Head of PPP Media Cell
Is Indian prime minister’s threat to revoke the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) not the worst kind of state-sponsored cross-border terrorism he intends to perpetrate against Pakistani people? The sickening intention is of converting country’s agricultural land into a barren landmass and thus put the lives of millions of people at grave peril. Mr. Modi’s design of inflicting mass genocide through resultant starvation of the 200 million people cannot be condoned under any circumstances for being the lunatic form of schadenfreude. It is like revisiting of his killer’s instinct when his hands are still fresh with the blood of thousands Muslims who were slaughtered when he was chief minister of Gujarat.
He will certainly not like to be known as Genghis Khan of contemporary times. Instead, he should conduct himself as a paragon of statesmanship because he is the elected prime minster of the biggest democracy of the world. His jingoism is clearly incoherent to the honour. He is, ironically, following the footsteps of those who abetted to kill the champion of non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi.
Pakistan’s strong reaction that the revocation of IWT will be deemed as an act of war must be taken with matching seriousness because no country can even imagine the mass starvation of its populace at the hands of the reckless enemy without paying back to the fullest potential and capabilities regardless of the gravity of the aftermaths. It is natural and inevitable. To imagine the severity of the possible reaction of Pakistan surely sends the cold shivers down the spine. His unguarded declaration in this count has exposed him as an acolyte of Hindutava than the follower of BJP ex-prime minister Vajpayee, a leader of impeccable vision and foresight. His famous quote, ’you can change friends not neighbours’ may guide him to believe in the redundancy of the gun-boat diplomacy.
Pakistani people do not grudge India emerging as a moderate and prosperous country. Such neighbourhood is considered by them as blessing not curse. Their gesture of good will and bonhomie extended to the Indian visitors in Pakistan clearly suggest they are large hearted and hospitable people. They do not wish India to suffer from the curse of extremism.
Pakistanis have suffered hugely at the hands of extremists and terrorists. Pakistani honestly expect that Indian people should not go through the same hell, and its leadership should take a leaf from the bitter and horrendous experiences of the people of this country in order to save their people from being lynched. Pakistanis have been deeply enmeshed in the vicious circle and has been desperately grappling to extricate from the quagmire during the last fifteen years.
Silent majority, both India and Pakistan, is extremely frustrated over the notching of the tension between the two neighbours. The hawks must be jumping out of the skin with glee expecting India to bite the bait in a bid ‘to teach lesson of life time to Pakistan’ and the country’s paying back in terms of inflicting much bigger havoc. What a pity that the leadership of the two countries is on the roller-coaster hell bound to cash on the miseries of each other. It is a diplomatic morbidity of the worst order. Let us hope and pray that better sense will prevail sooner than later to focus on raising the quality of life of the respective people instead of pushing them deep into the black-hole of misery, poverty and ignorance.
This duel, if not stymied, is likely to ahead in the direction of horrific mutual destruction of the two countries because both are nuclear power. The leadership of the two countries must be cognizant of the gospel truth, ‘once the dogs of war are unleashed no one will know which direction they will rush to.’ The skidding into the nuclear conflict is not the possibility but the scale of the naivety and the impetuousness of Indian leadership are really cause of major concern for the international community.
Fighting and disengagement are proven disaster for both the countries. It had been proved so during the last seventy years. They had no option but to learn to co-exist. Diplomacy should be given chance and the brinkmanship should be pushed to the periphery for all times to come. Diplomacy could lead to a win win situation and military conflict would only unfold open-ended miseries for the people of the two countries. Its inevitability was based on their bitter past. It should guide them to the unblemished propriety and proportionality of peaceful co-existence as a way forward for mutual redemption. Diplomacy could achieve those miracles that the military means cannot even imagine.
