Political Diary
New Delhi, 26 February 2010
Indo-Pak Frost
ICE THAWS, NO MELT IN DISTRUST
By Poonam I Kaushish
The Indo-Pak ice was finally broken
after a 14-month long hiatus post 26/11. But sadly it did not end up melting
the over six decades of distrust between the warring neighbours. It is a moot
point when the deep chill will thaw!
If one expected that the first
standalone engagement with Islamabad
would pick up the threads of a frayed relationship and help ``reduce the trust
deficit’’ it was not to be. At least underscore the importance of Islamabad adhering to its
commitment to prevent its territory from being used by anti-India elements one
was totally off the mark. Instead, the Foreign Secretary level talks not only
ended as just talks. Worse, in acrimonious tu-tu-mein-mein
on ‘point scoring’ with both sides sticking to their guns.
Pakistan Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir
made plain that Kashmir was the main focus. ““Kashmir was discussed extensively... It is unrealistic to
link 26/11 to talks...” Adding salt to New
Delhi’s injury, he averred, “We are not desperate for
dialogue. India
doesn’t need to lecture us on what needs to be done. Or demand that Pakistan should
do this or that… India
has had one 26/11, we have had a 1000 Mumbais.” Reacting to India’s demand
to arrest Hafiz Saeed, he added. “Docket on Hafiz Saeed is a piece of
literature not dossier”. (Sic)
True, though New
Delhi went with an “open mind” to “clear the air and seek to take a
first step even if it is small towards opening the possibility for future
dialogue,” it ended accusing Islamabad
of “getting a briefing from the men in khaki,
read military. Asserted Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, "We told Pakistan
that trust and confidence should be restored.” Towards that end, Islamabad needed to curb
all terrorists operating from its territory. We handed over three dossiers containing
names of 34 terrorists wanted in India, including LeT chief Hafiz
Saeed.”
Predictably, the failed talks have
evoked strong opinion for and against any further dialogue. While the proponents
for dialogue led by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh subscribe to Winston
Churchill diktat jaw-jaw is better
than war-war. Given that a country can never afford to take a position where it
refuses to talk to a nation. By snubbing Islamabad,
New Delhi was diminishing its influence over Pakistan’s
ongoing cross-border terrorism. Also, talking was significant not for
its goals but for the process itself.
Aversely, by not talking New Delhi would only
strengthen and embolden the jehadis to
continue fomenting trouble. Also, given the fast changing developments within Pakistan, the increasing strife, trouble in
SWAT, rise of Taliban and its impact on India, there was no option. As one
could not put it past Pakistan
to use its role in Afghanistan
to press the US to mediate
on Kashmir. Already Washington, which brokered the “structured”
talks has welcomed that the ball has been set rolling.
Asserted a senior foreign official.
“The best thing that has come out of the talks is that there will be the start
of more dialogues, both at the official and political levels. The idea, is to
draw Pakistan into a
dialogue and establish an effective channel of communication so that Islamabad can assist India-- to get it to cooperate and
work together on terrorism rather than reading out the riot act”. Really? Or is
this simply wishful thinking?
On the flip side, as Leader of
Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj in a chat with me asserted, “I told
the Prime Minister three months ago and Nirupama Rao last week that by resuming
talks the Government was ‘undercutting' its 26/11 stance that it would only
restart the dialogue with Islamabad after it came down on terror groups based
on its soil. Not only was the BJP, but also public opinion against it.” Added an
expert, "Yes, you have to talk to a neighbour, but the question is: On
what? And how? Believe me, the dialogue process is going to have a very thin
membrane of political backing in India." Their fears seem to be coming true.
Needless to say the Government has
to come clean on why talks were held at all. Given that the dialogue was
downgraded to a point of ‘unlikely to produce any meaningful results’ even
before they started. The cat was let out by Home Minister Chidambaram. “I am
neither optimistic nor convinced about Islamabad’s
willingness to act against terrorism”.
Or was it to appease the US? Wherein New Delhi could claim that the talks were confined to a
discussion on the action taken by Islamabad
against terrorism. And Pakistan
could assert that its stand on composite dialogue stood vindicated by raising
Kashmir and India’s
non-adherence on sharing of river waters
Be that as it may, New
Delhi must come to terms with the fact that the jihadis are opposed to any
reconciliation between India
and Pakistan.
The Pune terror attack was only to be expected once the Government announced
its decision to resume official-level talks with Pakistan. Alongside, there are elements
within the Pakistan Establishment, read Army and ISI who are equally opposed to
normalisation of bilateral relationship based on a practical and pragmatic
resolution of longstanding disputes. Witness the ease with which Hafiz Saeed
was allowed to spew venom against India
at a recent public rally in Lahore.
Indeed, it is not in the realm of
impossibility that the very critics in Pakistan of India's unwillingness to
resume the official-level dialogue may be behind the terror attacks given their
agenda to keep New Delhi permanently off
balance, damning India
for not talking and damning it if it tries to.
Besides, the relationship continues
to run the risk of coming asunder again if another Mumbai-scale terror attack
is launched from Pakistan.
It will not be business as usual, say sources. The Indian agenda is chock-full
of terror concerns, as elucidated by Home Minister Chidambaram. More. New Delhi must beware
that it does not dove-tail its Pak policy to US’s Af-Pak strategy. Now that Washington has reconciled to Islamabad-backed Afghan
Taliban and made plain its dependence on the ISI and Army.For when US departs Afghanistan, we would be saddled with ‘Pakistan on
steroids’ and a Taliban Afganistan.
What next? True, South Block has no
illusions about any dramatic transformation in Islamabad’s policy. However, it needs an
all-encompassing and multi-pronged strategy to deal with it. The Government and
its security agencies need to remain ever vigilant, be one step ahead of the jihadis and act promptly vis-a-vis terror attacks and
cross-border terrorism. It needs to get a no-nonsense message across to Islamabad that ignoring New Delhi’s concerns would be by at its own
peril. At the same time, Islamabad needs to
understand that New Delhi
patience should not be mistaken for weakness. Given that it has paid the price
for misreading India
thrice over vis-a-vis the Indo-Pak wars.
The bottom line? India needs to
be reassured on its terror concerns for the relationship to move to the next
level. Islamabad must unravel the full
conspiracy behind the Mumbai attack, deny sanctuary to all terrorist groups
that operate from its soil, put the trial of Lakhvi and 6 others on a fast
track and handover Hafiz Saeed to India. As also rein JuD leader
Hafiz Makki who ahead of the Pune attack had stated that three Indian cities
would be targeted by “jihadis to
teach India
a lesson”. The taste of the pudding is in the eating.
Simultaneously the Governments need to
shape domestic public opinion in a direction that would offer it some domestic leeway
for diplomatic manoeuvre. Further, if South Block feels that it is better for India and Pakistan to hold dialogue then it
should be continuous rather than in fits and starts.
It needs to be remembered that
without fundamental democratic reform, there can be no permanent solution to
patronage of terror by one or more of Pakistan’s multiple power-centres. Islamabad needs to do a
lot more than just generating artificial illusions. Or else, the chill will
only end up as frozen! ---- INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|