KARGIL, from page 3

and the print media, in fully in-
forming and mobilizing public
opinion, was an invaluable part
of the total national effort to meet
the challenge of Kargil.

Why did Pakistan undertake such
an ill-conceived misadventure?
Perhaps, they thought that they
could translate the advantage of
tactical surprise into a strategic
gain by bringing about a defacto
realignment of the LoC, in the
region, thus rendering the
Srinagar-Leh National Highway
vulnerable. They were wrong.
They miscalculated India’s re-
solve, they did not comprehend
the sense of national outrage at
this blatant breach of trust, the
sheer motivation of the Indian
soldiers and the leadership qual-
ity of the Indian Army officers
who led from the front.

Perhaps, Pakistan calculated on
provoking India into an escala-
tion. They were wrong again be-
cause the decision of not cross-
ing the LoC was taken early and
maintained scrupulously, in the
face of high casualities and even
when the decision to employ air
power was taken. The area of
conflict was not expanded. Pa-
kistan having disowned its troops
as “freedom fighters”, could
hardly thereafter have opened
up a new front, to ease pressure
in Kargil.

What of the future? Looking be-
yond Kargil provides us an op-
portunity to renew our faith in
ourselves, our society, our pol-
ity and our nation. It compels us
to look ahead in all fields of
national endeavour but particu-
larly, in the spheres of national
security and foreign policy. One
simple message emanating from

4 INDIANEWS © August 15, 1999

Go gle

Kargil is that adequate resources
have to be made available for
national defence, that the kind
of relegation of defence needs
that we witnessed in the late
eighties and nineties is unsound
policy, that technological up-
gradation cannot be postponed,
that the nation must always think
of the welfare of those who are
in the first rank of its defence.

Kargil has many pointers for our
foreign policy and diplomacy
too. As in the present instance,
we should always be ready to
engage with the world as full and
responsible members of the in-
ternational community, but, of
course, keeping our national
priorities and interests as the
guiding principle; we ought to
have no reluctance, leave alone
fear, in engaging with the world
on any issue. Indeed, we serve
the national interest when we en-
gage the world on the basis of
equality and mutual respect.
Such engagement is the very
substance of diplomacy. That is
not any internationalization of an
issue. Nor does it imply media-
tion or any acceptance of inter-
mediaries.

Issues have to be addressed bi-
laterally between concerned
countries, and in the case of India
and Pakistan, that is what the
Lahore process is all about. We
would like to renew that process
and we would like Pakistan to
facilitate a resumption of the
process, by reaffirming the in-
violability and sanctity of the Line
of Control. Clearly, a sponsor-
ship of terrorism across the Line
of Control, or elsewhere, is a
violation of the Line of Control,
as indeed of Simla Agreement
and Lahore Declaration. There

is a need, for Pakistan, to abjure
sponsoring, aiding or abetting
cross-border terrorism. These
are not any pre-conditions for
dialogue. We are after all, the
initiators of this dialogue pro-
cess and our commitment to it
is firm and abiding. But it is only
right for our nation, at this junc-
ture, to expect that Pakistan will
repair the damage that it has
done to trust, that it demon-
strates this through concrete and
tangible steps. Trust is not built
by engaging in dialogue in win-
ter and committing aggression
in summer. Continuous calls for
Jihad can also hardly be read as
messages for dialogue and
peace. And it is in this vein that
I suggest that high pitched pro-
paganda against India also does
not inspire confidence in Paki-
stan’s interest in dialogue.

I would venture to suggest that
Pakistan, too, has to come to
terms with its history, as indeed
with its geography. It has to re-
alize that there simply is no
military solution to what it pre-
sumes is its locus-standii in
Jammu and Kashmir. It is, of
course, for Pakistan to determine
its priorities but fomenting reli-
gious fundamentalism can hardly
be employed as a tool against
want and poverty. India recog-
nizes the permanance of the
sovereign state of Pakistan and
that is final. While India remains
ready for dialogue, the pace at
which it can move forward will
depend entirely on when and
how the state of Pakistan, and
what it has now become, per-
mits it to do so.

Our foreign policy has not been
fixated on Pakistan, but that has
been a significant preoccupation