Indian Defence Review

The Interior Minister of Pakistan, Mr Rehman Malik meeting the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, in New Delhi

The road to Indo-Pakistan detente taken in the recent past has seen pleasant surprises keeping the peace process chugging along. The bilateral talk between the two countries last week to operationalise a liberal visa system they had agreed upon in September was a recent milestone. But it has also had its potholes of attempted sabotage. The latest on the negative side was a controversial statement by the Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik wherein he equated the demolition of Babri Masjid to the 26/11 Mumbai attack, much to the chagrin of Indian establishment. If Delhi and Islamabad staring at the tantalizing possibility for a rare virtuous circle in their bilateral relations is an indication of the opportunities that lie ahead on the bilateral front, the unsavoury remarks made by the visiting dignitary are a reminder of the enormous challenges still remaining.

Indeed, there have been incidents in the past too when the people have played cheerleaders with little to celebrate in the aftermath. Meetings were initiated on a high note only to turn sour, such as the Agra Summit. Krishna-Qureshi meeting and many others. Indo Pakistan ties plummeted post-Mumbai attacks and are today the top of agenda between the two. Add to this, other innumerable jinx factors whereby the trajectory of Indo-Pak ties has always stumbled due to unresolved issues and notorious adventurism by Pak-based terrorists aided by sections of Pakistani establishment. In fact, New Delhi twice broke off talks with Islamabad, after the 2001 attack on Parliament and then after the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, only to realise that it could not keep its head turned away from a neighbour indefinitely. At the same time, however, leaders on both sides have walked the extra mile to resume dialogue and there has been a concerted effort to give economic content to ties—unprecedented economic steps have been taken opening new vistas of cooperation and creating more confidence building measures in terms of increased economic linkages. But amidst the prospectus of trade liberalization in between the neighbours, terrorism remains an Achilles heel.

Sadly, economics alone is not the antidote to India-Pakistan’s troubled relationship. If the two countries are aiming for a big breakthrough moment in their relations, much more understanding needs to be arrived at on many political and security-oriented issues. This is not to say that serious differences that persist would necessarily not erode the new-found bonhomie if rhetoric is not backed by work on the ground. And especially terrorism as India eagerly awaits justice for the Mumbai victims. Much though India has been insisting, Pakistan has also not done enough to punish those behind the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist killings. Its argument that the matter was before Pakistan’s courts and it could not interfere in their functioning cannot satisfy India. The same platitudes have been reiterated. Pakistan has offered no firm commitments to punish the master-minds of 26/11.

While any possibility of forward movement on the broken bridge between the two neighbours is always welcome. There is need for tampering one’s optimism with hard realism. Though many positive things will take place at the levels of trade, friendship, cultural activity and political communication. Yet past experience tells us that Pakistan is not a trustworthy country. It has made double dealing its statesmanship. Despite India’s attempts to foster peace through dialogue (Tashkent declaration, Shimla Agreement, Agra summit) Pakistan never gave up its sinister designs. Talks can take off only when there is an essential honesty at the core. Without that basic commitment no amount of talks would help. A dialogue cannot lead to the resolution of issue unless there is a suitable political ambience. Initiatives taken by civil society groups and artists cannot yield results unless accompanied by political will. Pakistan has much to do on this front as it is yet to show that it also believes in peace and democracy. So, there is every danger that the sincerity that has always been missing from the Pakistani actions in the past will not be making a dramatic appearance this time either. Given the present state of affairs, neither cricket nor pilgrimage diplomacy can help.

Clearly, terrorism has broken the spine of India-Pakistan ties and will continue to haunt the region until Pakistani establishment comes clean on the complicity of its men coupled with the Army changing its India centric mentality. Any breakthrough in India-Pakistan bilateral relations is unlikely in the present circumstances. Except for more rounds of pointless dialogue, nothing much is actually being done to bring about lasting change and peace. After the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks, Pakistan hid behind the thin line that distinguishes state and non-state actors, as it shied away from taking any responsibility for the 2008 carnage. Indeed, Pakistan has always woven a web of deceit against India on one hand while holding bilateral talks on the other.

In fact, Mr. Chidambaram sent several dossiers to the Pakistani leadership that proved the identity of those who had perpetrated terror on India. But Pakistan remains recalcitrant on the issue.

Having said that, no matter the measures to increase confidence between the two countries, the bottom line is clear. Pakistan needs to show its sincerity towards scuttling anti-India elements on its soil. It is well known that Pakistan is the epicenter of terror. The David Headley disclosures indicate the outrageous ways in which the state of Pakistan uses terror as a policy against India.

Besides, it is virtually impossible for any Pakistani leader to be a “peacenik” without abandoning terrorism which is fundamental to Pakistan’s India policy. Real action means giving up the use of terror as policy, which Pak generals are not willing to do.

Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik’s statement that he was the first one to come on television when Ajmal Kasab was hanged for his involvement in 26/11 is tokenism. The question is whether Pakistan is willing to take action against Hafiz Saeed, one of the masterminds of the operation and the fundamentalist who sent Kasab to Mumbai. Saeed, the founder of banned LeT has resurrected himself as the head of JUD, which Pakistan has removed from its terror list. Malik stonewalls every Indian query on the matter with a “where is the evidence.”

The dossiers that India has given to Pak on Saeed do not count, nor does the Interpol red corner notice against Saeed for his involvement in 26/11 or the United Nations Security Council list that has JUD as a terrorist organisation. It is obvious that Pakistan will continue to use its “non-state” actors as its army did in the proxy war against India. It is clear from David Coleman Headley’s testimony in a court in Chicago that Pakistan’s ISI was actively involved in 26/11. What more proof is needed to declare it a rough state?

Despite this, India and Pakistan have to keep talking to each other for promoting peace and stability in the region. Experience shows that while optimism over movement in India-Pakistan relations can be especially fragile, India has no better option than to keep working on engaging as many entities in Pak as it can so as to deepen their stake in normalisation of bilateral relations. Pakistan’s decision to acknowledge India as a most-favoured nation despite opposition at home was indeed a game changer. Now both sides must swiftly build on this.

The goodwill thus built is likely to have an impact on the process for the resolution of the major issues. Pakistan must bear in mind that cooperation on its part would provide a huge fillip to the bilateral peace process and bridge the trust deficit that plagues the resolution of other outstanding issues. At the same time, there can be no overstating the importance of Pakistan making an example of Mumbai attack perpetrators’ by bringing them to justice quickly. Agreed that there will be no sudden breakthrough but the talks are an essential small step on that long road.