EDITS | Thursday, July 23, 2009 | Email | Print | 
A Sharm-less surrender
G Parthasarathy
On July 12, Indian security forces in Jammu & Kashmir captured two well-armed Pakistani terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, Mohammed Adnan and Mohammed Shafkat, hailing from Sahiwal district of Pakistani Punjab, who had infiltrated across the Line of Control. The captured terrorists revealed that they belonged to a group of 15 militants who had been trained in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to attack the Baglihar dam in Jammu & Kashmir. They also revealed that a secret tunnel was being built near the border town of Sialkot for infiltration into India across the international border. Three days later, Mr Richard Barrett, the coordinator of the UN Security Council’s Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee warned that there was a “real risk” that the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba would target India again.
In these circumstances it has not only been necessary, but essential to make it clear to Pakistan and the international community, more so after the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist outrage, that there cannot be “business as usual” with Pakistan, unless Islamabad provides a categorical assurance that it will not allow territory under its control to be used for terrorism against India and that the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan will be dismantled. Barely a month ago when Mr Manmohan Singh met Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari in Yekaterinburg the normally soft spoken Prime Minister bluntly told him: “My mandate is limited to telling you that the territory of Pakistan must not be allowed to be used for terrorism against India.” But recent developments show that the Prime Minister’s warning has gone unheeded as the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan remains alive and kicking.
The Vajpayee-Musharraf Declaration of January 6, 2004 makes it clear that India agreed to resume the ‘composite dialogue process’ with Pakistan only after a categorical assurance from Gen Musharraf that “territory under Pakistan’s control” would not be used for terrorism against India. There has thus been a direct link between Pakistan dismantling the infrastructure of terrorism and India agreeing to continue the composite dialogue. Despite this, the joint statement issued after Mr Singh and Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani met in Sharm el-Sheikh astonishingly notes: “Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.” Any number of statements or any amount of sophistry that this does not constitute an assurance that we will continue dialogue irrespective of whether or not the infrastructure of terrorism is dismantled will be laughed at by anyone who understands the basics of diplomacy, or even has a rudimentary understanding of the English language.
This provision will haunt us when the next major terrorist attack hits us. Pakistan will deny its citizens were involved and insist that we continue with dialogue. Let us not forget that there were two main reasons why some progress was made after the Mumbai outrage. The first was the capture of Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab. Even though Pakistan denied for over a month that Kasab was a Pakistani national, it was compelled to ultimately climb down in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Moreover, as American, British and Israeli nationals were killed in Mumbai, unprecedented international assistance was forthcoming for the investigations and for pressure on Pakistan. It would, however be naïve to believe that any of the accused now under arrest will be punished. Pakistan is yet to complete the trial process of Omar Syed Sheikh, convicted of brutally murdering American journalist Daniel Pearl in 2001. People like Omar Syed Sheikh, AQ Khan, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed or Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi cannot be punished because they will spill the beans on the involvement of Pakistan’s military establishment in terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Union Home Minister P Chidambaram’s comments suggest that he at least recognises this reality.
Pakistan has been trying to counter growing international support for India’s accusations that the ISI has been sponsoring terrorism against India, by alleging that India is sponsoring terrorism in Baluchistan and even aiding pro-Taliban forces in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province. Given the presence of nearly 100,000 American and Nato forces in Afghanistan, any action by India that complicates the Nato mission would have invited American wrath and even retribution. The Americans have ignored and, by implication, rejected Pakistan’s baseless claims of Indian interference. But the statement issued in Sharm el-Sheikh asserts: “Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Baluchistan and elsewhere” — a signal to the whole world that Mr Gilani told Mr Singh that India was meddling in Baluchistan and the NWFP. Pakistan will use the fact that India did not deny Mr Gilani’s assertion in the joint statement as Indian acceptance of baseless Pakistani allegations. This is the most disastrous feature of the fiasco at Sharm el-Sheikh.
Assertions by Mr Singh that India and Pakistan are both equally “victims” of terrorism, that they share a “common destiny”, or that a rising India cannot assert its rightful place in the comity of nations without good relations with Pakistan, are factually incorrect and undermine Indian diplomacy. A democratic, secular India cannot share a “common destiny” with a theocratic, feudal and military-dominated Pakistan, which is being challenged by terrorists the ISI backed to ‘bleed’ India and seek ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan. India, on the other hand has been a victim of the terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. Equating the two countries, as we have done in Sharm el-Sheikh, is ill-advised. India’s economic growth has accelerated and its international profile has flourished by its partnership with the international community in forums like the G-8 and G-20, despite Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and diplomatic hostility. We can ‘rise’ in the world with or without Pakistan’s cooperation. The more we suggest that we need Pakistan’s meherbani to accelerate economic growth, or rise in world affairs, the more those who cannot countenance India’s rise in the world within Pakistan’s establishment will continue to ‘bleed’ us.
There are serious differences between Mr Zardari, who has genuinely sought accommodation and cooperation with India, and Mr Gilani, who rose in politics with the support of Gen Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s. Mr Gilani echoes the hardline approach of Pakistan’s military establishment. How then are India’s national interests served by embarrassing Mr Zardari in Yekaterinburg and appeasing Mr Gilani in Sharm el-Sheikh?
Email | Print | Rate:
|