REWIND
New Delhi, 17 March 2022
BLEEDING EACH OTHER
WHITE
By Inder Jit
(Released on 3 April
1984)
Mutual distrust
continues to play havoc with Indo-Pakistan relations --- and with their
economic development. Both countries are today in the thick of a mounting arms
race and, in the process, are bleeding each other white --- even without
fighting. New Delhi and Islamabad need to devote their resources mainly towards
providing a better deal to their poverty stricken people. Yet between them they
are currently spending Rs.10,000 crores annually on arms. Only the two Super
Powers and the powerful arms lobbies at home and abroad have reasons to be
happy. The arms race has forced both our countries to become largely dependent
on Washington or Moscow --- and, in a way, made India and Pakistan their client
states. Undoubtedly, we are independent. But are we genuinely non-aligned?
Non-alignment was described by Nehru as a projection of a country’s
independence at home to independence abroad. Are we really judging every issue
on merit? Afghanistan is a case in point. Would New Delhi have taken the same
stand on Afghanistan but for its dependence on Soviet arms?
Undoubtedly, we can blame Pakistan and the
United States for the present situation. We can well argue: “We would not be
dependent today on the Soviet Union for sophisticated military hardware or for
it veto in the Security Council but for Pakistan and Kashmir.” At the same
time, we cannot shut our eyes to the harsh realities of a practical world.
India and Pakistan have gone to war on Kashmir more than once. The answer, of
course, lies in finding a final solution to the thorny imbroglio. But this does
not necessarily mean that in the absence of a settlement we must keep arming
ourselves to the teeth, ignoring bigger considerations of the welfare of our
two peoples. Fortunately, Pakistan appears to have come to accept the bitter
truth. It cannot take away Kashmir from India by force of arms. There is no
alternative to converting the present line of actual control into an
international boundary with minor adjustments. The Simla Agreement, in effect,
provides for this even if Islamabad may not admit so today.
This issue came up pointedly in Parliament
during the discussion on the demands of the Ministry of Defence. Mr. Biju
Patnaik, Janata leader, then gave Parliament a gist of the recent talk he and
Mr. George Fernandes had with President Zia in Islamabad especially in regard
to a no-war pact between the two countries and arms limitation. Mr. Patnaik
said: “When I asked President Zia what happened to this pact, he replied that
when he met Mrs. Gandhi he presented to her the pact and said: ‘Here is the
no-war pact. Let us sign it.’ I asked: ‘Does the no-war pact include Kashmir?’
President Zia replied: ‘Yes, whatever happens there will be no war between us;
whatever happens there will be no armed conflict between us. This is my
understanding of the no-war pact or the treaty of friendship.’ We said: ‘We
presented this to you from Nehru’s time. He said, “At that time, of course,
Ayub did not accept. But we are offering the same, except one or two clauses,
which I am sure, Mr. Narasimha Rao knows.’”
We in India blame Pakistan for pushing us
into an arms race. We, therefore, ask: “Why does Pakistan require F-16s? Is it going to use them against Afghanistan,
nay the Soviet Union?” But Islamabad has its own view, conveyed once again to
Mr. Patnaik, who told Parliament: “we asked (Islamabad): ‘What was the need for
your F-16s? What is the need for your Sparrows and the Harpoons and all these
equipment that you are getting? You are only making us buy better equipment
from elsewhere, from wherever we can, to have that edge, that balance or
whatever you may consider it.’ Then there were counter questions. They said:
‘Why is it that India has got two and a half times more tank power than we
have? The tanks are not going to climb the Himalayas. They are not going into
the Bay of Bengal or the Arabian Sea. These can be used only against us. If you
are buying MIG-29s or 31s or whatever it is, which are better than F16s, we are
not complaining. Why do you complain then?” They also said: “You have a much
bigger navy. Who are you going to use it against? America?”
