Can fourth Indo-Pak war be averted?

By O P Modi

Wars are made in the minds of men''. Voicing nation's im-mediate reaction to the Pak sponsored 13th December attack on the ''heart'' of India, Prime Minister Vajpayee declared ''Ab ar par ki larai hogi'', (there will be a decisive war now). People, all over the country, wanted the government to wage war against Pakistan- the country that has been sponsoring cross border terrorism for the last over twenty five years. Strong voices are being raised by the terror weary people in Kashmir who too want the proxy war to turn into ''Ar par ki larai''. Every one in this country wants an end to the daily killing of the innocents and unending threat from the terrorists to the entire nation.

Pakistan's complicity in the 13th December attack is further confirmed by another fact. Prior to the attack on the Parliament Pakistan had moved its heavy artillery and the logistic support, including hundreds of tanks, along the Indo-Pak border and the LoC. A little earlier the Pak army had started war games; ominously too close to the Indo-Pak border in Jammu. There is no doubt that all this readiness was in place because Pakistan's ISI had conspired with Jaish-e-Mohammad to attack the Indian Parliament. Fearing retributive attacks by India on the terrorist's camps in Pakistan and PoK, Pakistan deployed its army well in advance of 13th December.

Some people in our country try to defend General Musharraf on the plea that the terrorist outfits like Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba were not under his control; hence he was unable to rein them in. This is a fallacious notion. If the Pakistan based terrorist organisations are not under his control how is it that the Pak army is continuing to push more and more Jehadis across the LoC even after he had pledged support to the coalition for the war against terror ?

To counter Pakistan's pig-headedness India too has moved its forces face to face with the Pakistani army in Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujrat. There is heavy deployment of the forces on both sides. Could this blow up into a full scale war ?

In no case would USA want a secondary conflict to flare up while it is still deeply involved in its first phase of the war against terror in this region. Afghanistan is still unstable and Osama-bin-Laden is yet to be captured. Bush administration needs General Musharraf's help to track down the most wanted man of the world. Though to avoid this unpalatable task Musharraf has declared that Osama is dead USA knows that after the Talibans defeat, hundreds of thousand Jehadis have crossed over from Afghanistan into Pakistan. It needs the General's support for blunting the terrorists' teeth in Pakistan and elsewhere. For United States this fact would be weighing heavily on the future course of its relationship with India and Pakistan.

Even when stability returns to Afghanistan and Osama is tracked down there would always remain the risk of Pak nuclear arsenal falling in the hands of Jehadis which has ever since been a matter of serious concern for the Americans. There should be no doubt that USA is acutely conscious about Pakistan's loose hold over its nuclear designs and materials. The real threat of terrorists would be if they get hold of the nuclear material and assemble a ''dirty bomb''. An armed conflict between India and Pakistan at this juncture would jeopardise the American mission of ending terrorism from the world as also eliminating the possibility of nuclear strike by the Jehadis.

Worried about an armed conflict between India and Pakistan, at first Washington advised India to exercise restraint. However, New Delhi bitterly responded by pointing out that while Bush administration had taken immediate steps to avenge the 11th September attack on America it could not advise others to use restraint. There ought not to be double standards India said. Cold water was then thrown on the Indian resolve to attack the terrorist camps by asking New Delhi to involve Pakistan in the investigations concerning the attack on Parliament. But when sufficient proof was provided by India regarding Pak based terrorist outfits who had carried out the attack on Indian Parliament, the two organisations were brought on the list of foreign terrorists by USA. Latter Pakistan under US pressure banned the two organisation and seized their bank accounts. Moulana Masood Azhar was put under house arrest.

Attack on India's Parliament means attack on the country's sovereignty, its secular democratic polity and its values. No self respecting nation can take such a blatant attack lying down and turning away from the challenge. India has taken diplomatic steps to send a strong message to Pakistan. Warned of India's determination to punish the sponsors of the attack on its Parliament and sensing the mood of international community Pakistan has taken some cosmetic steps like banning Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashker-e-Toiba and seizing their assets. Enough time, however, was given by Pak authorities to these outfits to transfer their money into safer accounts. This cannot satisfy the end of justice particularly when General Musharraf and his cohorts continue to call the terrorists in Kashmir as the freedom fighters.

India should ask Pakistan to hand over Masood Azahar, the chiefs of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashker-e-Toiba- the outfits which carried out attack on the Indian Parliament for trial in this country. Washington and other members of the coalition for war against terror should support India's stand and pressurize Pakistan to do so.

The war in Afghanistan was waged by America only when the Talibans refused to hand over Osama for trial in the United States. There are glaring similarities in the two situations. Today India is forced to take punitive action against Pakistan because that country did not respond properly to India's sensitivities after the attack on its Parliament. India too had asked Pakistan to hand over Masood Azhar and others who had conspired to attack the Indian Parliament. But Pakistan not only failed to act in accordance with it, its President made light of the attack on the ''heart'' of India.

The armies on both sides of Indo-Pak borders and along the LoC are standing eyeball to eyeball. At some places firing as already started. The two countries are at the brink of war. But I believe the war could still be averted if, before it is too late. President George Bush pressurizes General Pavez Musharraf to hand over chiefs of Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Toiba to India for trial. I think, considering the dangerous implications of the war between two nuclear nations, this could be acceptable to most of the Indians.

