From: The Times of India, July 4, 1999 p 12 / Contrarian View
THE DOGS OF WAR
by S Venkitaramanan
THERE IS a strange hysteria going around. An attempt is being
made to whip up mass support for extending the shooting war to a
war without limits. People are being lulled into a feeling that
we have nothing to lose by such an enlargement.
Finance minister Yashwant Sinha, who should know better, has said
that the guns that boom in Kargil will not affect the growth of
the economy. He should get himself down from his dizzy heights.
He must realise that war has to be paid for. Why not read Keynes
on, "How to pay for the war?"
Just as there is no free lunch, there is no costless war. Planes
have to keep flying, ammunition has to be bought, and soldiers
fed, clothed and armed. Wars are paid for not only in rupees, but
in dollars, pounds and euros, besides the heavy cost in precious
human lives -- lost because of the sins of guilty men who slept
at their posts while the intruders came.
True, this is no time to find faults. But we should not yield to
the temptation of stilling the voices of dissent. In a fit of
asinine self-righteousness, India had refrained from buying
shells and accessories for the 155 mm guns from Bofors, which was
shunned -- a reaction typical of the sanctimonious humbug, which
Mr V.P.Singh and his party represented. Let us recall how he and
his minions, trying to target late Mr Rajiv Gandhi, had
needlessly grounded the Airbus planes for nearly a year as being
risk-prone. So too, the generals of the Indian Army have been
denied the necessary shells and transport vehicles for the Bofors
guns. The saints had come marching in and almost silenced the guns.
Now, we have had to eat humble pie and deal with the very Bofors,
which we had pilloried. Even the defence ministry now reluctantly
concedes that the much-abused Bofors gun is doing a good job. It
was political immaturity which was responsible for the policy of
starving the army of shells just because we did not like the face
of the supplier. A recent comment in a foreign journal said that
India is expecting its soldiers to make up with brain and brawn
for what they lack in shells and support. While we all share the
world's admiration and applause for the bravery of our men, we
cannot but be ashamed of the cupidity of our top political brass,
which let down our defences. We are now paying through the nose.
Mr Sinha cannot escape the heavy bills that follow.
The finance minister will have no alternative but to rework his
budget sums. It is foolish to think that somehow the army will
find the wherewithal to continue to fight in the inhospitable
hills and glaciers without more funds.
There cannot be both more guns and more growth. At the moment,
unless a miracle happens, Mr Sinha will have to cut down the
budgets of other departments to refurbish defence. He may feel
reluctant to raise taxes just now. But in my view, such
reluctance is misplaced. It is, indeed, essential and advisable
that he imposes a defence surcharge on taxes, a minimum necessary
responsible by North Block to the crisis. Given the dangers we
face, the public will not resent such an impost.
The question is whether Pakistan will be able to escalate the
conflict and how we respond. Will the current clouds of war
gather strength? The answer to this does not lie in false and
facile comparisons of relative strengths. True, Pakistan has less
forex reserves ($1 billion against our $30 billion), lower GDP
and a smaller defence strength. Weakness has never made an
aggressor shy.
In my view, both countries will stand to lose if the war
escalates. Particularly today, when both nations have nuclear
arsenals, it is dangerous to allow tensions to rise further. It
has, therefore, been suggested rightly by voices of sanity such
as Mr C.Subramaniam that at this time we should not hesitate to
welcome international mediation. I believe that this is a
sensible approach. Mr. C.S. should know. He had himself played an
invaluable, but little publicised, role in 1965, interacting with
U.Thant, who helped mediate between India and Pakistan.
It is argued that this is a purely Indo-Pak dispute and should
not be internationalised -- which is what mediation may involve.
Whether we like it or not, internationalisation has already taken
place. We are already in touch with the US President, who has
sent his generals to talk to both countries. If this is not
mediation, what is? In my view, the government of India at its
highest level should not hesitate to proactively seek
international mediation.
After all, around the world, it is peace-makers from outside the
domain of conflict who have been able to successfully bring
warring parties to the table. It was so in the case of Israel
versus the Arab world, so it was as recently as in the Serbia
versus NATO engagement.
There should be no sense of hurt of national ego in agreeing to
mediation. Even an international peace-keeping force led by
countries like Sweden or Norway to monitor the LoC (line of
control) between India and Pakistan should be a possible
compromise. Peace is more valuable than avoiding hurt egos. It
may be too late to retrieve the situation if either national
presses the nuclear button now.
Both India and Pakistan have much to lose by continuing the
conflict. We have millions of poor people -- more than half the
world's poor live here. It is these poor men and women, not the
rich, who will supply cannon-fodder in a continuing
conflagration. Above all, our own hard-won economic, political
and social gains over the last five decades in terms of economic
growth and alleviation of poverty, limited though they may be,
are in danger of being sacrificed at the altar of the merchants
of death.
Let us not throw away the chances of achieving permanent peace,
just because we consider mediation to be an intrusion in our
affairs. There are times in the lives of nations when such an
intrusion may be unavoidable. The present is one such. Let not
false national pride aid the dogs of war. (ENDS)
Return to Return to: India-Pakistan Conflict in Kargil Kashmir