Why do you suppose Prime Minister Manmohan Singh picked this time to launch a new initiative to repair ties
with Pakistan? Speaking to reporters at the SAARC Summit in the Maldives, the Foreign Secretary said that the Prime Minister’s tacit agreement to resume the
composite dialogue (halted after the 26/11 attacks) came after an emotional appeal from Yusuf Raza Gilani, the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
This may well be true – in so far as it goes. But, on the whole, Prime Ministers do not suddenly launch peace initiatives on the basis of emotional appeals. (Though, after the fiasco at Sharm- el-Sheikh, I am not entirely convinced of the rational basis of this government’s approach to Pakistan). Clearly, Singh and his advisors had thought about this before.
My guess is that the initiative emerged from Singh’s long-standing desire to rework India’s foreign policy equations. As finance minister, he transformed India’s economy. And as Prime Minister, he wanted to recast our foreign policy equations. Part of that agenda was an improvement in ties with the US (hence his little resignation drama over the nuclear deal) but its primary component was a desire to settle our disputes with Pakistan. Almost from the time that Singh first met that old rogue Pervez Musharraf in New York, early in the UPA’s term, and declared, starry-eyed, that the General was “a man we can do business with”, he has pushed to improve relations with Pakistan.
Though every single initiative to date has ended in failure, the Prime Minister is not giving up. He genuinely believes that Musharraf and he would have solved the Kashmir problem had the General not been toppled and thinks that India can become a truly great nation only after it rids itself of the conflict with Pakistan.
So why now? Why take the plunge again this week?
This can only be speculation — Singh is not in the habit of revealing his mind to the media — but I think that the timing has to do with our current attitude to terrorism and to 26/11 in particular. The sticking point in Indo-Pak relations is our neighbour’s response to our demands for action against the perpetrators of 26/11. The Pakistanis have made it clear that they are not willing to do very much on this score so we can just lump it. Of course it is all framed in terms of “our legal system is slow. It is just like yours. See how even you have failed to hang Ajmal Kasab for so long. Our system is like that, only” etc. etc.
Frankly, this is not very convincing. Yes, the legal systems in both countries are slow and creaky. But at least India has the strength and the will to move against Kasab. But Pakistan has neither. The army will not allow the government to act against those terror groups it has sponsored. And even the elected politicians know that the terrorists enjoy a certain mass popularity, portraying themselves as brave jehadis who are fighting the Hindu oppressors of Kashmiris. This makes anything other than token action against terror groups virtually impossible.
In private, the Pakistanis concede that they have a problem. But, they argue, so does India. If India is unable to offer any concessions on Kashmir (which, the Indian electorate will not stand for) then it become difficult for Pakistan’s politicians to tell their people that it is worth becoming friends with India.
So, say the Pakistanis, let’s do a deal. India shouldn’t say too much about terrorism. And Pakistani will keep quiet about Kashmir.
"Yes, we should have more people-to-people contacts. But does it matter if our Prime Ministers are friends? If they hold summit meetings? Do we really care how they get on? Does it make any difference to anything?" |
This is the deal that Manmohan Singh appears to be on the verge of accepting.
And the timing?
Well, that’s easy. As long as there are no big terrorists attacks that can be linked to the ISI – note how careful the government is being not to allege Pakistani involvement in the Delhi high court blast —- Singh and his advisors believe that Indians will be more willing to allow the 26/11 case be forgotten. And because, we have been largely free from major terror strikes, Singh believes that the Indian public will not mind if he relaunches the peace process.
It might just work as a strategy but the way ahead is strewn with dangers.
With this kind of calculation you always leave the peace process hostage to terror groups. One big strike — with clear links to Pakistan — and the Indian public will not allow the peace process to move forward. Terror groups know this. So do elements in Pakistan’s military establishment which back these groups. So any peace initiative can be an invitation to terrorists. It is really all right to forget about 26/11? To take the attitude that life must move on? Shouldn’t we learn from the Americans who never forgave the perpetrators of 9/11 and tracked down and killed Osama bin Laden a decade after those attacks? Is there really a parallel between Kashmir and terrorism? One is a border dispute that is over half a century old. The other involves the murders of innocent Indian civilians by elements trained and financed by the Pakistani establishment.
Should we really accept this equivalence?
And finally, do we really need to improve relations with Pakistan at a government-to- government level? Given that all such initiatives over the last two decades have failed, why don’t we just give up?
Yes, Pakistan is a fact of life. Yes, there are many kind and decent Pakistanis. Yes, we should have more people-to-people contacts. But does it matter if our Prime Ministers are friends? If they hold summit meetings? Do we really care how they get on? Does it make any difference to anything?
Isn’t it better to accept Pakistan for what it is, to remain on our guard, and to co-exist as best as we can with our neighbour? It is true that enmity cannot alter accidents of geography.
But then, neither can diplomacy.
Name:
E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
Friend's Name:
Friend's E-mail:
Your email id will not be published.
Additional Text:
Security code:
Other Articles
-
It is not only the right thing to do on an intuitive level but also entirely in accordance with the principles on which this nation was founded.
-
My point is that in a country as large as ours, a numbers game makes no sense unless you look at the larger picture.
-
It is tempting to see the revolt as a failure because Pawar got nothing of consequence in Delhi. But it would be a mistake to do so.
-
This was an unnecessary reshuffle, forced on the nation by Manmohan Singh’s unwillingness to hold on to the finance portfolio.
-
And the end has an emotional power that is unusual for comic book pictures. What a pity it is the last movie in this trilogy!
See All