The Sunday Times on the Web News/Comment
26th July 1998

Front Page|
Editorial/Opinion |
Business | Plus | Sports |
Mirror Magazine

Home
Front Page
Editorial/Opinion
Business
Plus
Sports
Mirror Magazine

No tension with Pakistan says India

NEW DELHI, Saturday (Reuters) - Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee said in an interview published today there was no tension between New Delhi and Islamabad as a result of their nuclear tests.

Vajpayee said in an interview with The Week magazine that India was committed to resolving differences with Pakistan through a "bilateral dialogue so as to build a stable structure of cooperation".

"There is no tension between the two countries as a result of our tests," he was quoted as saying. "We should, however, continue to work with Pakistan so as to enhance the confidence-building measures."

India and Pakistan conducted tit-for-tat nuclear tests in May, drawing global condemnation and economic sanctions on both countries, most notably from the United States.

Vajpayee said he was looking forward to meeting his Pakistani counterpart, Nawaz Sharif, at next week's South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit in Colombo, Sri Lanka.

"We hope to make progress on many issues under consideration under the SAARC agenda," he said. "We are approaching the forthcoming meeting with a positive mind and sincerity. We hope this interaction would result in a forward movement in relations with Pakistan."

Vajpayee, who is due to meet Sharif on the sidelines of the SAARC summit, said India wanted to discuss its differences with Pakistan — including the issue of Kashmir — on a bilateral basis.

India and Pakistan have fought two of their three wars over the Himalayan region of Kashmir since they gained independence from Britain in 1947. India controls two-thirds of Kashmir and Pakistan the rest.

The prime minister indicated that New Delhi could conduct further tests of its Agni intermediate-range missile, whose new version is expected to be capable of hitting targets 2,000 km (1,250 miles) away and carrying 1,000-kg (450-lb) warheads.

"You may recall that the last Agni test was in 1994," Vajpayee said. "A credible nuclear deterent would therefore need further progress with regard to testing Agni."


The facts are...

When Mr. B. Sirisena Cooray's writ ap plication came before the Supreme Court where the Bench comprised of Justice Mark Fernando, Justice Dr. Asoka de Z. Gunawardene and Justice L.G.H. Weerasekera, Justice Mark Fernando observed that as a member of the Judicial Service Commission he (Justice Fernando) had been critical of the conduct of the 1st Respondent Mr. Tissa Dias Bandaranayake and if the counsel (Mr.Wijedasa Rajapaksa) had the slightest objection, he would not be a member of the Bench. (Daily News of 21st July, 1998)

Tissa Dias Bandaranayake
Tissa Dias Bandaranayake

Chief Justixe G.P.S. de Silva
Chief Justixe G.P.S. de Silva

*"The docket was submitted to me (Justice Mark Fernando) by the Registrar. By my minute of 11.1.96 I asked him to obtain clarification from you on certain issues, as that was necessary before I could take any action on his minute.

On inquiring from him, a few days ago, what your response was, I found that Bandaranayake, J. had been asked for his observations and that on 31.1.96 he had made a series of false and malicious allegations and insinuations which make it necessary for me to set the record straight.

*As a general observation on such attacks, I would respectfully follow the example of Lord Buddha. When a man abused him, he listened in silence, and then asked, "If a man declined to accept a gift offered to him to whom would it belong?" the man replied, "To him who offered it", whereupon he was told, I decline to accept your abuse, and request you to keep it for yourself."

"Bandaranayake J. has consistently resented my endeavours to exclude political influence and other impropriety. One instance, which I am sure you will recall, was the JSC decision of 8.10.1993 for the sudden transfer of the Gampola DJ (Mr. Mervyn Wijetunga, presently the senior most District Judge and the Magistrate, Fort) with effect from 1.1.94.

"I enclose copies of some of the relevant documents for convenience of reference. These documents demonstrate that Bandaranayake J. wanted that DJ transferred because he was alleged to have made offensive remarks against the then President, (Mr. D.B. Wijetunga). That nevertheless when that DJ was questioned (mainly by Bandaranayake J) on other matters on 8.10.93 Bandaranayake J. deliberately refrained from mentioning that allegation; however after expressly telling the DJ that he was allowed time to make his observations about the two specific complaints on which he had been summoned that day, as soon as he left it was decided, by a majority decision to transfer him to Teldeniya and to transfer the Teldeniya Magistrate to Gampola. Bandaranayake J. insisted upon an immediate transfer claiming that he had "reliable" information-the source of which he never disclosed - that this DJ had made remarks about the then President from the Bench.

"The DJ was never informed of the real allegation against him, nor allowed to defend himself. The place of transfer was later changed to Matale.

"By my letter of 13.1.1993, I appealed to the then President (Mr. D.B. Wijetunga) to inform the JSC officially whether he had made any complaint against this DJ; from the fact that His Excellency did not say that he had made any complaint, I assume that he had not.