Not only that. Mr. Patnaik also gave the
House an inkling of Pakistan’s present thinking in the course of an
interruption to clarify an earliest statement in regard to the mood across the
border and what President Zia had told him. The Janata leader had in a previous
debate stated that Pakistan had assured him and his colleague that “they have
absolutely no intention of attacking India and if they want they can send a
team to inspect and go and see the installations.” When the Defence Minister,
Mr. R. Venkatraman, queried in the course of his reply to the Defence Ministry
debate: “Is itgoing to be a mutual or unilateral inspection?” Mr Patnaik
replied: “Naturally mutual.” Mr. Patnaik added that he would like to clarify
what he had told the House three days back. What he understood from the
President of Pakistan was that “if the Government of India wants to send a team
of high military officials to inspect our installations, dispositions and what
you call very big manoeuvres, they are welcome to come, see, inspect and advise
us that to do…”
Proposals favouring Indo-Pakistan parleys on
arms cut or mutual arms limitation talks (MALT) are not new. A proposal for an
accord on force ratios was initially mooted by Islamabad in 1980 --- first to
India’s former Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ram Sathe, next to Mr. Swaran Singh when
he called on Gen Zia and, thereafter in July, by Mr. Agha Shahi, Pakistan’s
former Foreign Minister in his controversial banquet speech in New Delhi. The
proposal was renewed by Mr. Shahi during his meeting with Mr. Rao in Islamabad
in mid-1981. Mr. Rao then reminded Mr. Shahi of the understanding reached
during his visit to New Delhi. India had then urged that the issue should be
taken up only “at the appropriate time” after a broad political understanding
had been reached. Significantly, Gen Zia also broached the subject during his
talk with Mr. Rao. But the latter pointed out that he and Mr. Shahi had already
agreed not to talk about it yet. Unfortunately, the idea was not pursued.
Instead, talk has centred on a no-war pact or a peace and friendship treaty
and, finally on joint commissions.
In fact, President Zia made his proposal for
arms limitation first when I interviewed him in Islamabad in February 1981. Gen
Zia told me: “I suggested one thing to Sardar Swarn Singh when he was here. I
said to him: Tel us, whether Pakistan should have a force for its own security
or not. Should India have a force for its security or not? And if you come the
conclusion that there is justification for Pakistan to have an armed force for
its own security, then ask your experts to tell us what should be the strength
of our forces considering the defence requirements of a country like Pakistan
and its geographic borders. I would accept their assessment and not debate it.
In the process you may probably ask our reaction --- if you were to say all
right, Pakistan should have this much and India that much. I said have as much
as you like. I am not concerned. But I would be very much concerned when 18
divisions face Pakistan. We have then to think twice as to what all this exercise
is about. But I made this offer.”
President Zia added: “Unfortunately, we had
no reaction at first. The reaction that came much later was ‘no’. India said,
this is not a fair proposition. Because, Pakistan should have what Pakistan
thinks necessary and India should have what India thinks necessary. Then I
said, “If that be the case, why should India get allergic to Pakistan’s stress
on its legitimate defence requirements. Here again, I proposed that if you want
to know what we have and what we do not have please come and ask me. I will
tell you exactly what we have. And what you have I will not challenge.” Did
President Zia consider India to be Pakistan’s main threat? He told me: “I will
not write it off,because there is a history behind it. There is a deployment of
troops…. When I met Mrs. Gandhi in Salisbury in April 1980, I asked her: What
are you afraid of? Pakistan is a small country!’ She said: ‘No, you are the
major threat to India. Because you have attacked us three times before’. I
said: ‘Madam, it might have been at that time. But you have reduced us to half
and dismembered us….”
India’s stand on President Zia’s proposal was
spelt out by Mr. Venkatraman. He told the Lok Sabha: “The problem is that…
Pakistan goes on arming… If they are really honest and sincere about
normalizing relationship, they would have only to say ‘all right, we will not
get this equipment, therefore, you need not also get further arms’. But they
have not said this…. How are you sure that they are not buying time… I cannot
accept their word. I repeat I cannot take them at their word because of their
past history, their past conduct and their past performance always shows that
whenever they have got sophisticated weapons they have tried them on India.”
The problem in a nutshell is one of crisis of confidence. This can be tackled
to a great extent through mutual arms inspection and arms limitation. These may
not necessarily ensure durable peace. But a significant step will have been taken
towards building mutual confidence --- and in crying a halt to the arm
race.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|