For a creative strategy

Peace is India's first charge. There should not be a horror-terror war until the last hope of peace is lost.

MORE than half a century of hostilities over Kashmir have drained off considerable material and military resources and inflicted huge human suffering and estrangement on India and Pakistan. And now, an aggressive aggravation, with interminable cross-border terrorism across the Line of Control (LoC), high-pitched war hysteria and cocked nuclear guns, has created a self-defeating crisis culminating in American pressure on both the countries to be of good behaviour.

If an India-Pakistan war breaks out, South Asian lives will perish in large measure and American markets will also vanish in larger measure. U.S. markets are as important to Washington as India-Pakistan mortality, if not more. The preparatory visit of U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and the "pre-emptive war on terror" message of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to be eventually crowned by a triumphant royal visit by George W. Bush by way of a coup de grace may eliminate hot war in South Asia and attenuate India-Pakistan cold war.

But bellicose bitterness and jingoistic exchanges will survive and simmer since the ruling classes in both countries use Kashmir, sans Kashmiris, as the best gambit to brush aside people's issues of poverty, unemployment, human rights, communal lunacy and quasi-colonial subjugation, which are the political realities of the two countries. Kashmir, as a bone of contention, serves ruling parties as long as the people's problems of democracy, social justice and egalitarian ethos are a militant challenge, and they use the camouflage of globalisation and privatisation as the hallmarks of progress. Kashmir is a 'patriotic' alibi to sweep aside all other burning causes that We the People of India and We the People of Pakistan need to solve and struggle to overcome. Kashmiriosis, a geopolitical dispute with pathological exaggeration, may aid the Indian political echelons to hijack the people's concerns vis-a-vis communal, penurial, colonial, developmental and corruption-related matters, which vitally affect the nation's health.

Cross-border terrorism is a cruel, callous syndrome. It clouds all other issues, so much so that no space is available for debate on the country's collapsing economy, re-colonisation process, escalation of unemployment, abuse of state power, miscarriage of developmental resources, and omnipresent corruption. The Ministers and minions talk obsessively only of cross-border infiltration, nuclear 'yama', war readiness and daily killings along the LoC. The media print and present war prospects, military movements, hysterical assertions of victory and the need to make a final bid to end the Musharraf menace. Kashmiris, their pathetic lot, their national and internal grievances and horrifying human rights questions, are eclipsed by a totalitarian concern for perennial cross-border infiltration. In sum, cross-border incursions are the political opium of the people.

The situation in Pakistan may be worse. Pakistan politics is stark militarism. Musharraf's dictatorship needs to subdue political pluralism and democratic demands. Kashmir is the hashish of Pakistani hawks; and politically suppressive chemotherapy is the pharmacopoeia to silence people's protest militancy. Nothing suits a dictator better than the Kashmiriosis syndrome to mute mullahs, gag radicals and hamstring human rights activists.

In 1965 and 1971, battles were fought with conventional weapons. But mutually acquired nuclear missiles have made a terrible difference. A nuclear war between the two neighbours would kill 12 million humans and injure another seven million. The material havoc, beyond the human holocaust, would be incalculable. Vast destruction, including of foreign investments, will make a nuclear conflict catastrophic. Thanks to global pressure, Russian persuasion and, more tellingly, U.S negotiatory involvement, the climactic crisis has seemingly been toned down but the high tension persists. In the words of Richard Armitage, "when you have close to a million men glaring, shouting, and occasionally shooting across a territory that is a matter of dispute, then, I think you couldn't say the crisis is over, but I think you can say that the tensions are down measurably". The subcontinent is between a hot war and a cold war, a hybrid confrontation which is a war of rhetoric with guns in suspended animation.

What is the prognosis of Kashmirosis?

Musharraf is not a dependable statesman; he is more a militarist-opportunist with a politician's dubious scruples and a general's killer instincts. So it is that when one day the dictator intimidates India with nuclear bomb, absent 'no first use' inhibition, and the next day talks sober to defuse fear and exclaims that a nuclear war is "all but unthinkable". One is puzzled at the riddle of contradiction.

India should seize every opportunity to find a solution for a die-hard controversy. In this I agree with K. Natwar Singh's view that the confidence-building summit conference of 16 nations in Kazakhstan was an opportunity too timely and strategic to be rejected and that it was too unstatesmanly and pusillanimous on India's part to have written off a dialogue held under the solemn auspices of an Asian meet and Russian President Vladimir Putin's well-meaning presence (without formal interference). Nothing is lost by a talk. Something may be gained at least by way of lessening tension, considering the mellow mood of the CNN television interview of Musharraf. CNN said:

Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf today ruled out the possibility of a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, dismissed as 'absolutely baseless' allegations of Islamabad moving nuclear missiles near the border and expressed willingness to meet the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, in Almaty next week.

