New Delhi
13 June 2009
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's much-anticipated handshake with Pakistan President
Asif Ali Zardari next week on the margins of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
(SCO) Summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia, has surprised not a few, not in the least
because of its timing, coming as it will in the wake of a conclusive proof that elements
based in Pakistan were responsible for the killings of 166 people in the November 26-29,
2008, terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Whether a photo-op leads to rapprochement between
the two South Asian nuclear-armed neighbours will be known in the weeks to come, but it
has already generated a debate among the discerning here, with passionate arguments
being forwarded by supporters and nay-sayers alike in support of their contention. Some
of the questions being asked are: Is Prime Minister Singh acting on instinct or impulse,
and should his interaction with Zardari necessarily lead to resumption of the composite
dialogue which was suspended following the Mumbai attacks? What will India gain from
talking to Pakistan and will the benefit of dialogue outweigh the loss by disengagement?
Can the Government of Pakistan be taken at face value? What if there is a repeat of
26/11?
Prime Minister Singh, for one, is certain dialogue cannot be avoided, though he has
qualified it by saying that the Government of Pakistan will need to take strong, effective
and sustained actions to prevent the use of its territory for the commission of acts of
terrorism in India or against Indian interest, and use every means at its disposal to bring
to justice those who have committed these crimes in the past, including the attack on
Mumbai. "If the leaders of Pakistan have the courage, the determination and
statesmanship to take this road to peace, I wish to assure them that we will meet them
more than half-way," he told Parliament last week. The Prime Minister cited the relations
between the United States and Iran to buttress his argument: "... they have gone through
difficult periods extending over the last 30 years, but, ultimately, even a mighty power
like the United States [has] found that it is necessary to come to terms with the reality of
the Iranian situation, and, therefore, there is no other alternative but to pursue the path of
dialogue."
Ambassador Salman Haidar, a former foreign secretary, endorses the Prime Minister's
view that we have to live with neighbours as we get them. "India has to engage Pakistan
sooner than later," Mr Haidar told this newspaper. "There is no need to rush into a
dialogue but I'm not in favour of us behaving like an umpire. We are players on the
ground. It is not for us to pass judgment (on the other)," he says, disapproving of people
who think Islamabad cannot be relied upon to deliver on its commitments. Mr Haidar
insists on dialogue, if only to build on the progress in the back-channel talks with
Pakistan until a few years ago. Ambassador Chinamaya Gharekhan, Prime Minister's
special envoy for West Asia and former Indian permanent representative to the United
Nations in New York, in turn, favours talks but he wants New Delhi to be clear-headed as
to what can be achieved. "Dialogue for what end? Dialogue for dialogue's sake is not
very convincing," he said in a telephone conversation with this correspondent.
Mr Brajesh Mishra, a former national security adviser in Prime Minister Atal Bihari
Vajpayee's Government, does not share the optimism of Mr Haidar and Mr Gharekhan. "I
am totally baffled by the change in the attitude (of New Delhi towards Islamabad)," he
told this newspaper. He is categorical there is little or no scope for dialogue. and he
believes Prime Minister Singh's decision to engage President Zardari is contrary to what
has been said in the recent past, at least post-26/11. "I don't understand what has
changed [in Indo-Pak ties] to bring about this meeting in Russia. [By talking] we will only
be giving satisfaction to Pakistan without getting anything in return," he asserts. General
VP Malik (retd), a former chief of the Indian Army, feels dialogue has benefited Pakistan
more than India. "Pakistan is hurt more by not talking to us," he says, and suggests New
Delhi to leave the composite dialogue process in cold freeze. "I'm not suggesting hot
war but I don't mind a diplomatic cold war," he told this newspaper.
K Subrahmanyam, an international strategic affairs analyst and a former chairman of
National Security Advisory Board, maintains that Pakistan needs to demonstrate its bona
fides before India can consider resumption of talks, but then again he is sceptical
whether any gains will accrue to India if both sides start a dialogue. He doubts
Pakistan's sincerity on another count, too. "The Lahore High Court has said the
Government of Pakistan had not banned Al-Qaeda for the last eight years whereas
Pakistan was getting US aid all this while without banning it. If Pakistan doesn't even
ban Al-Qaeda, its actions in the war against terrorrism, particularly against the
perpetrators of the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai, cannot be credible." He argues that India
needs to have a clear idea of how sincere Pakistan is before entering into negotiations,
and cites the release of Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Mohd Saeed as a case in point. He
believes the trial of Hafiz Saeed was stage-managed and a farce.
Ambassador Kanwal Sibal, a former foreign secretary and a former Indian envoy to
Russia, echoes similar views. He says there is no reason to resume dialogue because
Pakistan has not given any evidence of its serious intention to act after 26/11, crack
down on jihadists, or prosecute Hafiz Saeed. Mr Sibal advocates India to show staying
power, referring the US refusal to dialogue with adversaries such as Cuba and Iran for
decades on end. He also criticises New Delhi for being self-flagellating: "India sees her
own reasonable expectations as rigid but we are demanding the absolute minimum as
compared to the US demands of Pakistan in Swat," he says, adding that New Delhi gives
an impression that it has not learnt from its past experiences or mistakes. He cautions
against dialogue, particularly after Pakistan reverted to what he calls past posturing on
Jammu and Kashmir. India's expectations should be realistic and she need not be
needlessly sanguine about steering Pakistan in the right direction. "Pakistan needs to
take hold of itself first," he says about the domestic situation inside that country where
President Zardari is seen as weak. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, in contrast,
appears to have arrived at a modus vivendi with the Pakistani Army, which explains his
hawkish statements on Kashmir.
So will the genius of Prime Minister Singh's instincts enable him to make peace with
Pakistan?
No comments:
Post a Comment