A sustained state of peace in relations between India and Pakistan is a good thing in itself. It would not only allow both nations space to prosper but also have a benign influence for stabilising a troubled region. It is doubtful, however, if mandatory ritualistic talks between New Delhi and Islamabad serve to bridge the gulf in ties that militarised Pakistan has succeeded in bringing about over the years. If it were a journey without maps, sheer diligence can help find the right path, but a journey without end is another matter.
Reiterative samples of this kind of dialogue underline the futility of the venture and engender frustration among ordinary people even when the interlocutors in question are honourable individuals who mean well. There is no reason for us to regard with any doubt the observations and sentiments expressed by Pakistan’s new foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar. This young, winsome personality has gained admirers in India on account of the way she conducted herself during the talks with external affairs minister S.M. Krishna earlier this week. She may not carry the burden of experience on her shoulders but Ms Khar gave ample evidence that she had her wits about her. But she remains part of a paradigm that is not designed to be productive.
In spite of the terrorist attacks on Mumbai originating in Pakistan, Islamabad cannot bring itself to take constructive steps on its own to help investigations even after the depositions of David Coleman Headley and Tahawwur Rana in the United States nailed the involvement of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence. That, in fact, is just the point. When Pakistan’s state agencies are involved in plotting terror attacks against India, can we expect Islamabad to cooperate? This is why Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Thimphu formulation of May 2010 — to carry on talking so that the “trust deficit” can be bridged — is unlikely to reach its full potential. Gopal K. Pillai, former Union home secretary who retired a month ago, said recently the matter of obtaining voice samples from Pakistan of those who telephonically guided the Mumbai attacks on that fateful day has not moved one inch. Nor have steps been taken by Islamabad to lend any urgency to investigating those involved. Now Pakistan interior minister Rehman Malik tells us that under Pakistani law providing voice samples is illegal.
In the event, it is clear that no relief may be expected from Pakistan in dealing with terrorism. This is partly because of an absence of will. But there is another reason: Pakistan is busy placating terrorist gangs to avoid facing their wrath. As such, it is unlikely that our anti-terrorism goals can be met by talking to Islamabad. While this holds, talks between the two nations run the risk of being viewed as a venture of exaggerated expectations in spite of the overused rhetoric about making talks “uninterrupted and uninterruptible”, which the young Pakistan foreign minister reiterated in New Delhi. The end result in the recent conversation was that the atmosphere was cordial but there was no result.
On the eve of the talks Ms Khar met a clutch of Kashmiri separatist leaders at the Pakistan high commission in New Delhi, reviving the empty tactics reminiscent of Pervez Musharraf’s early days in office when he was a leader out to make a mark. The gesture might have held some meaning if she had also met mainstream Kashmir politicians, but that would have meant recognising the sanctity of India’s Election Commission, as the rest of the world does. Let us have talks by all means provided they cut the thicket which blocks progress on the terrorism question, which in turn also blocks consideration of the Kashmir question, confidence-building measures for trans-LoC trade notwithstanding.
Reiterative samples of this kind of dialogue underline the futility of the venture and engender frustration among ordinary people even when the interlocutors in question are honourable individuals who mean well. There is no reason for us to regard with any doubt the observations and sentiments expressed by Pakistan’s new foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar. This young, winsome personality has gained admirers in India on account of the way she conducted herself during the talks with external affairs minister S.M. Krishna earlier this week. She may not carry the burden of experience on her shoulders but Ms Khar gave ample evidence that she had her wits about her. But she remains part of a paradigm that is not designed to be productive.
In spite of the terrorist attacks on Mumbai originating in Pakistan, Islamabad cannot bring itself to take constructive steps on its own to help investigations even after the depositions of David Coleman Headley and Tahawwur Rana in the United States nailed the involvement of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence. That, in fact, is just the point. When Pakistan’s state agencies are involved in plotting terror attacks against India, can we expect Islamabad to cooperate? This is why Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Thimphu formulation of May 2010 — to carry on talking so that the “trust deficit” can be bridged — is unlikely to reach its full potential. Gopal K. Pillai, former Union home secretary who retired a month ago, said recently the matter of obtaining voice samples from Pakistan of those who telephonically guided the Mumbai attacks on that fateful day has not moved one inch. Nor have steps been taken by Islamabad to lend any urgency to investigating those involved. Now Pakistan interior minister Rehman Malik tells us that under Pakistani law providing voice samples is illegal.
In the event, it is clear that no relief may be expected from Pakistan in dealing with terrorism. This is partly because of an absence of will. But there is another reason: Pakistan is busy placating terrorist gangs to avoid facing their wrath. As such, it is unlikely that our anti-terrorism goals can be met by talking to Islamabad. While this holds, talks between the two nations run the risk of being viewed as a venture of exaggerated expectations in spite of the overused rhetoric about making talks “uninterrupted and uninterruptible”, which the young Pakistan foreign minister reiterated in New Delhi. The end result in the recent conversation was that the atmosphere was cordial but there was no result.
On the eve of the talks Ms Khar met a clutch of Kashmiri separatist leaders at the Pakistan high commission in New Delhi, reviving the empty tactics reminiscent of Pervez Musharraf’s early days in office when he was a leader out to make a mark. The gesture might have held some meaning if she had also met mainstream Kashmir politicians, but that would have meant recognising the sanctity of India’s Election Commission, as the rest of the world does. Let us have talks by all means provided they cut the thicket which blocks progress on the terrorism question, which in turn also blocks consideration of the Kashmir question, confidence-building measures for trans-LoC trade notwithstanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment