Editorial from "The Pioneer" appeared on July 06, 1999

By raising the white flag of surrender in Washington, Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif may have raised more problems for India than he has resolved. Despite never losing militarily to Pakistan over the last 52 years, India has, however, been repeatedly shortchanged on the negotiating table. After winning the wars, India has almost always lost the peace on account of Pakistani chicanery. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee would do well to keep this uppermost in his mind as he steers Indian diplomacy through highly treacherous international waters in the aftermath of Mr Nawaz Sharif’s capitulation. Mr Bill Clinton knows that the current military confrontation in Kargil can end only in one way—with the rout of the Pakistani Army and its fellow-travelling, bloodthirsty Afghan mercenaries. To that extent, nobody has done India any favour by pressuring Pakistan to formally reaffirm the sanctity of the Line of Control in Kashmir and, by implication, pledging to withdraw its forces from the Indian side of the line.

Especially after the dramatic fall of Tiger Hill to Indian forces on Sunday, the battle in the snowy heights has taken a decisive turn in our favour. It is now no longer a question of whether, but when, the remaining Pakistani intruders are pushed back to their side of the LoC. Given this military reality, there is no reason for India to turn magnanimous towards a routed enemy and enthusiastically respond to the Clinton-Sharif appeal for the restoration of the Shimla and Lahore processes. The fact is that India violated neither the Shimla Agreement nor the Lahore Declaration. It was Pakistan which made a mockery of both. It must, therefore, pay a price.

Every nationalistic Indian would welcome the sight of Pakistani and Afghan infiltrators scurrying back across the LoC, tail firmly implanted between their legs. That would, psychologically at least, partly compensate for the enormous human sacrifices made by heroic Indian soldiers to regain an occupied chunk of the motherland. The Ajay Ahujas and Haneefuddins will not be restored to life, but their spirits shall be somewhat avenged by Pakistan’s withdrawal in disarray. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that the impending Pakistani retreat does not become an organised and orderly affair that ensures a safe passage back to the malevolent marauders. In other words, there can be no ceasefire agreement till the last intruder has vacated Indian territory, alive or dead, preferably the latter. The Indian Army must continue to pursue the rag-tag bands that are still ensconced in some critical heights. They must be taught a lesson so severe that neither they nor their succeeding generations ever contemplates such a misadventure. Only after having ensured their ignominious retreat and installed the Indian tricolour on every square-centimetre of the LoC, can the Government consider resuming dialogue. In any case, it is not a dialogue, but a monologue by Pakistan that India wants to hear. The Pakistani Establishment must solemnly declare in a chastened and remorseful tone that hereafter it will never again plot to wrest Jammu & Kashmir from India. That must be the sum and substance of any “dialogue” that India agrees to hold with Pakistan.

President Clinton’s spokespersons have indicated that the holder of the world’s most powerful office will be personally involved in trying to restore peace in this region. It is Mr Vajpayee’s responsibility to convey to the US President that the only concrete way peace can be ensured is through the taming of South Asia’s sole rogue state. India shall gratefully acknowledge every effort made by the international community towards that end. Otherwise, the rest of the world can have no locus standi in our bilateral dispute