Shafqat Mahmood

The writer is a former Senator and a former federal and provincial minister

smahmood@lhr.comsats.net.pk

The sounds emanating from India are of war. This is not the first terrorist attack on Indian soil, but the rhetoric coming out now is quite different. It is eerily reminiscent of post September 11 torrent of angry words flowing out of the United States. Without the capacity or the reach of the Americans, the Indians seem to be doing their best to sound like them. This posturing may give a temporary high but at the end of the day, words are just words if they are not followed by action.

This is not a dare. No one in Pakistan wants war. If you exclude the demented fringe, the people of this country would like nothing better than to live in peace with India. There is enough to worry about anyway. The Afghan situation so unsettled and could have consequences for us. The economy also has a long way to go before it can recover from the post 1998 nuclear explosions slump. This slow down has now been exacerbated by the September 11 events. There is poverty and hunger and disease to fight. Only the mad would look forward to a conflict in these difficult circumstances.

My reference to hostile words is in the worrying context of what follows fire and brimstone. Belligerent rhetoric demands some kind of aggressive action, or else, war like words can rebound on a leadership. That is why it is so necessary to think carefully about appropriate language in a situation of potential conflict. It also makes sense to promise only that which can be easily delivered. Otherwise, words can become a straitjacket leaving no room for manoeuvre.

The American story was different. They chose their enemy carefully. They knew that there would not be much of a fight and no real danger. Victory was also assured although no one quite knew how much time it would take. The rhetoric of war in their case was appropriate, even necessary. It not only relieved feelings of wounded pride after the first ever attack on American mainland, it also prepared the people for a war in Afghanistan.

The Indian situation is not the same. The American script can only be followed to the extent of similar words. Acting on them means risking a war with Pakistan. If such an unfortunate event does come to pass, it would not be a cake walk or a push over, as it was for the Americans in Afghanistan. War between India and Pakistan is a very serious business that can potentially lead to devastating consequences for both countries.

This then is the Indian dilemma. Their leadership is painting itself into a corner with hostile statements. This rhetoric is creating a political imperative to do something. Doing something is easy if it is confined to actions within India or the Indian Held Kashmir. Doing something is difficult if it means hot pursuit into Azad Kashmir, or more dangerously, air attacks on suspected 'terrorist' training camps within Pakistan. As everyone knows, this would not go unchallenged. Events may then rapidly veer out of control. War has its own logic. Unless the enemy is so weak that everything can be mapped to an unerring accuracy, no one can predict what will happen next. Is India ready for this?

Mr Vajpayee's latest statement in the parliament can be interpreted any which way you like. The Indian news channels are calling it a strong declaration of aggressive intent. Careful reading of its text suggests otherwise. While not ruling out assertive action, the substance of the speech leans more towards diplomatic initiatives. There are also voices within the Indian print media that have begun to caution against any rash steps. This is in contrast to the tone and tenor of talk shows on Indian TV channels that are far more belligerent. As someone remarked, TV anchors are no longer reporting. They are pushing and jostling the leadership to get on with it.

Fortunately for everyone, declaration of war is not in the hands of these anchor persons or their carefully chosen guests. I have always believed that Prime Minister Vajpayee is a man of peace. He is under pressure but he understands the consequences of a conflict better than many talking heads getting hot under the collar. The man who came to Minar e Pakistan or invited General Musharraf to Agra, is not going to unleash a devastating war on the subcontinent. After much sound and fury, the situation may calm down. War will be averted, for the moment.

I also believe that General Musharraf is a pragmatic man who is not going to risk the future of the country for some illusory gains. This is the reason why I am convinced that Pakistan government or its intelligence agencies have no role whatever in the Indian Parliament attack. It does not serve Pakistan's interest in any conceivable fashion. In fact, it only adds to the dangers. The Indians may think whatever they like of General Musharraf but this man would not knowingly take steps that increase the risk of a war with India.

This does not absolve the President and his colleagues from taking responsibility for the radical organisations that freely operate in Pakistan. Attack on the Indian parliament was a provocation by people who want to push India and Pakistan into a devastating conflict. There is no credible evidence that either Jaish e Mohammad or Lashkar e Taiba are involved. That is, so far. It may yet emerge during further investigation. Whether they are involved or not, one thing is clear. People who can claim credit for attacking the Red Fort in Delhi and then put on public shows to demonstrate this particular skill, are not the kind who want peace between India and Pakistan.

The government also needs to realise the inherent problems associated with its tacit approval of these Jihadi groups. Their struggle against the Indian army in Kashmir may come under the rubric of a freedom fight, but again and again the victims are often civilians. Some of these groups also claim that once Kashmir is liberated they are going to expand the fight to India. This is not a surprise. For them Jihad is a never ending process. They may or may not be involved in the recent attack on the Indian Parliament but it is not beyond them. They did after all claim credit for attack on the Red Fort. Is peace between India and Pakistan going to be held hostage to these groups?

It is in this context that I think that General Musharraf's offer of a joint inquiry into the Parliament incident is appropriate. If joint steps are taken by India and Pakistan, it would isolate the terrorists. He has also offered to take action if any Pakistan based group is involved. India should not spurn this or question his intentions. If anything, this may be an opportunity to test the President's resolve. They should provide the proof, when it becomes available, and then wait for further action by the Pakistani government.

The Indian government must understand that if sufficient proof of Jihadi groups' involvement in the parliament attack is produced, it would have consequences in Pakistan. The issue of allowing radical groups to operate in Pakistan is already under serious debate in the country. Proof of their involvement in terrorist attacks, on Indian soil, would tip the scales against them. Not just for the government but in the minds of the people. That would be a decisive blow against the radicals.

The US may say many things that people in this part of the world do not like but what is being said now makes eminent sense. In the fight against terrorism, India and Pakistan should collaborate and work with each other. Just giving each other a bad name or promising fire and damnation would not help matters. Partnership is necessary because sane people in both countries realise that terrorists are trying very hard to push us into a war. We must come together to fight this evil. We must come together to build peace.