COVER STORY

'A serious intelligence failure'

Harkishan Singh Surjeet, general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), has been a close observer and participant in Kashmir affairs. Just hours before the Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan were to start their discussions in Ne w Delhi on June 12, he spoke to Sukumar Muralidharan on his perceptions of the Kargil-related crisis. Excerpts:

Are you hopeful that the Kargil matter will be sorted out in the talks at the Foreign Ministers' level?

You see, Sartaj Aziz is coming just when it has been found that the bodies of the soldiers who were killed there were mutilated in a manner that nobody can tolerate. It is shameful. It is against the Geneva Convention and against every protocol dealing w ith the armed forces. So this itself vitiates the atmosphere.

SHANKER CHAKRAVARTY

A second point is that certain Western countries have demanded that we should stop hostilities. In a vague form this is all right, but Pakistan should be told to vacate the area it has occupied. That is first and foremost. But the formulation of the Paki stan Foreign Office was first that the Line of Control (LoC) itself was undemarcated. This is ridiculous, since the Simla Agreement has done that. Now another distinction is being drawn - that the LoC is demarcated on the map, but the terrain is such tha t it poses difficulties on the ground. If that is indeed the problem, it could be settled in a different way.

In fact, the intercepted conversations that have been published show how far they have been preparing for these operations.

But in the current crisis, India seems to have the U.S. and all the other world powers on its side. Is this a major diplomatic gain?

The real problem here is that Pakistan has been trying consistently over the last five decades to internationalise the Kashmir issue. But with the elections of 1996, the people of Kashmir proved that they did not want to revolt against India, that they w anted peace. The latest large-scale penetration into the area is another effort to internationalise the issue. On this point there is a difference between the Pakistani and U.S. objectives. The U.S. aim is to force India to hold a plebiscite - not just a choice between union with India or Pakistan, but with the third alternative of independence. So the U.S. hopes to persuade the people in favour of independence, which means that it would be able to occupy a region of great strategic importance. The same objective was there in Afghanistan also. So we should not be under the impression that the U.S. is on our side in this situation. The spokesman has said, for instance, that there has been a wrong committed by Pakistan, which should be sorted out between us. But there is an indication that the U.S. will intervene if we cannot settle the matter between ourselves.

Has this entire crisis arisen because the Indian political leadership was too optimistic about the process of reconciliation that the Lahore Declaration seemed to herald?

They have been ignorant about history. The unfortunate situation is that the Indian leadership perhaps got some illusions with the visit of Vajpayee to Lahore and got convinced that the Prime Minister of Pakistan is actually keen to sort out problems thr ough negotiations. It was a mistaken idea because the political situation in Pakistan is such that nobody can afford to take a firm position. The people will be prepared to do so but the political parties cannot. Benazir Bhutto also has come out with a n ew proposal, whose aim is the same. She will later interpret it in terms of the old position. She says let the border be open for both Pakistan, India and particularly for Kashmir and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Later on she says that a situation will com e under which the matter can be sorted out. She still cannot admit that the matter has been settled. The political situation is such that nobody from Pakistan can come to a rational and reasonable understanding on the basis of which we can live in peace.

What is your reading of the intelligence failure behind the recent developments?

It has been very serious. You see, these bunkers have been built by us for the purpose of our defence. If they are able to occupy all the bunkers right up to the top, there has been a serious intelligence failure. The places where we have been able to re gain control are at the lower heights. But they still remain in control in the upper reaches.

How is it that so many people penetrated the Line of Control? How did they get the supply lines and weaponry into those positions? We must learn from Afghanistan: the people up there are indoctrinated in such a way that they believe they are fighting for a holy cause. We have been ignorant about all that was happening all this time.

Did the Pokhran nuclear tests have a bearing on this? The expectation was that nuclear capabilities on both sides would deter conflict rather than promote it...

That was clearly wrong. The nuclear tests have created a fear complex. We have opposed the tests from the very beginning. Pakistan at once proved that it too could explode nuclear devices. A second point is that (Home Minister) L.K. Advani made a stateme nt in Jammu saying, we have the bomb so now we can solve the Kashmir problem. That aggravated the situation.

Would you say that the Pokhran tests have undermined India's security by restricting the range of conventional military responses?

Yes, I would say so. There is a fear complex because so many countries today have the ability to make weapons. And because we have also gone on the same path, we cannot carry forward the struggle for peace and disarmament.

In the light of Kargil, do you think the intelligence failures point to the need for a public inquiry and efforts to plug the gaps?

That issue will be taken up later. The immediate question is to restore peace and to vacate the area of infiltrators. To talk about an inquiry at this moment would not be proper because we are engaged in a major conflict. I do not see much hope in the me eting (between the Foreign Ministers) because passions have been aroused and feelings are running high among all Indians about the events in Kargil.

The implications of the transcripts which the government has released seem to be that the Army in Pakistan is doing this and then forcing the civilian government to fall in line.

The present Army chief in Pakistan is Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's hand-picked man. He has tried to intervene everywhere - in the judiciary, with the President, and with the Army. The Army is now the main source of support that Nawaz Sharif has. But per haps the Army can dictate terms because politicians do not have the courage to take a position in favour of peace with India on Kashmir.

Under the Lahore Declaration, both sides are committed to talking about all issues that divide them, including Kashmir. Now what possibly could they talk about on Kashmir, since both sides have irreconcilable positions which have not changed over the decades?

The people have not appreciated its significance. The significance for Pakistan is that the issue is accepted as unsettled. But there will be no meeting ground. What Benazir Bhutto has said sounds nice. But in the present situation, with all the animosit y and propaganda all around, nothing will work.