"Thereafter a question was asked in Parliament by Lakshman Kiriella, M.P. about this transfer, and the Prime Minister's Office requested information from the JSC. During my absence abroad, a reply was sent stating that the transfer was due to the exigencies of service, and implying that this was perhaps because he had requested a station closer to Kandy.

"Pursuant to certain proceedings in Parliament further observations of the JSC recorded on 25.11.1993, were forwarded to the then President.

"In both these documents, the facts were not fully disclosed, the real allegation, and even the matters on which the DJ was questioned on 8.10.93, were not mentioned; even the minute of 8.10.93 was not sent.

"When I learnt of these matters after my return to Sri Lanka, I wrote to the then President on 30.11.93; and also to Bandaranayake J, and yourself on 6.12.93 pointing that if a different ground of transfer ("exigencies of service") was subsequently being relied on, the transfer should be cancelled as that was not justified.

"However, the JSC by a majority refused to cancel that transfer, again upon Bandaranayake J's insistence.

The JSC minute of 17.12.1993 shows beyond any doubt that in fact the majority decision was not on account of "exigencies of service".

Some of his reasons were that, "there is a clear duty on the Commission to discipline this maverick.


SAARC: road to success is thru' Kashmir

By Ameen Izzadeen

With an unprecedented media coverage, the tenth South Asian summit gets underway this week.

Urgent issues to be tackled are many. In their effort to make the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) more meaningful, the leaders will discuss South Asian free trade area, poverty alleviation and other topics that are expected to improve the living standards of the teeming millions living in abject poverty.

But what is receiving much international media coverage — more than what the summit itself is getting — is the Indo-Pakistan talks. Top on the agenda of these talks will be the tension in the region over the recent nuclear tests India and Pakistan conducted.

The nuclear topic may be classified as a bilateral issue — an issue that cannot be discussed at the SAARC forum, though some may argue nuclear weapons and tests have regional and global implications and thus they warrant a summit discussion.

SAARC summits have always been a trouble shooter with many bilateral issues being ironed out when leaders meet one-to-one during the off day between the opening and closing sessions.

In any event, the off-the-summit talks between Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and his Pakistan counterpart Nawaz Sharif are expected to offer some hope to the region and the world at large, though in terms of tangible results, they may produce little.

What is important in these talks is the very meeting of the two leaders who speak languages the other understands. But the success of the talks depend on the tone of the political language they would speak.

In the aftermath of the nuclear tests, the language spoken by the leaders of the two countries was rhetoric bordering belligerency. Now that the dust stirred by the two countries with mighty force in the Rajasthan desert and Baluchistan is quietly settling, the two countries must look to the future. They must work closely, if SAARC is to make progress - a progress similar to that of the Association of the South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

What is necessary in this endeavour is getting rid of mutual suspicion. SAARC would have made twice the progress it has made, had these two countries been working closely. This does not mean that other South Asian countries do not have problems with each other. They do have. Bangladesh's water-sharing problem and territorial disputes with India and the standoff over the resettlement of Behari Muslim refugees in Pakistan could be cited as examples. The other bitter example was Indian policy on the Sri Lankan ethnic crisis in the 1980s and Nepal's trade corridor dispute with India and the Nepali-Bhutanese problem over ethnic Nepalese in Bhutan.

But absent in these disputes is mutual distrust which is very much pregnant in Indo-Pakistan relations.

Long before the idea of South Asian co-operation was conceived in the early 1980, the two countries have been looking at each other as a security threat. The recent nuclear tests and how the two countries cited the other as a security threat in justifying the tests show that little love is lost between the two South Asian neighbours.

In the core of Indo-Pak dispute is the issue of Kashmir. It is a severe indictment on the world at large that little effective efforts have been made to resolve the Kashmir issue with United Nations resolutions on the matter remaining unimplemented for five decades.

Thus if India and Pakistan are genuinely interested in a meaningful SAARC, they should resolve the Kashmir issue first. Talks at foreign secretary level or even at heads of government level only help ease tension but not the Kashmir crisis. The issue should be solved once and for all for SAARC to blossom into an effective regional group.

Pakistan has sought Sri Lankan mediation in solving the crisis over the nuclear standoff. But India has not openly backed this suggestion apart from saying that Colombo talks would break the ice. Sri Lanka which played in 1962 a successful peacemaker role in the Sino-Indian crisis. But in the nuclear tug o' war, it lacks moral character to play a mediator role as it itself has not still ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty for reasons attributed to possible apathy.

Peacemaking or not, Sri Lanka can and should play a major role in making SAARC meaningful and taking it to the grassroots.

Critics may say SAARC has failed miserably, but imagine a situation where no SAARC. This would leave South Asia a region without regionalism.