To the dismay of all, hopes of better days of the people of India in general and of Pakistan in particular suffered yet another setback as the war of words and threats has turned this region into a theater of absurd pleasing the naysayers who drive satisfaction out of devastation and mayhem because of their anathema to peace and tranquility. They have been on the winning spree since the independence of the two countries because the leadership of the respective countries has remained heavily under the influence of vendetta rather than vision. The only noticeable exceptions in Pakistan were during the watch of great Bhuttos who successfully put diplomacy as their potent modus operandi while dealing with the international community in general and its neighbours in particular. The track record of our foreign/security policy based on rivalry had not only miserably failed but also led to appalling embarrassments for Pakistan in various forms and manifestations.
Even after almost seventy years, peace continues to be hostage to the hawks in both the countries. In India, the ongoing wave of extremism and nationalistic pride have led to the proclivity to deal with the neighbouring countries on its terms. It is only challenged by Pakistan because other regional countries have no spine to stem the juggernaut of India. They seemingly have accepted the hegemony of India without clamouring against it as they have decided to go along with the narrative, ‘if you cannot beat the opponent then better join him’ to reap the whatever benefits and evade possible losses imbedded in acrimonious pursuits. The joining of Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Bhutan and Nepal to Indian chorus of not to attend Saarc summit in Islamabad portrays the kowtowing of these states to India’s diplomatic diktat. These countries’ decision is purely guided by their national interests and therefore justified in the diplomatic lexicon.
Pakistan’s case is different because it is a formidable military/nuclear power maintaining balance of power in the region. Its commitment to the Kashmiri people in their struggle for the right to self-determination is unequivocal. India’s unabated intransigence not to implement the UN Security Council’s resolution to hold plebiscite had been the major irritant to normalise relations between the two countries. India had, instead, been vehemently maintaining the position that Kashmir was its integral part and therefore non-negotiable.
Pakistan had been supporting such movements by extending moral and diplomatic support. It had already abandoned long ago the policy of supporting the armed struggle for independence. Pakistan was a party in the dispute and had been urging India and the international community to implement the UN resolution to settle the issue according to the aspirations of the Kashmiri people. India had not budged at all while Kashmiri people vent their frustration time to time through protests triggered by abhorrent incidents in the Valley. The latest protest was unprecedented in terms of intensity as the youth of the IHK had taken the lead against Indian occupation. It was spread over two months killing more than a hundred of Kashmiris and there were no signs of subsiding despite the worst kind of atrocities perpetrated by Indian troops.
The Uri incident in Indian Held Kashmir, killing more than 18 Indian troops, put fuel on the fire triggering wave of Indian allegations and threats to teach befitting lesson to Pakistan for its alleged involvement in cross-border terrorism. Pakistan countered the allegation by arguing that the three-layer Indian security fence on the borders made it impossible even for the bird to breach the security. The attack at Uri military camp was apparently carried out by the local militants who had been fighting the Indian troops for their illegal occupation of the Valley. Pakistan’s position sounded convincing because it had demanded investigation of the incident under the supervision of the UN to pin down the culprits.
Indian refusal would give credence to the well placed speculation that it was a state managed affair to serve dual purpose; to embarrass the Pakistan prime minister in the UN General Assembly and also divert the attention of the world from the Indian atrocities in the Valley against the innocent civilians. India succeeded to an extent in diverting the attention of the international community but failed in other objective because 'thunder of Azadi is too loud.’
Pakistan and India have to learn to co-exist with sincerity and shared vision. The sound advice of French Senator, Allizard, during his visit to Pakistan, should give food for thought to the leadership of two countries. He said, ‘Germany and France after a long history of fighting committed themselves in Elysee Treaty in 1963 to get along each other. Now both countries are in such a position in EU that nothing can happen in the Union without their endorsement’. India and Pakistan should follow the footsteps of France and Germany and harness their potential as the friendly neighbours paying their full attention and energies to alleviate the miseries of the people wrought on them as a result of their sticking to the open-ended and self-defeating hostile neighbourhood.
muhammadshaheediyahoo.com