India-Pakistan Relations

[ajtr]

United we rule —Andleeb Abbas​

Why do we not let go of a past that yielded more damage than benefit? The answer is that we do not want to learn. Flaring up the past to create present and future tensions is the favourite pastime of politicians who are unable to create internal harmony and unity

Sport is a great leveller. It removes colour, class, language and cultural barriers. Mid-2010 holds special significance as far as sporting events are concerned. First there was the FIFA World Cup, then the greatest of tennis grand slams, Wimbledon, taking place and, finally, the Pakistan cricket team facing Australia in England.

Sports bring out the best and worst in many. Physical fitness is stretched to almost inhuman limits, mental toughness is tested in unbearable tension and emotional stability is stretched to unimaginable levels. It is a combination of these that governs the ultimate success of the winner. As we have seen in the FIFA World Cup, the biggest of names and the mightiest of teams have been knocked out due to default in some of these prerequisites of sustainable success.

While football is a game of teamwork, tennis is an individual game. However, where doubles matches are concerned, it does bring in the element of collective effort and synergy. The fact that a pair from South Asia reached the quarterfinals for the first time at Wimbledon is a matter of great pride and honour for us. The Pak-Indian pair of Aisam-ul-Haq Qureshi and Ravi Bopanna made their mark on a game almost monopolised by the Americans and Europeans. While individually they have not been too successful, together they have become a force to be reckoned with. That, perhaps, is the biggest lesson that needs to be spread across the two countries. South Asia is the most vibrant region in terms of a huge and young population, a variety of natural resources, being rich in culture and history and thus, apparently, the region most capable of challenging the Europeans and Americans in terms of consumer markets and growing economies. However, the geographical partition has made dents in the emotional and psychological partition whose legacy both nations have not been able to shake off. Anything that goes wrong in either country is perceived as being instigated by the other. Relationships based on mistrust are counterproductive. If we all know that the seeds of mistrust were deliberately planted by the British under their divide-and-rule policy, why do we choose to play the game under those rules? First it was the British and now the Americans who have been blamed for not wanting the region to become a force to be reckoned with. However, we have seen how the two countries have lost due to their inability to put the past behind them and work towards a future where the combined strengths of this region can outpace all the other regions of the world.

South Asian history and friction are not unique. If we look at Europe in the mid-1940s, we see much greater political and economic erosion. Two world wars, where France, England and Germany were out to devastate each other, are part of an era that is considered as a historical lesson to be learnt. Individually, most countries realised that going alone would not take them far and, if they really wanted to challenge the power of the US, they needed to combine and become a challenge to the superpower. The European integration into the European Union (EU) is a classic example of where they have stopped concentrating on each other's weaknesses and have capitalised on their different strengths. The euro today is stronger than the dollar and the small market size of individual European countries is now neutralised by the combined strength of over 300 million consumers in the EU market. Also how they support each other in times of adversity was visible in this recession when Greece had virtually gone bankrupt and was bailed out by the EU with a package of almost 150 million euros. Compare this with Pakistani bankruptcy two years ago, where we had to beg for and borrow $ 5 billion from the IMF to save us from going under, and one realises how the combined strength of a region truly makes you stronger and more resilient in times unfavourable.

Why do we not learn from these examples and let go of a past that yielded more damage than benefit? The answer is that we do not want to learn. Flaring up the past to create present and future tensions is the favourite pastime of politicians who are unable to create internal harmony and unity. With India it is their inability to harness the Kashmiris into subjugation and with Pakistan it is the inability to harness the Taliban into surrender. These two contentious issues have been used again and again by both governments to justify many of their political postures that make little economic sense. Trade between the two countries, which was around 70 percent after partition, has trickled to a mere one percent due to political tensions, tariff and non-tariff barriers and visa issues. Many of the products can really benefit from each other's markets. Indian pharmaceuticals are much cheaper than Pakistani medicines while Pakistani textiles have a global differentiation to offer. Indian research and skills combined with Pakistani talent and resources can create an unbeatable combination provided both countries achieve political maturity by learning from their mistakes and focusing on solutions rather than harping on about age old problems.

The political maturity process in Pakistan has been greatly retarded by immature and corrupt leadership. These leaders perpetually focus on the divide-and-rule strategy internally as well. Their own lack of vision and integrity makes them blind to the need for a comprehensive internal harmony strategy that prioritises what matters most to us as a nation. They also surround themselves with equally corrupt people who have no notion of or expertise for the task at hand. Whether it is energy, security or foreign affairs, people at the helm are easy to buy or out-negotiate by their more competent Indian counterparts. Thus the stalemate continues.

