[Excrepts] Analysis of India' Current Position by New York Times, LA Ti

------------------
In an editorial the New York Times observed that "India has wrongly 
rejected the idea of outside intervention by the United States or other 
countries. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has also erred by increasing 
military pressure to a level where it may be difficult for India to back 
out of starting a war. If such thinking is allowed to settle in New Delhi, 
the consequences will be catastrophic". 
-------------------

NEW YORK, May 23: As the Indian and Pakistani troops stand eye to eye ball 
at the borders, intense diplomatic activity has begun to persuade both 
countries to pull back before the situation becomes untenable. 

In particular diplomats and world leaders have appealed to the Indian Prime 
Minister A.B. Vajpayee to accept US intervention in order to avert a 
nuclear showdown with Pakistan. 

To underscore the gravity of the crisis many world leaders and experts have 
asked Washington to get involved more deeply and more quickly and send the 
Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, to the region now instead of 
waiting till first week of June. 

As the Indian prime minister raised the spectre of war by telling his 
troops to get ready for a "decisive battle" UN Secretary General Kofi 
Annan, called the President Pervez Musharraf on Wednesday and the Indian 
external affairs minister Jaswant Singh on Thursday urging restraint by 
asking both countries to open talks. 

Meanwhile, the American newspapers called upon the Bush administration to 
intensify its diplomatic efforts to avert a nuclear catastrophe in the 
making. 

In an editorial the New York Times observed that "India has wrongly 
rejected the idea of outside intervention by the United States or other 
countries. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has also erred by increasing 
military pressure to a level where it may be difficult for India to back 
out of starting a war. If such thinking is allowed to settle in New Delhi, 
the consequences will be catastrophic". 

Saying that for its part: "India was quick to mobilize for a full-scale war 
against Pakistan last winter, even though there was never any evidence of a 
threat of a Pakistani invasion" the Times said: "that the Bush 
administration has been slow to press the two sides for the kinds of 
tension reducing steps taken by the United States and the Soviet Union 
during the cold war." 

The Wall Street Journal in its editorial "Kashmir's Drums of War" while 
noting that "weak leadership in India and Pakistan raises nuclear war 
fears', said "when weak leaders of nuclear powers cannot muster the 
statesmanship to alter a collision course, the United States has no choice 
but to mediate." 

Alluding to a possibility of a nuclear war the Los Angeles Times in its 
editorial said: "The truth is, no one knows the point where the nuclear 
genie would come out of the bottle. But we do know that the time to 
dispatch a high-ranking US diplomat like Deputy Secretary of State Richard 
Armitage to India and Pakistan is now, not in early June as is planned." 

The LA Times observed "India's hawks are trying to determine how badly they 
can hurt longtime foe Pakistan without provoking a nuclear response. Would 
sending a few thousand troops into the part of Kashmir controlled by 
Pakistan, destroying training camps, be below the flashpoint? What about 
invading a city in Pakistan itself? How about a quick attack and 
withdrawal?" 

The paper said: "India's prime minister added to the urgency on Wednesday 
when he told soldiers in Kashmir they had to be "ready for sacrifice" and 
proclaimed it was "time to fight a decisive battle." India and Pakistan 
have a million troops along their border. Last week, India expelled the 
Pakistani ambassador and shifted its paramilitary forces from civilian to 
military control, ominous signs. Britain's foreign secretary, Jack Straw, 
is due to visit India and Pakistan next week, but an envoy from the former 
colonial master of South Asia doesn't carry the clout of a US emissary. As 
in the Middle East, waiting will surely present Washington with a worse 
situation later." 

India may understand the folly of trying to guess where the nuclear line is 
drawn. But British Foreign Secretary Straw aptly characterized the tensions 
as "a crisis the world cannot ignore." 

The prevailing expectation is that the Indians will soon strike a punitive 
blow, perhaps against the militants' training camps in Azad Kashmir. The 
overarching fear is that such a provocative act might lead to swift 
escalation, unleashing the kind of nuclear combat that has long been 
mankind's worst nightmare. 

In an analysis the NY Times said: "India for now seems willing to listen to 
the envoys, but officials made clear that India's clock is ticking. The 
alarm is specially set to awaken the United States." 

"The threat of a war that would jeopardize the American hunt for Osama bin 
Laden is India's leverage to get Washington to pay attention to what is 
sees as Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism against India," the paper said. 

"The Americans are asking us for some time to let them sort things out, and 
India is not going to do anything hastily," a senior Indian official told 
the Times. "At the same time, it is not going to be an indefinite wait." 

Specifically, the Indians are disappointed with American coziness with 
Pakistan, a nation they accuse of fighting a proxy war against India with 
guerillas instead of uniformed soldiers. 

The Times says: "the Indians want the United States to use the full weight 
of its power to get Pakistan to abandon its support for the anti-Indian 
attacks in Kashmir, just as it successfully pressed Pakistan after Sept 11 
to jettison its support for the Taliban. 

Many Indians are impatient, arguing that it is time to attack inside 
Pakistan. "Our credibility is already at the zero level, and I don't think 
anyone will ever take us seriously again if we don't quit yapping and take 
some action," Satish Nambiar, a retired lieutenant general told paper. "But 
others wonder why India has wedged itself into such a corner, risking 
either terrifying hostilities or a humbling loss of face," the paper said. 

----------
Posted from DAWN INTERNET EDITION (dawn.com) for 24 May 2002