Round The World

New Delhi, 21 July 2010

India-Pakistan Talks

LONG DIFFICULT TERRAIN

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies (JNU)

The recently concluded Indo-Pak Foreign Ministers’ talks have underscored the difficult terrain of any India-Pakistani engagement and the uphill task ahead. True, the dialogue process is still on, but the dialogue between India’s S.M. Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi showcased many of the sore points between the neigbours.

Following the talks, Qureshi seemed more intent on scoring needless rhetorical points over his Indian counterpart by commenting on his “lack of mandate”. He accused Krishna of taking policy directions from New Delhi during the talks, which he vehemently denied.

Since Prime Manmohan Singh met Pakistan’s Yousuf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the SAARC Summit in Thimpu, the two irreconcilable neighbours have tried to engineer a roadmap to normalize relations. But all efforts to cushion the thorny relationship post the Mumbai terror attacks on 26/11 have come crashing down.

Recall, the scale of the attacks sent shockwaves across the country, demanding a tough stance from the Government. Consequently, thanks to Islamabad’s dilly-dallying tactics in bringing the perpetrators to book, New Delhi decided to stop all forms of engagement. However, slamming the door on Pakistan has not paid dividends. Hence, the Government decided to reopen channels of communications.

So far, officials from both the sides have exuded confidence in the ongoing round of talks, stating the continuation of dialogue was a good starting point.  But the nature of the relationship is too complex to be bracketed as simple clear-cut strategies. Many times, the process of engagement gets caught between the relative importance of the specifics and compositeness.  The components of a relationship are as vital as the whole.

For New Delhi justice for the Mumbai attacks victims is a vital component and a lot hinges on how Islamabad deals with this. Till now, despite the evidences provided, Pakistan’s Government has clearly failed to satisfy India and its people in prosecuting the Mumbai terrorists, including its mastermind Jamaat-ud-Dawa’s Hafiz Saeed who continues to make fiery anti-India speeches.

Indeed, Saeed’s issue became a non-starter during the talks as the Pakistani Foreign Minister sought to counter India’s reaction to his hate speeches by pronouncing its displeasure toward’s Union Home Secretary Pillai’s statement linking the ISI to the 26/11 attacks.

Based on the evidence extracted from the Pakistani-American terror suspect David Headley, Pillai had asserted, “It (the ISI) was not just a peripheral role; they were literally controlling and coordinating it from the beginning to the end. The same goes for Hafiz Saeed. He was not a peripheral player. He knew everything.” Expectedly, this did not go down well with the Pakistanis.

Diplomatically, the statement might have come at a wrong time and adversely affected the outcome of the talks. But, New Delhi’s suspicions on the ISI’s role in supporting anti-India groups and during the Mumbai attacks are known to the Pakistani Establishment. This in no way can be used as an excuse to play down the activities of a dreaded and known terrorist mastermind like Hafiz Saeed.

According to sources, during US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s recent visit to Pakistan some “revealing sets of facts” thrown up by the Headley interrogation were shared with the Pakistani authorities. Interacting with television anchors in Islamabad, she said, “I don’t know the specifics (of the revelations made by Headley) but I know that it has been quite a revealing set of facts that we’ve shared with the Pakistani authorities.”

Secretary Clinton also added that Headley and Faisal Shahzad, another Pakistani-American charged with trying to blow up a home-made bomb at Times Square, were radicalized in the US but were "facilitated, directed and operationalised" from Pakistan. 

The ferocity of the attacks in Mumbai and the sense of acute insecurity and anger that it inflicted among Indians have accentuated the prime importance given to the issue of tackling terrorism emanating from Pakistan. Undoubtedly, Pakistan too is facing the brunt of its home-grown terrorism but it is largely a result of its wrong policies and the high-handed insularity of some of the State’s machineries (read the military and intelligence). So, when Islamabad talks to New Delhi, it would not suffice to say that Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism.

Yes, if the Pakistani civilian Government is sincere, joint mechanisms could be heralded to tackle this menace together but at this juncture, the Pakistani Establishment does not seem intent on going after the anti-India terror groups like the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) charged with the carrying out the Mumbai carnage. When New Delhi puts the issue of cross-border terrorism on the table, these accusations are based on factual instances.

The Indian people have suffered too many attacks, small and major, from Pakistani soil in recent times. Thus, no Government can afford to go easy on the issue of terrorism, especially in the aftermath of the 26/11 attacks. True, there is a need to keep channels of engagement and diplomacy active but at the same time, Islamabad has to understand and acknowledge the primacy that is accorded to Pakistan-based terrorism in Indian policy.

The severity and regularity of attacks is etched in the Indian psyche for terrorism to acquire secondary importance. At the conclusion of the recent Ministerial talks, Islamabad has accused New Delhi for being selective in its approach and killing the efficacy of the talks, by not agreeing to talk on all issues.

Qureshi asserted, “I could see from yesterday's talks that they want to be selective. When they say all issues are on the table then they cannot, they should not, be selective.” Needless to say, such an approach would have almost amounted to starting the composite dialogue which is not in India’s scheme of things presently. New Delhi’s policy is to build on confidence building measures (CBM’s) which can gradually add more comprehension and inclusiveness leading to a “composite dialogue” covering all issues of common interests. Clearly, there is no issue more potent as a CBM than Pakistan’s earnest willingness to curb anti-India terrorism emanating from its soil. ----- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)