Musharraf made the following remarks during the interview:

"I don't think either side is that irresponsible to go to that limit."

"I would even go to the extent of saying one shouldn't even be discussing these things, because any sane individual cannot even think of going into this unconventional war, whatever the pressures."

"To say that Pakistan ever moved any nuclear asset or deployed its missiles is baseless, absolutely baseless."

"If India has moved their missiles this is extremely dangerous and a very serious escalation, an extremely serious escalation."

"We've called for a no-war pact, that there shouldn't be any war. We've called for de-nuclearisation of South Asia, so we've called for reduction of forces."

Otherwise, we were on the verge of a grave conflagration. The United Kingdom, the U.S. and other important nations and the United Nations are even now jittery about the future and withdrew all but the core diplomatic staff. A dialogue gesture would have served the diplomatic purpose of convincing the international community of India's willingness to discuss, with the knowledge, after negative prior meetings, of the slippery promises and 'blood and iron' bombast of an unaccountable, intransigently terrorist-sponsoring Army general in presidential apparel. Indeed, to obviate and inhibit the dropping of a nuclear bomb on Mumbai or Delhi, however remote the possibility, holding many meetings is not too high a price nor too compromising a move.

What is at stake?

An indiscreet dictator in a fit of vanity and losing ground at home may irresponsibly cock the nuclear gun, madly blind to the consequences and governed by the moment's military passion. He may lose Islamabad, his presidency and millions of innocent Pakistani lives by a quick Indian retaliatory nuclear strike. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would leave no victory for humanity whoever may win formally. India is too great to be stampeded into annihilation unlimited, even if the enemy neighbour would be wiped out in the macro-carnage process. India should negotiate, with no end to patience. Once war breaks out there are irreparable factors - the U.S., China, Islamic countries plus imponderables in the berserk calculus of baffling belligerency.

India is Asoka country and has the precedent of victories where it has been generous after conquest. But a nuclear gun fired on either country will leave the subcontinent more a mini-global graveyard than a war-won land. Generations to come will suffer and India-Pakistan comity will perish. No there should not be a horror-terror war until the last hope of peace is lost. It is easy to preach: 'go to war', ignoring the vast havoc. With a pre-nuclear war in mind, Dwight D. Eisenhower had observed: "I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity." Humanity everywhere appeals to a peace-loving India and a bomb-intoxicated Pakistan to remember that their cities will be ashes, their glittering West-crazy lifestyles will be radioactive non-existence, their huge projects and new investments will be annihilation's waste. There should be war only - repeat only - for defence, war only when facing aggression. But those who speak of going to war while enjoying five-star life, forget George Orwell: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

Pakistani people, by and large, are innocent, voiceless, and many are friendly with the Indian people. I quite see the chronic Kashmir imbroglio, half a century old. I quite see the aggravating, aggressive, egregious cross-border barbarity engineered by an egomanic doublespeak dictator. But things may change. For, he dismissed as "absolutely baseless" allegations of Islamabad moving nuclear missiles near the border and expressed willingness to meet the Indian Prime Minister. His CNN interview is a positive one. On nuclear risk, some daring diplomacy is necessary. Otherwise, stoppage of fresh foreign investments, withdrawal of foreign investments and a slow disappearance of foreign tourism will be the economic sequels. The negative attitude of stand-off until the last cross-border terrorist repairs to Pakistan in good behaviour is not practical politics.

There is, of course, a strong moral case to insist on total silence on the border as a sine qua non for dialogue, but pragmatic moves matter ultimately. Somewhere India must begin the reverse process and not talk, in season and out, of preparedness for superior reprisal with larger nuclear power. The situation is still grim as the yankee assessment goes, and Musharraf warns. Bush is right; war is not out of sight.

And yet look at the country's callousness. Apart from war jingoism by politicians in power, the middle class is still in its consumerist profligacy, ostentatious festivals, new model cars, and corrupt practices, with no signs of nationwide economy, grave measures to set up shelters for civilian protection and determined youth exercises and training on alert signal and cessation of political acrimony. Tremendous trifles, lavish expenditures, sexy advertisements and flippant intrigues on elections and lesser matters - all these do not indicate that the people, the media, the social institutions and the professions are full of concern about a possible war.

A complete moratorium on cross-border terrorism is a just condition for sensible, sensitive India-Pakistan dialogue, but it is a far cry. Until then what do we do? A tearing and raging campaign by all political fronts, people's organisations, quasi-official institutions and service-minded leaders and cadres to rouse the nation to a new awareness about the jural, political, military issues at stake in the event of an India-Pakistan confrontation, how human solidarity, founded on a patriotic dimension, is a must for success, how all-round, stern economy and abjuration of insatiable materialist craze are imperative in the current crisis. Nothing, except business as usual, is in evidence. What a pity that even ugly communalism is not given a holiday in this sombre hour. The fear of the awesome imminence of a military collision, with the dreaded prospect of a cocked nuke or a missile launch, is nowhere visible.

