraf he is interested in the future of all of

Jammu and Kashmir - and not just of the Vale of > Kashmir - because there are

Muslims also in Jammu and Ladkah. > > By that token does he have the right to

speak in behalf f the Muslims in India as well? Who has given > Musharraf the

divine right to speak up on behalf of all the Muslims in the sub-continent? At

this rate he might > one day ask for autonomy to the Muslims in Sri Lanka and

Mynmar as well, which would be to reduce the Two > Nations Theory to its

ultimate absurdity. But then do the Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir - in fact the

people of > the entire state - wish to join Pakistan? A survey carried out by

FACTS Worldwide (a part of the MORI > International Group of Companies) between

April 20 and 28 indicates that 61 per cent of Kashmiris believe they > are

politically and economically better off as Indian citizens. According to the

survey there are hardly any > takers for Pakistan citizenship, with only 6%

preferring to be Pakistani nationals. Over 92% were opposed to > the division

of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of religion and ethnicity and in Srinagar

itself 77 per cent of > Muslims believed that infiltration must end. > > The

survey trashes Musharraf's claims. Importantly, 39% of Muslims accused Pakistan

of fuelling militancy. To > what extent do these findings represent reality? One

point made is that the survey was conducted by an > independent British

organisation with no axe to grind. To buttress this argument it is stated that

the survey > was commissioned by one Lord Avebury who has shown considerable

interest in J &; K affairs in the past and > that the Managing Director of

MORI, Peter Hutton has strongly denied any interference by India. But there are

> many who believe that what the British have done is to lay a careful trap in

which India innocently is expected > to fall. Would the findings persuade India

to agree to a referendum? Delhi has refused to be naive in such > matters. What

would be the point in holding a referendum when Jammu and Kashmir had agreed to

become > part of India legally and morally? Besides, considering that the survey

has shown that the vast majority of > people - especially Muslims themselves -

have shown their preference, a referendum is uncalled for. > > The bottomline

is: the Kashmiris are tired of militancy. Overall, 86% of the 850 people

state-wide surveyed > wish that the militants must leave, for peace to return

to the state. Half the state's population, meanwhile, > want a new political

party and most have lost faith in the Hurriyat. Considering that the surveyors

spoke to > 850 people over the age of 16, across 55 localities applying a

random selection procedure, the results are > impressive indeed. The Kashmiris

want polls, not war. So where does this take India? The New York Times late >

in May carried an article by a well-known political commentator, William Safire

who suggested the following, as > steps for the US to take: > > Lean on India to

agree to talks with Pakistan about Kashmir after al Qaida is rooted out and

terror > attacks cease from the Pakistan side of the LoC. > > Start pushing the

concept of de facto autonomy in divided Kashmir, as most of its residents want,

> without upsetting the current claims of sovereignty by both India and

Pakistan. > > Besides, added Safire, the US must ask China to help. If

Musharraf won't listen, then the US, perhaps, will > have to take over

Pakistan. All told that may not be a bad idea. >

>---- >

http://www.ofbjp.org

>---- >A

worldwide community of BJP's friends, supporters and activists: >Friends of the

BJP - Worldwide: http://www.ofbjp.org/fob

>---- > >

>Click on the link below to be removed from the BJP News mailing list.

>http://www.ofbjp.org/listserv/.cgi?vaidika1008 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com > > > >

The BJP News (http://www.ofbjp.org/news) > > > Get your FREE download of MSN

Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com.