Political Diary

Indo-Pak Frost

ICE THAWS, NO MELT IN DISTRUST

By Poonam I Kaushish

New Delhi, March 02, 2010

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 & Feature Alliance)

E-Mail : newseditor@sarkaritel.com