Where are the Kochiites to rush for rescue or the Bollywood stars to shelter or the Connaught Place traders to seek safety if a siren alerts an approaching plane? Is there even a siren? Total functional abdication of the state's defence of civilians. All talk of multinational corporations, tycoons, globalisation and privatisation sounds fashionable trivia when you do not know where a bomb would fall and what you should do if it does. Mumbai, if a nuclear bomb is dropped there by a mad pilot under secret orders, will lose over a crore of humans instantly. Kochi is vulnerable and Delhi is a sure target. An element of puerile ignorance prevails apart from parrot-like repetition that the Indian defence forces are ready. A war means a whole nation - schools, courts, shopping centres, homes, farms, factories, trains, road traffic and air flights... training the civilian population, boosting the morale of the non-military sector and unifying Indian humanity to face a common danger. Drawing up a strategy, psychic, patriotic, and spiritual, is a war preparation as important as inspecting the defence forces and ordering commanders of corps.

The media have a vital role in making the country, not merely the military, participate in Operation V sign. What has been done to fashion a grand mental-moral-material strategy? A blank. Tell us the truth. Musharraf may stoop to conquer? The dynamics and dialectics of a national resistance movement demand different strategies.

PEACE is India's first charge, in terms of the Constitution (Article 51) and of friendly international relations. So India has to publicise the peace process that it is committed to and convince global opinion about its cause. Kashmir is not mere real estate but lovely country with proud, though poor, people. India may not be rigid on bilateral bigotry - indeed, the U.S is already in - and must display negotiable flexibility. When Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the Palestine fighters are moving to the table to discuss, India and Pakistan must sit round in a firm but flexible mood. Some serendipitous idea, some creative formula, some federal framework with sub-sovereignty can still be brought up. Is the LoC final? Are we ready with constructive alternatives? As British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan once said wisely:

"The East-West conflict cannot be resolved by weakness or moral or physical exhaustion of one side or the other. It cannot, in this nuclear age, be resolved by the triumph of one side over the other without the extinction of both. I say, therefore, we can only reach our goal by the gradual acceptance of the view that we can all gain more by agreement than by aggression" (Quote It, Volume I, page 634).

The great dispute, let us remember, is the destiny of the Kashmiri. What with accession by the Maharaja and reinforcement by the National Conference, India has a legal and political case. The people of Kashmir are in a quandary. After 50 years, they remain alienated, sullen, poor and not involved dynamically in the democratic process, dubious elections apart. Indeed, they, as a people, are not consulted in the India-Pakistan dialogue. Kashmir is not just a tourist valley; the Kashmiri humanity must be actively involved in a discussion of their own fate. They have views, aspirations and concrete proposals about their future, but at the moment they are resigned to the Delhi mughuls and their proxy in Srinagar. So it is necessary to revive the Kashmiri debate among the Kashmiris themselves, including the people of Jammu and Ladakh. Their voice must be heard and not be drowned in the noises of the guns and the corpses of cross-border firing. This political process must have priority right now.

It should be remembered that even after the Almaty Act, General Musharraf reiterates Islamabad's "moral, diplomatic and political support to the indigenous struggle for self-determination of the Kashmiri people", adding that Pakistan wants "a just and negotiated settlement of the Kashmiri dispute". Moreover, he pleads that beyond his control there are militants in Kashmir, is an alibi for continuing terrorism without taking the blame for it. And America now has a case that the Al Qaeda presence in Kashmir may be real - a sly suggestion to justify U.S. military presence. This subject has, therefore, to be discussed seriously as an item on the agenda of "dialogue".

Moreover, two things must be stressed even now. The Pakistani dictator, through his representative abroad, has insisted that the use of nuclear weapons as part of the war which is not ruled out. And, after all, should India not remember the obligation to put an end to the use of anti-personnel mines and ratify the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty. The mining of the 2,897-km border could be one of the largest such operations since 1997 when the Treaty came into force. The two governments should ratify the Ottawa treaty at once in the name of international human rights and humanitarian law as a gesture of peaceful intentions towards the people on either side of the LoC.

But in all plans and proposals, principled exchanges, not procrastinatory palavers and intransigent postures, are the process. And with transparency, not in suspicious secrecy, dialogues should take place. After all, We, the People of India are the political sovereign, and the people must know. Fanatics must be isolated for, as Winston Churchill put it: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

V.R. Krishna Iyer is a former Judge of the Supreme Court.