1999-2004 ; The defining years of the Vajpayee govt.
(This is a very long post, detailing many events, the sequence of the incidents, and their consequences. But it's essential to go through them all to understand why we are today in this kind of a situation regarding attacks from Pakistan)
Nothing moves a political leader as much to take a particular action or not take a particular action as the opportunity of furthering his own position and power, or a threat to his position and power, as the case may be.
I start out by making this rather obvious statement as a prelude for this part of the series, as this is the one defining principle that determined all that happened between India and Pakistan in those 5 years. More so , I must add that more than the Indian and Pakistani Govts, it was the USA govt and its political leadership that decisively determined how the Indian Govt dealt with Pakistan's undeclared war on India. 3 American Presidents, 1 Pakistani dictator President, and 2 Indian Prime ministers were to become the key players of what unfolded in the next many years till 2016 for all 3 nations, but left India alone as the loser. And in this, the period between 1999-2004, in my opinion, defined the entire discourse on India Pakistan conflict, and continued into the later years.
With Gen Pervez Musharraf taking over as the Chief of Pakistan after the October 1999 military coup, India's position with regard to Pakistan slowly started weakening. The process was very subtle and it was to become evident only after a couple of years, but the real change that happened was Pakistan strengthening internally , than India weakening. In the aftermath of the Kargil victory in July 1999, India almost assumed that the Pakistan issue was taken care of. India was busy celebrating a victory over its longtime enemy, the Vajpayee govt was thumping its chest and generally the nation was happy; Bharat mata ki Jai chants kept us busy. And it was not just for the Kargil victory, there was another very important event just around the corner, in fact within 2 months of the Kargil victory; The Lok Sabha elections were held in September, and the Vajpayee led BJP coalition NDA won a comfortable victory.
International politics is largely determined by the domestic politics of the concerned nations and their political leaders. While India was celebrating Kargil victory and BJP preparing for general elections in an upbeat mood in an environment of national fervour, across the border in Pakistan, the situation was in stark contrast. Pakistan had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of its old enemy India, and the people of Pakistan were unhappy, the army and its generals were unhappy, the Intelligence agency , the powerful ISI was also unhappy, and PM Nawaz Shariff was hardly the flavour of the month. Having been forced into a military misadventure by his General Musharraf, and that backfiring, beaten back by Indian forces, and forced to capitulate under US pressure, PM Shariff thought that the USA would stand by him and bail him out domestically , possibly with some US aid to Pakistan or something that Shariff could bandy around to his domestic audience, and hopefully some private aid to Shariff himself that he certainly wouldn't bandy around anywhere. While the former never happened, and it's only our guess whether the latter happened or not, the situation was perfectly set for General Musharraf to make the charge.
Nawaz Shariff realising the threat, attempted to prevent Musharraf from re-entering Pakistan after a visit to Sri Lanka , and tried to have him arrested. But the wily General had prepared his ground well, and had the army and ISI on his side. He turned the tables on Shariff, and took over the Government in a bloodless coup in a matter of hours, with the entire nation supporting it, possibly with the exception of Nawaz Shariff. Musharraf realised that before he tried to take over PoK or Kashmir, he must first takeover Pakistan, and it was all over by October 1999. America and Clinton stood by and watched, whether or not Clinton sent flowers to Musharraf we would never know, but he was certainly not taking any calls from Shariff.
Bill Clinton had another 14 months of his Presidency to go, and as he had been impeached by the US Congress just a few months back ( Monica Lewinsky), he was anxious to redeem the legacy of his Presidency, and Pakistan, Musharraf, Shariff, etc were the last things on his mind. He was certainly not going to muddy his hands in some subcontinental slush. Vajpayee was elected back as PM in Sep/Oct of 1999, and one of the first callers was Bill Clinton, and he was duly invited by Vajpayee to India. Clinton became the first US President in 22 years to visit India in March 2000, addressed Parliament, went Tiger watching at Ranthambore, danced with Rajasthani women, played the saxophone, thrilled the Indian media and the public, and of course kept Vajpayee happy.
More importantly for Vajpayee and India, Clinton on a brief visit to Islamabad urged Pakistan not to get obsessed by Kashmir, and also not to abandon democracy, much to the chagrin of Gen Musharraf and all Pakistanis. India's cup of joy was full now. It may not have struck many Indians that an election was due in America in another 6 months and there were 2 million Indian American voters, who largely vote Democratic party, and Clinton as part of his legacy would certainly have wanted his Vice President Al Gore to win the election and become the next President. This is the best legacy for an outgoing President, and Clinton the politician was at work, much the same as President Obama is now at work, trying to get Hillary Clinton elected to office, as part of his legacy . Again, read the prelude on top.
