newkerala.com
Posted on 09 July, 2006
By Vishnu Makhijani: Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee's upbeat statements on China, the resumption of trade at Nathu La after 44 years and the composite dialogue process with Pakistan notwithstanding, many in the Indian military establishment are sceptical of "true and lasting" peace with the two neighbours.
It's not that anyone expects a war to break out in the foreseeable future - at least not with China, though Pakistan is a different kettle of fish. However, conversations with senior officers involved in the strategic planning process reveal that they are concerned over developments in the two countries that have a direct bearing on India's national security.
They fear the Indian political establishment is being lulled into a sense of complacency even as China and Pakistan put in place the elements of a pincer movement that New Delhi would find hard to wriggle out of.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, one view is that to talk about sustainable peace is to negate the very two-nation theory that led to its creation.
The other is that Pakistan was created to serve as a buffer between India and Afghanistan, two countries that have traditionally enjoyed good relations. Proponents of this theory point out that had the sub-continent not been partitioned in 1947, it could have resulted in the creation of a huge pressure block encompassing India, Afghanistan, Iran - and possibly Iraq - stretching right up to the Middle East.
And, with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) firmly ensconced in Afghanistan post the 2001 invasion, there is a school of thought that says certain Western powers would dread the possibility of India and Pakistan coming together - as this could lead to pressure on NATO to withdraw.
Thus, this school says, it would be in Western interests to keep India and Pakistan at each other's throats.
"Besides, at what cost is (India-Pakistan) peace going to come?" asked an officer who has closely followed the composite dialogue process and previous such attempts. "By accepting the LoC (the Line of Control that divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan) as the permanent border? That would mean giving up India's claim to that portion of Kashmir that is in Pakistan's control. Which government would like to commit such hara-kiri?
"Then, you have the current scenario in which the government - justifiably so - says all of Kashmir is rightfully India's and there is no question of converting the LoC into the permanent border. How then will you resolve the Siachen issue? What will you do about that part of Aksai Chin that Pakistan has ceded to China?" the officer, known for his clear thinking and erudite views on Kashmir, contended.
The Siachen glacier, the world's highest and coldest battlefield, has been the scene of a bitter low intensity conflict since the 1980s, when Indian troops first went in to prevent the Pakistan Army from occupying the heights. The guns have been silent since a 2003 truce and there has of late been talk of demilitarising the area.
The Indian Army has made it clear that if a political decision is taken to pull back troops, it will follow orders. At the same time, it has made it clear that it would never be able to reoccupy the heights if Pakistani troops take them.
Siachen has become a bone of contention between India and Pakistan because the Line of Control that divides Kashmir between the two countries abruptly ends at a place called Point NJ9842 at the foot of the glacier.
From there, according to New Delhi, the line stretches northwards to the Chinese border. Islamabad claims the line runs east-northeast to the Karakoram Pass, meaning that the entire glacier falls within Pakistani territory.
It is through the Karakoram Pass that China has built a highway from its Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region that currently runs up to Islamabad but will eventually stretch to Gwadar in Balochistan, where China is developing Pakistan's second deep water port. This would give China access to a seaport virtually at India's doorstep.
That's one element of the pincer spoken of earlier.
The other element is termed the Irrawaddy Corridor connecting China's Yunan province to Myanmarese ports through a series of road, rail and river links.
The third element is the just-opened China-Tibet railway from Gormu to Lhasa that analysts say will greatly augment China's ability to move up offensive military supplies against India.
Given this frightening scenario, many in the military establishment wonder how in a space of six years, China, which then defence minister George Fernandes described as "enemy number one" has zoomed to "prospective best friend" which is how Mukherjee all but referred to it after his visit there last month.
Of course, there is the India-China border dispute over which the two countries fought a brief but bitter war 44 years ago. Mukherjee did refer to this but maintained it would not come in the way of moving forward in the areas of commerce, culture and the like.
"The politicians and the bureaucrats might have their own take on the issue, but from the military standpoint, it would be extremely foolish to think there can be sustainable peace with Pakistan and China. There will not be hostilities but the tension will always be there and we would have to be prepared for any eventuality," was how a retired service chief summed it up.
(Vishnu Makhijani writes on strategic affairs. He can be contacted on vishnu.makhijani@ians.in.)
