by Rajinder Puri
Pakistan army, after five years, violated the Kashmir cease-fire, and
terrorists simultaneously unleashed serial bomb blasts in Jaipur .
The nexus involving the collusion between the Pakistan army and terrorist
outfits proves indisputable., In the light of Pakistan Army violating
cease-fire and unleashing terrorists attack in Jaipur blasts also indicate that
the nexus is intact and active.
This nexus had broken after Musharraf's
crackdown against the Lal Mosque., and author recalls the the warning issued in
an article on 23rdOct, last year.
" If the war on terror by the Pakistan army is indeed reaching a decisive
stage it undoubtedly would impinge heavily on India's own security. Bomb blasts
in Indian cities will likely escalate in scale and frequency.
Al Qaeda sympathizers have already announced their intention of targeting
Islamabad, Lahore, Karachi and Rawalpindi in the near future.
Al Qaeda has a global view. It does not differentiate between the regimes
in India and Pakistan for targeting ."
Certain events like Benazir's assassination, Musharraf's loss of power and
Pakistan's post-election scene reduced terrorist attacks to some extent. and ,
the Pakistan army sought peace with terrorist outfits, result:ing terrorism
was deflected to India. The cease-fire violation by the Pakistan army suggests
that the old army-jihad'is nexus is back in business. It matters little if
Pakistan's military chief General Kayani is in control or not, or whether it is
the Pakistan army or only certain element that collude with terrorism., the end
result is the same. It is a question of survival for India. Whether hapless or
complicit, the Pakistan government's inability to deliver on terror is
unacceptable. Pakistann army's role is intolerable.
Currently, Pakistan's
coalition government is in crisis. because of differences over reinstatement of
Pakistan's judges. These differences have little bearing on Pakistan's Kashmir
policy as both leaders have supported continuation of the peace process with
India.
But Kashmir policy expressed by Prime Minister Gilani is different
with that of President Musharraf's and significantly, the line of action, of
both being differing on the path, the Pakistan army is pursuing. Recently
Prime Minister Gilani rubbished President Musharraf's peace proposals on
Kashmir.,as "HALF BAKED"
He said the process to resolve the Kashmir dispute must start from "the UN
resolutions and the aspirations of the people of Kashmir".
President
Musharraf had suggested soft borders within Kashmir, greater autonomy on both
sides of the border, and joint management of both sides of Kashmir by India and
Pakistan. ,a formula impractical unless India and Pakistan first reached an
understanding on joint security and common trade at the level of Islamabad and
New Delhi.
Without an overall Indo-Pakistan joint arrangement, attempting joint
management in Kashmir was like putting the cart before the horse.
Nevertheless, the plan seemed laudable as its successful implementation
could imply the creation of some kind of confederation between the two
nations.,which goal seemed desirable. Rejecting this and harking back to the
UN Resolutions based on suggesting a plebiscite probably indicate that
Gilani.has probably not fully examined , The Resolution in January 20,
1948, by the United Nations it enjoined the people of Kashmir should freely
exercise their vote to decide whether they wished to join India or Pakistan. No
third option for an independent Kashmir was available to them.
, For
several decades, the Indian government had insisted that there was no Kashmir
dispute since it had acceded to India and the UN Resolution for plebiscite was
therefore defunct. Meanwhile, Pakistan and the Kashmiri separatists continued to
chant their demand for plebiscite. India's case appeared weak and unconvincing
to the whole world. Now Gilani has given India the opportunity to seize the
option of the UN Resolution on plebiscite. and India should welcome it with open
arms.
The UN Resolutions of 1948 and 1949 stipulate. that ,
First, all Pakistani troops and police personnel would have to vacate
Kashmir,
Secondly, all non-Kashmiri Pakistani residents in Kashmir would have to
vacate Kashmir.
Thirdly, Indian army personnel would be posted in the whole of undivided
Kashmir to restore peace and order.
Fourthly, the Indian army would remain there until this was accomplished –
(In short, all terrorist violence has to end and only then, would the Indian
army reduce its deployment to a token presence for ensuring peace.)
Fifthly, the State of Jammu and Kashmir would have to be restored to its
original territorial status
.( Among other things, the part of Kashmir illegally ceded to China by
Pakistan would have to be restored to J-K before the holding of
plebiscite).
It is almost impossible for any Pakistan government countenance
all these steps and survive in office nor could China be made to comply
If, all this is accomplished, under India's overall presence throughout
Kashmir for the time during which it happens, would India win or lose the
plebiscite?
And , would Pakistan, after its exit from Kashmir, and facing festering
insurgency in NWFP and Baluchistan, survive as a nation?
Prime Minister Gilani and the Pakistan government need to do some hard
thinking.
The Indo-Pakistan peace dialogue now being held.between Foreign
Minister Pranab Mukherjee with his counterpart will unfold THE SCENES..
The Indian government might ask the Pakistanis bluntly which endgame they are
aspiring for:
Gilani's, Musharraf's or the army's.
Unless that is clear, peace talks will be a waste of time.
konthai
!