The long and short of the 1999-2001 period is that India was busy celebrating itself, its Kargil victory, Vajpayee re-election, Clinton visit etc and completely ignored that across the border , a defeated and humiliated country, was licking it's wounds under a military dictator, who was far tougher than Nawaz Shariff. As India celebrated Vajpayee's birthday on Dec 25, 1999, the first signs of trouble were born. Indian Airlines IC 814, on a trip from Kathmandu to Delhi was hijacked by 5 terrorists, and a week long drama ensued. The Vajpayee govt was once again completely taken aback and had no clue how to deal with the situation. The plane was landed at Amritsar , and security forces were ready to freeze it, but no orders came from Delhi. It was taken to Lahore and refuelled, and Musharraf didn't want anything happening on his soil, sent it off, of course after duly refuelling the plane, that's the least you do for your brothers in arms. He certainly didn't try to stop it and India was in no position to call him. Then through Dubai, the plane was taken to Kandahar , and the Taliban regime was in power, again the Indian govt couldn't talk to anyone.
The hijackers made a demand of release of 3 terrorists in Indian jails, and a helpless Indian govt was clueless how to deal with it. Advani was strongly against giving in, he wanted the aircraft to be stormed, and argued that even if there would be some loss of civilian lives, it was worth it in the long run, as India cannot afford to be seen as weak. Jaswant Singh was against this, and so was Vajpayee, in the end, after a week Jaswant Singh personally escorted the 3 terrorists to Kandahar to their freedom, in exchange for the IC 814 passengers. It included Maulana Masoor Azar who would form the Jaish-e-Mohammed within a few months, and later attack the Indian Parliament in Dec 2001. India's capitulation to terror had begun, and barely months after the Kargil victory.
America went to the polls in November 2000, with Republican Texas Governor George Bush fighting sitting Democratic Vice President Al Gore in the race for the White House. It was generally believed to be a close election , but no one realised just how close it would turn out to be. Here in India the public and the political establishment were generally of the view that an Al Gore Presidency would be better for India, in view of Clinton's visit earlier in the year. On election day in America, the results start coming in after around 7pm on polling day, from most states, and usually the networks call the election by 10pm, and it never changes after that. On this occasion too it seemed Al Gore was set to take the election as he was winning Florida, which had 25 electoral college votes, and CNN called the election for All Gore. George Bush called Al Gore and conceded the election. Then a few minutes later as Gore was going to accept the victory, Bush called him back again and said he was retracting the concession as he believed Florida was too close to call and he wanted to await the final results. Shortly, CNN and other networks also retracted their calling the election and said the race was open as Florida weaved back and forth between Gore and Bush. It was well past midnight , went into the next morning and America awoke to find they hadn't elected a President yet as the vote count couldn't be completed, and was disputed by both candidates.
In Dec 2000 after weeks of counting ballot papers, recounting, dozens of lawsuits, and millions of dollars spent in courts, finally the US Supreme court declared George Bush to have won Florida state by 537 votes. Gore and Bush had polled more than 100 million votes between themselves, 50.99 million to Gore, and 49.46 million to Bush. In Florida alone 6 million votes were cast, and in the end a mere 537 votes decided Florida's 25 electoral college votes ( it's winner takes all system in most states) , and the election for Bush, making him the President. I'm detailing all this for a reason, we need to understand that 537 votes can swing an election with a national electoral college count of 538. But more on the US electoral system later.
With George Bush assuming the Presidential office in January 2001, India had to redefine its relationship with the White House. For his first few months , Bush showed no particular interest in India or Pakistan or for that matter their conflict or Kashmir or terrorism. The joke used to be that Bush didn't even know where India and Pakistan were, on the map, and more importantly didn't want to know. In some ways this may have been good for India as India could have dealt with the problem of terrorism from Pakistan with no interference from America. It was always Pakistan who relied upon US involvement to keep India off its back while it continued its terror activities in India.
All those equations changed by the sudden events later that year, to be precise at 8.46 AM on September 11th, a Tuesday morning when Mohammed Atta slammed a hijacked American Airlines 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade center in New York. In a few minutes United Airlines 75 slammed into the South tower of the WTC, and the entire world was tuned into their television sets watching two towers burning, and eventually crashing down in a pile of rubble. A stunned America could hardly comprehend, let alone react to what was happening. The word on everyone's mind and on all TV channels was "Terror" and followed by the name Osama Bin Laden.