The Indian approach to regionalism seems to be that South Asian co-operation can be achieved while maintaining the status quo - leaving the Kashmir issue as it is. Pakistan on the other hand has not paid undivided attention to SAARC. It has what is called 'other regional interests.' Geographically placed between West Asia and the Central Asia, Pakistan is a strong advocate of the regional group Economic Conference Organisation comprising Iran, Turkey and the Central Asian Muslim republics.

This organisation has made great strides in economic development as opposed to SAARC which has still not made any major impact with its South Asian Preferential Trade Agreement.

Thus what SAARC requires is commitment to establish a South Asian identity — not only geographical but also social, political and economic. It also should grow into such a stature in the near future that it could proudly say the people of South Asia are better off today because of SAARC.


The border flashpoint

By Rohan Gunaratna

International and South Asian security experts claim that the nuclear weaponisation of India and Pakistan has no real implications for the security of small nations like Sri Lanka. This is a grave miscalculation.

Today, an unstable security environment in the region is a major impediment to the national security interests of Sri Lanka. If South Asia was stable - if there was no proxy war between the two most formidable powers in South Asia - Sri Lankan security interests would have been better preserved. For instance, both India and Pakistan have one of the largest intelligence communities in the developing world, with almost a global reach. If there was no animosity, Sri Lanka could have solicited their joint co-operation to monitor and counter the flourishing LTTE procurement and shipping networks.

Today, the regional co-operation between SAARC nations essential to regulate the illicit transfer of weapons within and into South Asia is nonexistent. Similarly, the Indo-Pakistan animosity has prevented SAARC conventions on suppression of terrorism as well as on narcotic drugs from becoming operational. They remain confined to rhetoric of South Asian leaders and bureaucrats. The SAARC Terrorist Offences Monitoring Desks as well as the SAARC Narcotic Drugs Monitoring Desks in Colombo are non-functional. Ironically, many South Asian countries suffer from the scourge of terrorism. Therefore, it is imperative that small nations such as Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan and the Maldives realise that peace between India and Pakistan is vital for their own prosperity if not survival.

Many other geographic regions have progressed more than South Asia during the last decade. For instance, both Latin America and Africa have established regional organisations that play a more assertive role than SAARC - whether in peace keeping or military assistance. Comparatively, South Asian leaders must try to refine the framework and improve the mandate of SAARC, particularly to meet the challenges at the threshold of the 21 st century. Kashmir - which remains at the heart of the problem between India and Pakistan - is the focus of this article.

Away from the glare of the international media, a holy war (jihad) rages in the breathtakingly beautiful valley of the UN-disputed Kashmir, a territory bordering India, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and not far away from former Soviet Union and Iran. Traditionally, three great empires - the Chinese, Indian and the Soviet - met in the strategically positioned Kashmir. In a campaign reminiscent of Vietnam or Afghanistan, 20,000 mujahidin (holy warriors) face an overwhelming 600,000 troops of the lndian military.

Background:

The Kashmir dispute - created as a result of inadequate decolonization - broke into a conflict due to international neglect. Before the British departed in 1947, the South Asian subcontinent was divided into a Hindu majority India and Muslim majority Pakistan. A controversy arose over the fate of a Muslim majority Kashmir, a princely state ruled by a Hindu ruler. Indian troops occupied two thirds and Pakistan a third of the disputed territory. At India's request, the UN proposed a plebiscite, where the Kashmiris could opt for either accession to India or Pakistan. While all attempts to integrate Kashmir into the Indian Union failed, New Delhi refrained from honouring a series of UN resolutions to hold a plebiscite. Kashmiris felt that New Delhi made no genuine effort to accommodate their political, religious and cultural aspirations. The Kashmiris were unhappy with their own political leaders as well as the attitude of the central government in New Delhi towards Kashmir.

The international environment favoured domestic rebellion. Forces of ethnicity and religion began to assert themselves in Kashmir towards the late 1980s. The Islamic revolution in Iran had a profound impact on the Kashmiri psyche. Iran believed in the "export" of the Islamic revolution and the Kashmiris in its replication. The neighbouring anti-Soviet Afghan campaign proved that a small, poorly trained but motivated force could always win against a large, highly trained conventional force.

Of three Indo- Pakistan wars, the 1947 and 1965 wars were fought over Kashmir. The 1965 war was the biggest tank battle after World War II. In the 1971 war India invaded and bifurcated East Pakistan from West Pakistan, creating Bangladesh. As New Delhi power politics alienated Kashmir from the Indian polity, neighbouring Azad Kashmir - under Pakistan control - and Pakistan supported the struggle for a Kashmir free from Indian rule. With Kashmiris perceiving that the elections were rigged by the state, they began to rely on extra-parliamentary methods. With Indian militarisation in the 1980s, an emerging holy war appealed to many.

