[Attachment(s) <#122ad930ad09ab6c_122ad2906fce2720_TopText> from VIJAY
OBEROI included below]
Dear All,
My article, "CHECKMATED AGAIN" is placed below. It has been published in the
'Mail Today' of 23 July 09; a few portions have been edited. Copy of the
Mail Today piece is enclosed as an attachment.
Regards.
*CHECKMATED AGAIN*
By
Lt Gen Vijay Oberoi
Pakistan has a knack of ensuring that joint statements or other
formal documents signed between India and Pakistan are favourable to its
interests. Either our diplomats are no match to their Pakistani counterparts
or the other influential members of the PM core group (I nearly wrote
coterie!) are over-ruling them. Some say it is the PM himself who forces the
issue, but I have my doubts on this score. Whoever may be responsible for
the major faux pas of Sharm el-Sheikh, one thing is certain; Pakistan has
again got the better ofIndia, by ensuring the inclusion of at least three
issues, which are contrary to our long standing policies vis-à-vis that
country. It is no wonder that now the PM as well as the government are on
the defensive in India, while the equivalent of the ‘bubbly’ is being
savoured in Pakistan.
Comparisons they say are odious, but one does get a sense of
déjà vu, as a similar blunder was committed at Shimla in 1972, the
consequences of which are still haunting us. In Shimla, we succumbed to the
promises and blandishments of the senior Bhutto, although the then PM,
Indira Gandhi, was not naïve in any sense. Passage of time will no doubt
tell us who or who all were responsible for the disastrous joint statement
this time. However, one is tempted to state that if ‘war is too important a
matter to be left to the military’, as Georges Clemenceau had said, any
discussion with Pakistan is also ‘too important to be left to our diplomats
and pseudo security experts’, while the military is kept out of the loop.
Indira Gandhi made the same mistake and before her that capable PM, Lal
Bahadur Shastri at Tashkent and lost out to the wily Pakistanis’. Successive
governments, irrespective of their political affiliations, have followed
this, much to the disadvantage of the nation.
There are three obvious blunders in the joint statement. The
first is the dilution of our long-standing stance that there will be no
substantive talks till Pakistan takes visible steps to eliminate terrorist
attacks against India. Justifications regarding acceptance of the phrase
“terrorism was the main threat to both countries’’ are now being issued, but
in a written document there is little scope for different interpretations.
Pakistan has taken no action to curb the activities of the various jihadi
groups that are operating againstIndia, both in J&K and in the hinterland.
They have not even pledged to do so. Zardari, after his meeting with our PM
last month has gone on record to say that they are unable (read unwilling)
to take action against the various jihadi groups targeting India, while the
operations in the Swat Valley are going on! Pakistani Army Chief, who wields
the real power in Pakistan, in his utterances and by his actions has made it
clear that India continues to be the main enemy and that his hobnobbing with
the jihadi groups will continue.
The second blunder is the reference to Baluchistan. What impelled the PM and
his advisors to agree to its inclusion cannot be papered over by giving all
kinds of excuses which lack credibility. It has been Pakistan’s consistent
endeavour to have Balochistan included in the deliberations of the joint
anti-terror mechanism between the two countries and we have always resisted
this. Now, we have gone and included it in the Joint Statement, thus giving
an opening to Pakistan to vilify India and blame it whenever the Baloch
rebels act against the Pakistani establishment. In addition, its inclusion
raises it to the level of a bilateral issue, which it certainly is not.
This, when the National Security Advisor (NSA), with an intelligence
background and the closest advisor of the PM, was present, appears highly
illogical.
The third blunder is India agreeing with the Pakistani formulation that it
is also a victim of terror. India even agreed with the Pakistani formulation
that it is also a victim of terror. It goes on to say that both countries
reaffirmed their resolve to cooperate on this issue and share “real-time,
credible and actionable information on any future terror attacks”. In the
past, sharing of information has not helped India at all. Intelligence
agencies are in effect aghast at the inclusion of this issue in the joint
statement, as their experience of past sharing of information has lead to
the terrorists being warned of an impending action. This has usually
resulted in the terrorists escaping.
It is widely speculated that all the above concessions by India were given
on account of heavy pressure from the United States, whose interest lies in
removing all excuses Pakistan usually makes for not acting against the
Taliban and Al-Qaida terrorists with vigour. The US also hopes to drag
India into
the war being waged against the terrorists in what is now known as the
Af-Pak area. It would suit the United States immensely if the present Af-ak
area gets extended to cover India as well. They have little concern or
appreciation ofIndia’s interests. The moot question therefore is why is
Indiasuccumbing to such blatant overtures? Is it the political leadership,
the pundits of the South Block or the so-called security establishment which
is responsible for this policy which is clearly anti-India?
It is still possible to retrieve the situation or at least reduce its
adverse impact, but for that the ‘yes’ men and women around our political
leaders need to be given their marching orders and genuine security experts
brought in. The government would do well to bring the military establishment
in the policy formulation loop whenever national policies having major
security implications have to be decided. This is particularly so in respect
of Pakistan and China. India has clearly diluted its tough stand on the
issue of terrorism by signing the joint statement in its present form.
No one disputes the need to have good neighbourly relations with Pakistan,
as well as our other neighbours, but this cannot and must not be against our
national interest. Pakistan must agree and abide by our legitimate concerns,
in which terrorist jihadi actions are the foremost.
The writer is a former Vice Chief of Army Staff (VCOAS).
___
Attachment(s) from VIJAY OBEROI
1 of 1 Photo(s).