The narrative quickly started getting shape by the same evening. The Pentagon, the military HQ of the USA in Washington had been hit too, and the total loss of lives was then expected to be in the thousands. Bush addressed the nation that night, and made 3 significant points. Although it was a terrorist attack technically, he called it as an act of war against America, especially as a Military HQ had been attacked. This is a very important point that India must note. And then the second point Bush made was that it was a " War on terror" that America was launching, a global war on terror. Thirdly, Bush bluntly informed nations around the world that America doesn't make any distinction between terrorists/their organizations and those countries who host or support them. He said "you are either with us or against us". It was all black and white, no grey areas and America expected every nation to make a choice. America seized the moment, did not waste time or mince words, nor did they consult anyone or ask for support, they just informed all countries, make a choice .. if you are not with us on this, we consider you as being with the terrorists.
15 years after that event, and India hasn't still learnt a thing from America on how to deal with your own battles. The US President spoke to the American people, direct on TV, within hours, gave them reassurance that the attack would be avenged, he didn't send an email or give a press notification. All Indian Prime Ministers routinely do just that, issue a press release, depute some minister to speak and generally don't appear on air direct to the people. Also, Democrats and Republicans were not blaming each other, and stood as one together with the American people, something that rarely happens in India. Indian political parties would be at each other's throats within minutes of any terror attack in India.
What was the reason Bush acted like that ? Read the prelude on top again. Americans wanted that, they were angry, and Bush the President was also a politician basically, those Americans were votes and he had to get re-elected anyway in a couple of years, so he acted. In 2 days time, FBI had identified Al Qaeda as the terrorist group and that Osama Bin Laden had masterminded the attacks. In 4 days time an action plan was ready to attack the Al Qaeda in Taliban held Afghanistan, and the same day Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf got a call from Bush who informed him bluntly he needed Pakistan space and air to launch his attacks on Al Qaeda. He did not give Musharraf any choice, and Musharraf knew he didn't have any. If he didn't accede to the American need, Pakistan would have been taken over anyway by America.
What happened between Sep 11 and this call to Musharraf by Bush was to become one of the biggest definers of India's conflict against Pakistan. India rushed to offer it's help to America , by the very next day of the attacks. Vajpayee hoped that if America can make India the base of its war against the Al Qaeda and Taliban, geographically it would mean across Pakistan, and essentially clubbing Pakistan with Al Qaeda in America's war, with India being on America's side. But America had other ideas. It wanted to be based in Pakistan ,on its Western front, right across Taliban territory, it wanted the intelligence inputs on Al Qaeda that Pakistan no doubt had, there were several Pakistanis in Al Qaeda, Pakistan shared several things common with the Taliban, language, religion, culture etc and America wanted to use them all. In short America's " global war on terror" was just a war on those who attacked America, and they cared very little about India or its terror problems caused by Pakistan. America had an ally now, and it was Pakistan, and not India, and America was least concerned about what Pakistan did to India, as long as their own purpose in crushing Al Qaeda was served.
Given the fact Indians have been seeing TV headlines of terrorism every month for as long as we can remember, it may be a surprise to many that from 1984 to 1999 there was not a single incident of terrorism on Indian soil by Pakistan backed militants. Post Kargil, and around the time of Musharraf ascending to the Pakistan leadership in October 1999, it all started. In fact it was the IC 814 hijack and India releasing terrorists that set the tone for what was to follow in the millennium decade. Lashkar e Toiba terrorists attacked the Red fort on Dec 22, 2000, Jammu and Kashmir Assembly was attacked by LeT on October 1, 2001, and then the Indian Parliament was attacked by LeT and JeM terrorists on December 13, 2001. Within one year 3 major attacks had taken place on seats of Indian Government, 2 of them in the heart of Delhi.
The Parliament attack was particularly audacious and significant as Pakistan showed they can strike at the very core of the Indian Democratic system, with all its lawmakers inside, a dictator General from across the border was sending a message, and our Democratically elected PM had no answers. There was a huge force buildup by India on its border, around 500,000 troops, and Pakistan lined up 300,000 troops in what was described as a belligerent position. Many said that this is what is symbolised at the Wagah border, aggressive confrontation. The cynical like me would say, in fact it's the other way around, this force mobilization in fact symbolizes Wagah, it's just a show, a drama, for the TV and the public, nothing ever would happen, and all will go home with a smile, after having yelled Bharat Mata ki Jai all day, or munch Frito Lays potato chips with a can of Pepsi, as they watch the show on TV. The Americans gain something out of everything, at least a few dollars.