Insurgency Breaks:

The insurgency spawned in the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 1989 is largely confined to the Kashmir valley of 839 sq. km. and peopled by 3.5 million. The mujahidin are both urban and rural guerrillas but the initial phase of war confined to urban settings was marked by assassination, kidnapping, extortion and ransom.

Almost all the religious groups favour accession to Pakistan. A handful of Kashmiri nationalist groups led by the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front favour independence. The rivalry for military domination between the religious and the nationalist groupings, have died with JKLF emphasising on domestic politics and international activity. The ideology of Islamic fundamentalism is generated by Jamaat-i-lslami (Organisation of Islam), the twin of Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East. The Jamaat headquarters in Lahore, also called a mini Pentagon, play a critical role in the holy wars world-wide.

The steadfastly escalating Kashmiri campaign has both South Asian as well as global security implications. Kashmir has precluded South Asian security co-operation in combating transnational threats - transfer of Illicit light weapons, narcotic trafficking, organised crime, money laundering, etc. With the weaponisation - insertion of nuclear war heads into operational delivery systems - India and Pakistan have unleashed an arms race in South Asia and beyond.

China exploded its first nuclear device in 1964, India in 1974, and Pakistan developed a capability to explode a device in 1984, but did not until May this year. The Asia-Pacific is witnessing steadfast nuclearisation. Extra-regional implications of subcontinental weaponisation are difficult to forecast. India has repeatedly cited China - a country that had gone to war with India in 1962 - particularly, its role in providing nuclear and missile technology to its arch foe - Pakistan. China is likely to strengthen its security - this would inevitably impinge on the future security of Japan, Taiwan, and Southeast Asia. Many of the non-nuclear states will either align with existing nuclear states within or outside the region or may even develop their own counter-technologies. A nuclearised Pakistan will see Iran, traditionally a dominant power in the region, and Central Asian states reconsider their offensive and defensive capabilities.

There are other factors that could lead the two states to war. Both India's foreign intelligence agency - the Research and Analysis Wing and its Pakistani counterpart - Inter-Services Intelligence - are currently sponsoring violence in each other's territories. RAW supports dissident groups in Pakistan and Pakistan supports dissident groups in India. New Delhi's role in Sri Lanka from 1983 August to 1987 May - where India provided sanctuary, finance, training and weapons to over 20,000 Sri Lankan Tamil insurgents - is being enacted against India by Islamabad. Like India's interests in Sri Lanka, Pakistan has legitimate interests in Kashmir which Indian hardliners like J.N. Dixit have failed to acknowledge.

The current proxy war in Kashmir cannot directly fuel an Indo-Pakistan armed confrontation, but it can contribute to the existing level of tension. Stepped up support can lead to Hindu-Muslim riots or an incident similar to the bomb blasts in Bombay or greater violence in Karachi, events that can lead to a conventional confrontation.

The factors that restrained Washington DC and Moscow are absent today between the two new nuclear powers already engaged in a confrontation across internationally-disputed borders. The war has commenced - the real threat is escalation from low intensity guerrilla and terrorist warfare into a conventional war and thereafter to nuclear war. Weaponisation of the sub-continent has not brought about deterrence or strategic stability because still Indo-Pakistan nuclear capabilities are basic. Weaponisation amidst poor command and control has dangerously increased the risk of a nuclear war.

International Community response:

The highly charged security environment of South Asia has assumed a new dimension which India or Pakistan cannot defuse without third party intervention. The G8 leaders displayed a lack of understanding of the Kashmiri conflict when they requested Pakistan and India to resolve their differences. For half a century, New Delhi and Islamabad have failed to bilaterally workout an agreement over Kashmir. Weaponisation has made both powers more resistant towards compromising over Kashmir. Since the Indian and the retaliatory Pakistan nuclear tests, Prime Ministers Atal Behari Vajpayee of India and Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan will meet for the first time during SAARC next week. As a forum, SAARC charter does not permit bilateral issues to be raised but often leaders discuss such issues privately.

The Kashmir dispute arose as a result of inadequate decolonisation. After four decades of simmering, it broke out into steadfast violence due to international neglect. Lack of political will among the international community to intervene and resolve the Kashmiri conflict is likely to propel the two formidable actors of the subcontinent into an arms race with serious security implications within and beyond the region. Leaders of SAARC gathering in Colombo next week have a rare opportunity and an obligation to prevent an arms race in the subcontinent.

The writer a , Chevening Scholar, University of St. Andrews, Scotland is author "Sri Lanka's Ethnic Crisis and National Security"

Presented on the World Wide Web by Infomation Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd.

Return to News/Comments Contents

News/Comments Archive

Front Page| Editorial/Opinion | Business | Plus | Sports | Mirror Magazine

Hosted By LAcNet

Please send your comments and suggestions on this web site to

The Sunday Times or to Information Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd.