Political Diary

New Delhi, 17 July 2010

Indo-Pak Dialogue

HITS NEW POLITICAL LOW

By Poonam I Kaushish

Ever wonder why a big deal is made of the sour, stale and bitter Indo-Pak ties.  Why there is an over-drive? Frenzy? All in the hopelessly futile hope-against-hope that a rainbow will spring out of the thunderous, dark clouds billowing across the warring neighbours. But like a million times in the past, this time round too the result was worse than zilch. In fact, it touched a new ‘acrimonious’ political low. Of goof and proof!

Call it a tragic farce, a comedy of errors or an interface turned pungent but alas, it ran the predictable course. It did not produce any concrete results or a roadmap for the future. Not unless one counts Krishna's invitation to Qureshi to come play tennis in December!

The footnotes of history will record how Islamabad commando-style hijacked the much-hyped guftagu between the two Foreign Ministers, India’s SM Krishna and Pakistan’s Shah Mahmood Qureshi last week leaving New Delhi badly mangled. Notwithstanding, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao’s reiteration that the talks had not collapsed. “There are differences in perception, but the gap is not unbridgeable and must go on,” she added.

Shockingly, foregoing diplomatic niceties, even as Krishna was still in Islamabad, Qureshi let loose a savage volley of accusations against India at a media meet. Asserted he, “Indian Foreign Minister received foreign policy directions from New Delhi repeatedly during our meeting…..India was selective, they had no flexibility…. Not fully prepared and reversed gears at the last minute… they wanted to focus on only terror… we want a fixed time-frame for solving all eight issues of the composite dialogue including the ‘core’ issue of Kashmir. It is a disputed territory. It is not possible to delink it from negotiations.”

Leaving a blustering and bumbling New Delhi scrambling for cover. With Krishna outrightly denying taking calls, said he, “I don’t need instructions from Delhi.” He also made plain that without progress on terrorism all else was “futile as timelines are neither feasible nor possible.”

Clearly, New Delhi has only itself to blame for the mess it has landed in. One fails to comprehend the Foreign Office’s “real surprise” over Islamabad’s rancour given our neighbours track record over the last six decades. Wherein Pakistan has consistently upped the ante at various international summits leaving India mauled, battered and bruised. Remember Agra? How the then Pak President Musharaf ambushed the peace talks and left New Delhi with egg on its face. Times out of number India only reacts while Pakistan walks away with the psychological advantage.

Actually, Saturday last’s belligerent tu-tu-mein-mein and finger-pointing started a day earlier at the joint press conference by the two Foreign Ministers. The body language of both leaders made it plain: the marathon seven-hour talks were disastrous and awful. Ending in a deadlock.

It was replete with tit-for-tat responses on a range of issues ---- exposing the opposing views on action against perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks, deep fissures over Kashmir, infiltration across the Line of Control, increase in jihadi violence, alleged rights violations in the Valley and disagreement over Balochistan. Both agreed to disagree.

New Delhi was adamant about a categoric assurance from Islamabad on taking action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks. In light of the Lashkar-e-Toiba operative David Coleman Headley’s latest revelations that Islamabad’s ISI was involved. Islamabad, on the other hand, didn’t go beyond promising to investigate the matter. By asserting, “The courts have their own procedures to follow.” Sic.

But it was on the issue of “hate speeches” by the Jamaat-ud-Dawa Chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed, that Qureshi got acerbic. Krishna took Qureshi to task for allowing Saeed not only to roam free but also give a clarion call for waging a “Holy war against India to bring it down to its knees,” in Muzaffarabad, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Also present at the rally organised by the United Jihad Council, a coalition of 12 anti-India terrorist groups, was PoK Prime Minister Raja Farooq Haider Khan.

Though the Pak Minister prefaced his allegations by stating that both sides needed to refrain from negative speeches, he got vitriolic and asserted, “When you point to Saeed’s speech let me tell draw your attention to the Indian Home Secretary’s statement which was uncalled for.” A reference to G K Pillai’s assertions in which he blamed the ISI for “controlling and coordinating” the 26/11 terror attacks “from the beginning till the end.”

Most galling was Krishna silence when Qureshi alleged that “both of us thought it was unwarranted.” Making matters worse, as a clear after thought the Foreign Minister in a knee-jerk reaction averred, “there is no comparison,”  between Saeed and Pillai.

True, Krishna should have stoutly defended Pillai. It is also correct that the Home Secretary’s allegations could have been better-timed, not on the eve of the much-hyped Indo-Pak dialogue. Either which way, it has exposed the divergence of opinion and incoherence in strategizing within the highest echelons of Government, read Foreign and Home Ministries. Thus, letting Pakistan have its way and say.

As matters stand, there is nothing concrete to suggest that Islamabad is ready to address New Delhi’s ‘core’ concerns on terrorism. Nor is there any indication that Pakistan has changed its antagonistic approach to India. On the contrary, it has not only restarted the jihad factory across the border, but the Pakistan Army Chief, like his predecessors, has innumerable times declared that he considers India, and not Taliban, to be the enemy and existential threat to Pakistan. The recent violence in Kashmir bears this out.  

Arguably, was the Krishna-Qureshi dialogue a part of a well-thought out strategy? Or driven by Prime Minister’s “vision” of smoking the peace pipe with Islamabad? Are the talks due to international pressure, read US, to ensure that ally Pakistan is not side-tracked from Washington’s war against terror? Sadly, answers to these questions don’t hold out much hope for optimism or breakthrough in Indo-Pak ties.

Think. Peace with Pakistan has been given a shot by every single Prime Minister But all attempts have failed. Primarily, not because they lacked conviction but because the Indo-Pak issue is far too complex. Most Indians are indifferent about peace (there is no groundswell within India in favour of peace). Ask anyone and they will tell you yes, peace is desirable with Pakistan but at what cost? The sad reality is that while Indians and Pakistanis can be friends, India and Pakistan can never be friends

Yet, New Delhi is putting a brave face, keeping its fingers crossed and continues to paint a hopeful future. Raisina Hill views this as a first cautious step towards bringing the acerbic Indo-Pak dialogue back on track, albeit, on its own terms. As also, the way forward rests on Islamabad’s ability to take concrete steps on the issue of terrorism emitting from its soil. Action on the Mumbai perpetrators is the litmus test.

Thus, even as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh trudges the lonely peace road he should realize that good intentions alone cannot transform Indo-Pak relations. Both the Home and Foreign Ministry need to act jointly with greater unity of intent in resolving all the contentious issue including Kashmir.

As matter stands today, a deep chill has set in. Deep mistrust and lack of confidence is apparent.  Yet the two have not rejected further dialogue. Even when it and is no more than a repletion of known positions. Islamabad has to match its words with deeds. Else, the next round, if there is one, needs to be a lot more than just generating artificial illusions. ---- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)