American double standards

By Bharat Jhunjhunwala

The American people are unable to comprehend why their cul-ture of markets, democracy and freedom evokes so much hostility across much of the world. The answer is simple. These so-called American values are a sham. America has consistently embraced the opposite values in its relations with other countries. This doublespeak had so far been hidden from their own vision protected as they were by two great oceans. September 11 has shown that technological changes have rendered this protection meaningless. America can no longer hide her true face of exploitation, repression and dictatorship that it embraces elsewhere. In fact America cannot behave otherwise because these values are themselves inherently incomplete and liable to misinterpretation.

Americans carry with them a self-eulogizing aura of promoting the values of prosperity, democracy and freedom. They believe that they promote the grand idea of the market being the final arbiter of human endeavours. But market is not an American invention. Adam Smith, it must be remembered, wrote his treatise in England, not America. Englishmen were the first global traders in the modern era. What distinguishes the Americans is their belief that they have prevented the government from interfering in the markets.

But the reality is quite different. Take the issue of Patents. The Americans led the call for the inclusion of patents in the WTO. The key concept behind patents is that the state will interfere in the market and protect the patent holder if another copies his product and competes with him. A 'violation' of patents is precisely what is supposed to be the strength of the market--competition. If a company successfully makes a drug, it seeks patents to prevent another from replicating its product and entering into competition. If Sugar Baby watermelons were introduced in the markets by one farmer, patents makes it possible for that others should not compete in the next season.

Similarly consider the global labour market. The supremacy of the markets requires that labour should be free to move across countries. The market would allocate labour in a way that the maximum production could be obtained. But America, along with other OECD countries, is in the forefront of preventing precisely such a market from operating. The argument here becomes that movement of labour involves cultural exchange which a people have a right to refuse. In other words, where there economic interests are involved, it is their culture that becomes supreme rather than the markets. The American belief that they believe in markets is a sham.

The second exalted American value is that of democracy. They believe that in distinction to the 'backward' civilizations like those of the Arabian and Hindu civilizations, the Americans give equal right to all citizens to choose their governments. Alas! this democracy too is restricted to within the country. Their record abroad is anything but democratic.

Samuel P Huntington writes in an article in Newsweek that people in the Muslim countries are hostile to the United States "in part as a result of Western imperialism and domination of the Muslim world for much of the 20th century." Christopher Dickey in another article points out that dictators and emirs in the Arab world friendly to Washington moved to stifle dissent as they were sure that America cared more about bringing down the Taliban than about upholding democracy. He goes on to quote a Saudi royal telling the Americans: "Do not wish for democracy. If there is democracy in the Arab world, every country would be against you."

The constitution of the Security Council with five superpowers holding permanent veto is but a joke on democracy. It is noteworthy that the final authority in the United Nations lies with the security council, not the General Assembly. In other words, the American value of democracy is to be applied only within America. It is to be freely violated elsewhere.

In fact, the success of democracy in the Western world coincides with they exploiting the resources of the developing countries--first through colonial loot and now through WTO-sponsored provisions which protect Western technological monopolies while prying open the markets of developin countries. In fact, democracy in the West and its absence in the developing countries are reflections of each other.

The third great American value is that of anti- imperialism. It is generally true that America has not colonized or ruled over other countries like England, France and Portugal have. The Americans pride themselves over having conquered Germany and Japan but handed them back to those peoples. But this is nothing new. It has been a standard prescription of statecraft to accept nominal acceptance of suzerainty in exchange for freedom. But look what the Americans did in Kuwait. They handed the country back to its anti-democratic American lackeys so that they could have their oil. The American support to repressive governments across the globe is most easily explained by their commercial interests. The way the IMF stops and starts aid to countries like Pakistan and India in tandem with the change of American interests is but another indication of the imperialist nature of that country.

American thinking is full of contradictions. Americans embrace the markets, democracy and freedom only within their country. They violate these same values without compunction when it comes to other countries. It is for this reason that the American hype about these great values does not cut much ice in other countries except those like Great Britain who revel in similar double standards.

But technology has changed all this, perhaps permanently. Till recently America could feel protected and isolated by the two great oceans. An attack on America by even a victorious Germany would have been hard to imagine during the Second World War. The internet, global finance, and the jet airplanes have removed much of the protection. The result is that these double standards now stand exposed. America will now have to face the ire of the oppressed if it applies these double standards.

The situation is similar to that of India in the eighteenth century. We had prospered for thousands of years protected by the great Himalayas. It was the technology of the ship-mounted canon that undid us. It has taken us more than two centuries to catch up with the world. America faces a similar situation today. The challenge before that country is not to promote the values of markets, democracy and freedom. The challenge is to recognize the shallowness of these values. If they succeeded in America at all, the path lay through most state controlled, autocratic and dictatorial countries whose wealth provided the resources to buy the compliance of the American people.

Markets are beneficent only if regulated in public interest. It is the solemn responsibility of the government to restrict job-eating technologies, violence-creating advertisements and blood-sucking foreign investments. The public good enunciated by the government is primary, not the markets.

Democracy works only if there are 'wise' men to guide the people. Fascist Hitler, Imperialist Churchill and corrupt Sukarno were are products of democracies. Welfare economist E J Mishan once wrote that people could be got to desire almost anything if sufficient resources were devoted to the cause. So democracy is easily manipulated.

Freedom is beneficial only if domestic good governance is obtained. It is no use to be freed into decadence. It would indeed be more humane to see failed states like those of Somalia, North Korea and even Pakistan to be invaded by more decent rulers who can establish good governance. We need a through understanding of these values before getting carried away by both American double standards.