Feb. 5, 2002
Between India and Pakistan
A Conversation With Ambassador Karl F. Inderfurth
From the Airwaves is a transcript of “The GW
Washington Forum,” the weekly public affairs radio program produced
by GW, hosted by Richard Sheehe, and broadcast on WWRC-AM 1260 in Washington
at 10 am on Sundays. This conversation with Ambassador Karl F. Inderfurth
comes from a recent program. Ambassador Inderfurth served as assistant
secretary of state for South Asian affairs from 1997–2001. He is
a professor of the practice of international affairs in the Elliott
School of International Affairs.
Richard Sheehe: Start
by talking about the history of India and Pakistan. I remember seeing
the movie, “Gandhi,” and much of that movie was about India’s
independence. It almost seemed like they threw in a footnote at the
end about Pakistan going its separate way. I’ve always wondered
how India and Pakistan ended up as two very bitter enemies.
Karl Inderfurth: There
is a lot of history. It goes back, in the immediate sense, to 1947,
when these two countries became independent. The British Empire was
no more in South Asia. They achieved their independence. Pakistan became
a Muslim nation. India wanted to keep the two countries together, but
it was proven to be impossible, even for Gandhi to accomplish that.
India is a secular nation — predominantly Hindu — but also
the second largest Muslim population in the world resides in India.
They have had a 50-year-plus history of very difficult relations. They
have fought three wars, two of them over the disputed territory of Kashmir.
This was one of the former princely states and in that effort at the
time of independence and partition, India had a number of so-called
princely states, which were semi-autonomous. This state was never completely
figured out in August 1947 when the two countries achieved their independence
and it has remained a bone of contention. What we see today is the latest
crisis between the two countries — threatening war — and it
all relates to Kashmir.
RS: What was Pakistan
before 1947? Was that a colony, as well?
KI: Pakistan was not
in existence. Pakistan was India. Pakistan became a sovereign state
in 1947 and it was created as part of the partition of India.
RS: What’s so important
about Kashmir?
KI: Kashmir is a land
that is renowned for its beauty, but also for its tragedy. There has
been an ongoing conflict there going back to the very early days of
independence, 1948, which was the first instance of conflict. It was
a princely state that had a majority Muslim population. It is adjacent
to Pakistan, but it had a Hindu leader. Very early on, there was the
first war between the two countries. India felt it was important to
retain Kashmir. Again, India sees itself as a secular nation. Pakistan
felt that because this princely state had a majority Muslim population,
it should be part of Pakistan. That dispute has never been resolved.
RS: It’s been a
bone of contention from the very beginning.
KI: From the very beginning
and it has, by the early days and United Nations action, basically been
divided between what is considered to be Indian-held and Pakistani-held
Kashmir. India states that it has legal authority over the entire area
of Kashmir. Pakistan says that its portion of Kashmir should be recognized
and that the Kashmiri people should have the right of self-determination
as early UN resolutions proclaimed. India does agree with that and,
again, the conflict continues. Somebody has said the tragedy of Kashmir
is that Pakistan cannot win. India cannot lose. And the Kashmiris cannot
survive. There has been a more than a 10-year insurgency from 1989 in
Kashmir. Initially indigenous, Kashmiri’s are very unhappy with
Indian rule. An insurgency began that many believe was fueled by Pakistani
support. It has led to tens of thousands of people having died. Now,
because of what we’ve seen in Afghanistan, we’ve seen this
become yet another arena for jihad — militant Islamists coming
into Kashmir to fight against the Indians and perform, in many cases,
acts of terrorism, which brings us to the present time.
RS: One of the hallmarks
of the present time is that it matters a lot what you call an act of
violence. If you call it terrorism, because of the new climate since
Sept. 11, the United States has used that as the reason to go into Afghanistan.
India is trying to talk about this, as much as possible about the attack
on parliament, and is very careful to keep using the word terrorist.
Pakistan is very careful to try to limit those definitions and use freedom
fighters because it seems terrorism is the new first shot fired in wars
these days.
KI: You’ve summed
that up very well. There is a definitional problem here. There’s
no question about that. However, since Sept. 11 and because of the focus
on terrorism, there have been two actions that have been taken. One
in Kashmir on Oct. 1 — an attack and bombing of the Kashmiri assembly
in which 38 people were killed. Clearly, an act of terrorism. Nobody
can call that an element of freedom struggle. On Dec. 13, there was
a terrorist attack on the Indian parliament in New Delhi, in which 14
people died, but it could have been much worse. There’s no question
this was a bungled terrorist action. Had they not had the mishaps and
had members of the Indian government been there at the time, not adjourned
early, this could have been a major catastrophe. As it was, it was an
assault on India’s democracy. They see this assault being quite
in the same league as Sept. 11 in this country. It’s important
to note that there are, in Kashmir, legitimate grievances. The Kashmiri
people have suffered the brunt of misrule by India and of the continuing
efforts by extremists to provoke yet another war. Somehow, all of this
has to be sorted out. If it isn’t, India and Pakistan will not
be able to live together as neighbors in peace, as I believe their founders
wish them to do.
RS: Why do you think
this attack took place at the time it did? What were the extremists
thinking?
KI: My feeling is that
this attack of Dec. 13 was aimed as much at destabilizing the regime
of President Musharraf of Pakistan as it was on attacking democracy
in India. President Musharraf made a bold decision after the Sept. 11
attack, which was to join the United States in the war against terrorism.
He changed the Pakistani policy of support for the Taliban. He took
on militant Islamic groups within Pakistan that have supported the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden for a very long time. Some of those groups are the
same ones operating in Kashmir. (Two of the groups) are militant groups
that the US recently designated as foreign terrorist organizations.
I support that very much. These two groups are seen by the Indians as
responsible for the attack on the Kashmiri assembly, as well as the
Indian parliament. In my view, these attacks were aimed at destabilizing
President Musharraf because they see him as a traitor. He has sided
with the United States against this war on terrorism. It’s a very
dangerous situation for all concerned.
RS: A lot of the India
and Pakistan dynamic is focused squarely on President Musharraf and
the internal struggle that he and those loyal to him are having against
the militants who they used to be a lot more cozy with. How strong are
the militant elements in Pakistan?
KI: They certainly have
a significant impact inside Pakistan. The foreign minister of Pakistan
said, and this is a quote, “There is no question that we do have
a problem with extremism and we cannot deny we have a monster in our
midst that has arisen in the past decades.” That monster is Islamic
extremism. It manifests itself in terms of Afghanistan and its support
for the Taliban. It also sees itself in the actions being taken in Kashmir
and India. President Musharraf recognizes that increasingly, this is
a risk to him and his plans and dreams for seeing Pakistan as a moderate
Islamic state. They will have to address it. India’s demanding
that Pakistan take a variety of steps to demonstrate that it’s
sincere in rooting out terrorism. President Musharraf has taken certain
steps. He has banned certain organizations. He has jailed certain leaders,
including those of the two groups I mentioned earlier.
RS: Wasn’t Musharraf
giving speeches as early as last June about the threat of militants.
Doesn’t he have somewhat of a track record even before Sept. 11
of bringing this up as an issue?
KI: He does have a track
record of bringing this up. Indeed, he has also stated that Pakistan
rejects terrorism in all of its forms and manifestations. But what India
is looking for, and I understand this, is action. Words and expressions
of concern are no longer enough. He is now taking steps. For that, he
should be encouraged and supported, which the Bush administration is
doing.
Send feedback to: bygeorge@gwu.edu