And America was now seriously concerned about what was happening on the Indian Pakistan border. It was barely 3 months after 9/11, and the American war on terror was going full swing on the the Pakistan Afghanistan border. George Bush, after having learnt that Pakistan shared its Western border with Afghanistan just 3 months back, was informed that Pakistan had to move it's troops to its Eastern border as a result of Indian reaction to the attack on its Parliament. Bush was very upset and even surprised that Pakistan even had an Eastern border, and India even had a Parliament. As his advisors assured him both were facts, Bush was forced to look at a map " of the region" , 3 months after he looked at the " region" on the map. Bush did what he does best, he picked up the phone and called Musharraf again saying "what the hell is happening, there is a war on terror going on, my war, and your boys haven't shown up for work". When Musharraf explained he only had so much staff, and had to send them for duty on the Indian border, and they would be able to return to work on the " war on terror" only after India withdrew its forces, President Bush started to work on ensuring his war on terror faced no such irritating obstacles like an Indian force buildup.
In January 2002, 3 events happened that proved to be significant. Vajpayee went to the SAARC summit in Kathmandu on January 5th. LK Advani went to Washington to meet with Bush and Condaleesa Rice, Secretary of State, on January 7th. John McCain led a US Senate group to meet with Musharraf in Islamabad to discuss Pakistan's role in the war on terror, as well as make Pakistan address Indian concerns on terrorism from Pakistan. In Kathmandu, Musharraf performed a theatrical act, what is now known as the "Handshake of friendship". After speaking , Musharraf addressed Vajpayee directly saying Pakistan wanted to extend its hand of friendship and peace, and in full view of the SAARC members, strode across to Vajpayee and held out his hand, apparently unscripted, but clearly coached by American counsel. Vajpayee had no choice but to shake his hand, but did manage to say something about Pakistan clamping down on terror camps in its country.
Back in Islamabad, Musharraf met with the McCain Senate group from USA, and they insisted with Musharraf that Pakistan must do more to prevent its soil being used for terror against India. Note that the argument " if you assist terror in any way you are part of the terrorists" that America trotted out to the world was glaringly and predictably absent. The American mechanism was at work, India needed a couple of headlines that Vajpayee could take back to his domestic audience, before he pulled his forces back from the border. And Vajpayee always could never say No to any show of friendship and peace; especially to an enemy, and more so if the world stage was involved , TV cameras were on, and he was allowed to make a statesman speech. Mohandas Gandhi would have been envious of such remarkable stretching of the hand forward, while bending backwards for the cause of world peace. At least it showed the world that Vajpayee did have a spine, albeit a different kind of spine that could bend fully backwards on demand for World peace, especially if the call for it came from Washington.
(I write this part with some direct personal experience, as I was in Washington on those two days of January 8th and 9th, 2002, to meet with Mr LK Advani on his invitation)
While in Chicago, I had been active with the Overseas friends of the BJP, knew a few American Senators and Congressmen and sections of the US media . I was acquainted with Dy PM Advani as well and used to speak to him on the phone on and off about Indian politics as well as India's relationship with America. As most Indians there were concerned about the prevailing situation in India as well as America, Advani was keen to know what the Indian community felt as well as what could be done to shape America's role in all this. As he was visiting Washington on invitation from Attorney general John Ashcroft, to meet with George Bush, he asked me to come to Washington and I went. At the Omni Shoreham hotel where Advani met a group of NRIs, I was having a chat with him, and present alongside were Ambassador Lalit Mansingh and Home Secretary Kamal Pandey. Many NRIs were asking about the troop buildup and the question was " yudh hoga?" ( Would there be war ? ) . Advani replied it has been going on for years, but not declared. Later that evening, when I met him at the Willard intercontinental where he was staying, among other things we spoke about the scheduled meeting he had with George Bush the next day. I did mention to him that the paradox of Pakistan's role in terror on both its borders must be told to the President in a forceful manner, as India did not have any other forceful voice to do so. Next day when Advani met with Condaleesa Rice and George Bush, he said " Mr President, I have not come here to ask you anything, I have come to tell you something. Pakistan cannot be fighting against terror on its Western border while it's the perpetrator of terror on its Eastern border. I am as concerned about India's interest as you are about America's" . George Bush was a bit taken aback apparently, American presidents are used to Indian leadership asking things timidly and do not expect any leader to tell them things. He replied " Mr Advani , I am a tough person, back home they call me Toxic Texan, I have heard about you, but now I see why they call you the Indian ironman" . The Washington Times reported the next day with headlines " Toxic Texan meets Indian Ironman"
Meanwhile, Senator McCain's team was returning from Islamabad and I had been in touch with Daniel Twining , Foreign policy advisor to John McCain. He had been with McCain during the Musharraf meeting, and was updating me on what was happening. We both were trying to see if we could arrange a meeting between Advani and McCain in Washington the next day. Senator McCain was a powerful US senator, head of the Senate foreign relations committee and had run a close presidential primary race against George Bush for the Republican nomination, and had plenty of Americans who listened to him. With the White House taking a pro Pakistan position, and India's concern and its terror situation not getting enough attention in America, I felt that if someone of McCain's stature were to give a voice to this, along with the Indian Dy PM in a press conference, it would highlight to the American public the real nature of Pakistan, especially as McCain was just returning from Islamabad. They had stopped over in Muscat, and Twining called me to say that Sen McCain had agreed. This was a huge difference to India, and Advani was happy, but as a private citizen I could not arrange it. Advani asked me to work it with Ambassador Lalit Mansingh, who pleaded inability to do anything as he needed authorization from the Indian foreign ministry. But the Indian foreign ministry did not want to ruffle any White House feathers, and did not respond with any enthusiasm. Twining called me again from Muscat, saying that they were leaving and was the Dy PM meeting the Senator ? I requested time till the morning, while I worked the phones. Twining said he would call me one last time next morning from Andrews Airforce base , and if I didn't have any answer, the Senator flies on to Phoenix, Arizona.
