My recent suggestion that India should consider abrogating the Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan as one of the strategic responses to the continued recalcitrance on its part and the attack on Uri has drawn flak from some expected and some unexpected quarters. I am not surprised.
India has been at the receiving end of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism for over 25 years by now. During this period, we have seen many governments in India and many Prime Ministers. But India has not yet been able to work out a policy on how to respond to these attacks. So every time an attack takes place, big or small, a debate starts in the country on how we should respond. Those who call for action, like me, are dismissed as hawks and their advice is quickly disregarded. Those who keep warning against any hasty action go on discussing the various alternatives until the people forget the outrage or until a new terrorist attack takes place.
The discussion today is on our response to Uri; Pathankot has been forgotten. When Pathankot had taken place, we started discussing it and forgot all about Gurdaspur. The list can go on endlessly. Apart from liquidating the terrorists or in some cases apprehending them, we have not taken any action against the masterminds sitting in Pakistan despite overwhelming evidence of their involvement. We have been submitting dossier after dossier to Pakistan, allowed its team of investigators to even visit Pathankot in the hope that it will at last act but it never has. The people who planned the attack on Mumbai, the most dastardly in recent memory, remain safe in Pakistan. Should we allow this to go on forever?
The terrorists keep attacking us, we keep discussing options. This is the unending story.
I am in favour of action and all that I am saying is that this time India should act and not just go on discussing how to handle these attacks.
What is our problem? Our problem is that we are too conscious of our international image; like good schoolboys, we would not like to do any thing that will affect our image, or besmirch our clean school uniform. To me, this represents nothing more than a massive inferiority complex. China did not bat an eyelid while rejecting the international court's order on the South China Sea. The noted strategic affairs expert Bramha Chellaney has listed various issues and occasions on all of which the major powers have been guilty of violation of bilateral and international treaties and commitments. The US, with the "coalition of the willing", attacked Iraq in 2003 on the ground that that it possessed weapons of mass destruction. None was found after Iraq was over run. What happened to the reputation of the US or UK? So those who are likely to throw stones at us are themselves full of the stains of their own sins.
Pakistan has already indicated that any violation of its territory either on land or by air is going to invite massive retaliation. We should expect nothing less. Our inability to act over the years has convinced Pakistan that India is incapable of acting and therefore a mere threat is sufficient to deter us even if we are contemplating any action. Our planning therefore must include responses to the steps that Pakistan may take, the manner in which it may escalate the conflict and how we would manage the various fronts. But planning does not mean inaction. It will be a great tragedy if we do not act after the Uri outrage.
The Simla Agreement was concluded in 1972 after the Bangladesh war. It is now well known that Indira Gandhi wanted to settle the issue of Jammu and Kashmir by recognizing the well-defined Line Of Control as the international border between the two countries. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was not in its favour. So the talks collapsed. In a last-ditch effort, Bhutto begged Indira Gandhi to give him some time to prepare public opinion in Pakistan to accept this arrangement. Indira Gandhi made the historic mistake of taking pity on Bhutto and agreeing. The Simla agreement therefore talks only of "the final settlement" of the issue of J&K, without defining what the "final settlement" would be. Bhutto of course went back on this understanding as soon as he reached Pakistani territory and in fact instigated his friends to start opposing it to help him go back on it.
The Simla Agreement, however, had another very important provision. India and Pakistan agreed that both countries would "settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations." Through this provision, the UN resolutions of 1947 and 1948 were buried for good. What is the position today? Pakistan has forgotten the Simla Agreement and talks only of the UN resolutions as the basis for the settlement of the J&K issue. It also conceals the fact that it was Pakistan which refused to adhere to the basic condition of those resolutions, namely to withdraw its forces and its "non-state actors" from the territory of that state before any step could be taken to arrange for a plebiscite. Pakistan remembers only what suits it and suffers from amnesia as far as the rest are concerned. Like all liars, it believes that continuous lying will turn a lie into truth. The basic point is that if Pakistan is not prepared to honour any of its commitments, why should it be incumbent on us to honour all of them? Because we are the good boys in the eyes of the international community and want to stay that way? Nawaz Sharif and Raheel Sharif may be
sharif only in name; we in India are the real
sharifs.It is well known that India is a soft state and unfortunately for us, Pakistan knows it as well. It knows that India will hum and haw, will indulge in rhetoric, will discuss all options but will never act. Let us surprise it for once.
(Yashwant Sinha is a senior BJP leader and former Union Minister of External Affairs.)Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.