KASHMIR IS NOT VIETNAM- comparison
is absurd
by Dr. Subhash Kapila
General Background
Pakistan to breakout of its frustrating bind on
Kashmir spares no recourse or instrument to sensationalize the Kashmir
issue. The latest canard being propagated is that India like the United
States in Vietnam is getting bogged down in Kashmir militarily with more
than 500,000 troops sucked in and a state of fatigue might set in. A
similar view was earlier expressed by one of the retired chiefs of
Pakistan Army.
Pakistan has been clever in devising this
stratagem as Vietnam War memories evoke strong reactions and unpleasant
memories amongst United States policy planners who then use the argument
of a ‘hopeless’ war very persuasively with Indian policy planners,
track II diplomats and academia. The Indian media without much analysis
keeps highlighting the "unholy figure of 500,00 troops " in
Vietnam, as if that were the sole cause of America’s debacle in
Vietnam.
Pakistan has been far too clever in alleging
widespread human rights violation in Kashmir. Michael Mandelbaum the
noted American author and policy analyst in a talk in New Delhi in the
early 1990s noted that with the end of the Cold War, the United States
would adopt ‘human rights’ as an ‘ideological weapon’ in the
absence of Communism, as nothing excites the average American mind than
human rights violations. Here too, while foreigners were expected to lap
up Pak propaganda, the drawing room liberalists of New Delhi of all hues
vociferously try to outdo the Westerners. They conveniently forget that
human rights apply to those who live within the ambit of the laws of the
land and not for mercenary terrorists or outlaws.
Drawing comparison on what is happening in
Kashmir today and the Vietnam war is not only illogical but also betray
a poor sense of political and strategic analysis on the part of those
accepting such comparisons. It would therefore be in order to highlight
such absurd comparisons.
The absurdity of comparing Kashmir with
Vietnam War
The Vietnam War was an offshoot of the
extension of the Cold War in Asia-Pacific which first manifested in
Korea. It was a component of the global superpower rivalry resting both
on ideological confrontation and strategic considerations. Kashmir issue
on the other hand is very much a local south Asian problem festered
unceasingly by Pakistan and fuelled by its domestic political
compulsions. As opposed to ideological causes, Pakistan claims Kashmir
on the basis of the ‘two nation theory’ (separate homeland for
Indian Muslims) which stood negated in 1947 and 1971 when East Pakistan
fought its way out to become Bangladesh.
The Vietnam War emerged as a result of military
intervention by the United States to shore up its regimes in the South.
It began with limited intervention and then ballooned on to 550,000 at
the time of the US withdrawal. India did not go in for military
intervention in the state of Jammu Kashmir. The state acceded to India
as per the Instrument of Accession accepted by India’s Governor
General who happened to be a member of the British royalty, Lord
Mountbatten. Indian forces moved in to repel the Pakistani invaders who
had militarily occupied the state right upto its capital Srinagar.
Pakistan still occupies one third of the state.
Unlike the Vietnam Wars where there was a mass
upsurge against American military intervention, such a situation does
not exist in Kashmir. The insurgency did not acquire a mass character of
even that of Bangladesh variety. The insurrection in Jammu and Kashmir
State has remained confined to the Kashmir Valley Muslims. The Gujjar
Muslims and Shia Muslims of Poonch and Kargil have not been part of this
insurgency. Today the military conflict in Kashmir is nothing but a
proxy war launched by Pakistan through Islamic fundamentalist
mercenaries from the radical states of the Islamic world and Pakistani
madrassas. To call the disaffection of a section of the valley Muslims
as a mass upsurge of the Vietnam variety is absurd.
Coming to the much touted comparison of numbers
of troops deployed in Vietnam and Kashmir, the argument becomes totally
illogical in terms of comparative analysis. In Vietnam, the Americans
started with a token intervention of about a division worth of troops,
as the stakes became higher, collaterally linked with the global
strategic situation Vietnam ultimately sucked in nearly 500,000 troops,
to no avail.
The Indian military deployment in Kashmir even
before the valley disaffection started in 1989 is over two corps sized
formations and independent brigades. These stood deployed for the
defence of India’s territorial integrity as a result of Pakistani
invasions in 1947, 1965 and 1971 and the Chinese invasion in 1962.
Today, in terms of military deployments in Jammu and Kashmir, a third
army corps has come into existence after Pakistani military incursions
in Kargil in 1999. Addition in armed police forces is a natural
corollary when a neighbouring hostile state launches a proxy war and
whips up a law and order situation. Surely, the valley is no Vietnam.
The Vietnam war was an all-out war where
ground, naval and air forces were applied on a full war scale. In the
case of the Unites States it was an over application of force without
results. In Kashmir, the Indian military responses have been limited
both in terms of application of force, extent of force and the
geographical spread. India has exhibited remarkable restraint even in
the limited war in Kargil in 1999. The same was not the case in Vietnam.
India’s military resilience in Jammu and Kashmir was demonstrated in
1999 when the Indian armed forces successfully tackled both the proxy
war of Pakistan in the valley and Pakistan’s invasion of Kargil,
simultaneously.
Concluding Observations
Pakistan has attempted to impose a Vietnam type
situation on India in terms of its strategic objectives, namely, to
bleed India through a proxy war, terrorist acts aimed at innocent
civilians and widespread sabotage. It went a step further in terms of
inciting an ethnic genocide against the valley Hindus. But Kashmir is
not Vietnam, very much that Pakistan wished it so. Kashmir is not
Vietnam war for three simple reasons
* In Kashmir, India did not resort to
military intervention. Indian military deployments in Kashmir are
designed for triple military threats of Pakistan, China and Islamic
fundamentalism.
* Insurrection in Kashmir is confined to some
section of the valley Muslims. It does not incorporate widespread
support amongst other J&K Muslims besides the total opposition
from the populace of the Jammu and Ladakh region. It is therefore not
a mass movement.
* In Kashmir, India is not fighting somebody
else’s war. India is fighting very much to defend India’s borders
and the military challenges to its sovereignty in the form of Pakistan’s
proxy war and Pak-sponsored Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. It is
highlighted by India’s military resilience in 1999.
The United States failed in the Vietnam war
because the American public did not support the US government’s
military interventions and fighting other people’s war at the cost of
US lives. On Kashmir, the Indian public support for successive
governments of various political hues has been unequivocal i.e.
Pakistani aggression has to be met squarely and defeated. The views of
liberal fraternity of New Delhi’s drawing rooms do not reflect the
Indian public opinion.
15.11.2000