This was the report in CNN on the McCain Musharraf meeting. We really could have and should have used this opportunity, but it fell through, due to lack of political will. Next morning Daniel Twining called me from Andrews and I gave him the thumbs down and he said " you guys would never get down to it, good luck " , words that keep ringing in my ears all these years, especially when there are attacks by Pakistan on India. India's anti terror and foreign policy was summed up by Daniel Twining in that one sentence.
India withdrew its troops from its border, Pakistan too withdrew its troops and Musharraf's boys went to work for George Bush and his global war on terror on Pakistan's western front, and India was back to square one. From May 2002 to March 2003, there were 7 terrorist attacks in India in a space of 10 months, including the Akshardhan temple in Gujarat, and 3 bombings on Mumbai trains. Now the LeT was acting by itself on major attacks, but outsourcing many smaller attacks to their Indian brothers, like SIMI ( Students Islamic movement of India) and the IM ( Indian Mujahedeen). The war by Pakistan has gone to the next level, not only were they coming across the border and striking deep within India, now they actually had local offices here in India, like multinational companies do when their business has grown quite big and they need local staffing and offices to keep up with expanding business. Apart from banning IM, SIMI , and LeT, there was very little Indian govt could do. The Gujarat riots of 2002 that followed Godhra train incident helped the terrorist organizations to recruit more disillusioned Indians. And India was hit by waves of terrorist attacks. And banning LeT, JeM, SIMI and IM was hardly the solution. What exactly did the Govt expect ? Are these organizations that write to the Home ministry asking " Dear sir, as our licence to practice has been revoked, can you please restore it so that we can carry on our business lawfully ? " It's a joke. In any case, the attacks continued till 2004, when Vajpayee govt's term ended and India went to the polls.
Pervez Musharraf, in accordance with the Pakistan SC ruling, sought a national referendum for extending his Presidency by 5 years. Riding on the events of past 3 years , getting US aid for Pakistan, befriending USA, attacking India dozens of times , but still upstaging Vajpayee and keeping India off Pakistan's back with US help, and keeping the Kashmir issue alive, Musharraf rode to a victory, claiming 97% of the votes cast. Some reports suggest that he got around 110% of the votes cast, an enviable feat, one that can only be matched or surpassed here in our own Tamil Nadu and Bihar, by Jayalalitha and Laloo Prasad Yadav, at least in some things we are unbeatable.
George Bush went for re-election in November, 2004 , thumping his chest about the war on terror, asking for 4 more years to keep America safe, and was already learning there was a place called Iraq, and a man called Saddam Hussain, and was looking up Iraq on the Map, Bush was getting better at map reading. He didn't need vote recounts or lawsuits this time, and won by a comfortable margin as the Americans felt he had done his job for them.
Vajpayee went to the polls in May 2004, claiming India was shining, but Indians didn't quite think so after dozens of terror attacks and a weak Govt doing nothing for 5 years. Vajpayee was voted out and a Congress led UPA formed the Govt at the centre, and many more years of decisive indecisiveness was following, Dr Manmohan Singh being the PM.
International relations are decided by Domestic politics of Political leaders, their actions and inactions. Bush won, Musharraf won, America and Pakistan furthered their own interests, India did not, Vajpayee lost. Kargil victory had won the 1999 elections for Vajpayee, and the next 5 years cost him the elections in 2004, and Vajpayee hasn't been heard of since.
Nothing moves a political leader as much to take a particular action or not take a particular action as the opportunity of furthering his own position and power, or a threat to his position and power, as the case may be.
No comments:
Post a Comment