If our leaders just went back to the Quaid's three core values, most of our problems would be resolved. Unity, faith and discipline are elements missing in this country, hampering us in moving forward. Provincially, emotionally and ethnically we are busy tearing each other apart and thus we really need to put our house in order first before we start looking at regional and global support and harmony.

The writer is a consultant and can be reached at [email protected]

 

[ajtr]

Indo-Pak talks shouldn't be judged as 2+2=4: Rehman Malik​

ISLAMABAD: With India and Pakistan engaging in war of words post-July 15 parleys between their foreign ministers, Pakistan interior minister Rehman Malik today tweeted that the talks should not be judged "mathematically like 2+2=4" but should be seen as a "positive step".

"It is time for exchange of hearts. Let us sow seeds of love and peace, so that future generations have only the option to reap love, and noting but love....Let us save our future generations from the disease of hate and terrorism," Malik, who has nearly 3,500 followers, said in his latest Twitter posting.

His soothing comments came amid exchange of barbs between external affairs minister S M Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi following their meeting here on Thursday last.

Malik, who had a meeting with home minister P Chidambaram on the margins of the SAARC Interior Ministers' conference here last month, said that they both "will move forward in terms of delivery of commitments based on what we agreed."

"The roadmap of commitment and performance between me and H.E Mr Chidambaram is fully intact," he said in his message posted on the social networking website.

"Pak-India talks should not be judged mathematically like 2+2=4 but be assessed with past political and diplomatic rival history of two countries in view," Malik said.

He said: "We should be happy that Pakistan and India are now at least interacting on the core issues. Hence meeting between the two FMs should be viewed as a positive step."

Separately, Malik told reporters at the interior ministry yesterday that a roadmap prepared by him and Chidambaram was still intact and "good results" were expected soon.

Referring to his June 25 talks with Chidambaram, Malik said: "I and Chidambaram sahab met, we have agreed (on) a roadmap and that roadmap is intact. We don't like terrorism. (We) will not allow anyone to use Pakistani soil against any other country."

He said the roadmap finalised by him and Chidambaram is expected to produce "good results" soon but did not give details.

Responding to several questions on Pakistan's probe into the Mumbai attacks, Malik said Islamabad has requested New Delhi to send the magistrates and police officer who recorded Ajmal Kasab's statement so that they can testify in the anti-terrorism court that is conducting the trial of Pakistani suspects.

These Indian officials "must come and appear before the (Pakistani) court and testify that Ajmal Kasab had (made) a statement before them," he said.

"Once they testify before our court, automatically the trial will be put on fast track," he said.

Malik pointed out that Kasab's statement to Indian authorities was the basis of the First Information Report filed by Pakistani investigators.

Pakistani prosecutors are facing problems because the country's courts have refused to declare Kasab as a "proclaimed offender" or fugitive for the purpose of the trial in Pakistan, Malik said.

A special court in Mumbai recently convicted Kasab for his role in the 2008 attacks and sentenced him to death.

Malik also said an investigation is underway on information provided by Pakistani-American David Headley, who is in custody in the US and has been charged with facilitating the Lashker-e-Taiba in carrying out the Mumbai attacks.

Referring to the dialogue between the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan, Malik told the reporters that this is "a continuous process that will yield positive results."

Pakistan has made India aware of its concerns during the recent talks and "all issues will gradually settle in coming days," he said.

 

[ajtr]

Mumbai card has worn thin​

After this week's meeting between the foreign ministers of Pakistan and India, it has become abundantly clear that India has no intention of improving relations with Pakistan.

Indian External Affairs Minister, S M Krishna, arrived in Islamabad with a single agenda — that of trying to put Islamabad on the defensive by playing the David Coleman Headley card. Who is that, you may ask? Much to the chagrin of New Delhi, few in Pakistan...know of Headley...

I refuse to be apologetic about the Mumbai attacks any more. The Mumbai card has worn thin and no longer elicits sympathy — not when we have to weep over our dead on a daily basis. Just how many Pakistanis have to die before the world sits up and sees Pakistan as the worst victim of global terrorism? Is there a magic number — 20,000, nay 50,000?

 

[anoop_mig25]

Can Pakistan and India resolve their disputes? —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi​

The top leadership in Pakistan and India either lacks the will to charter a new course for their bilateral relations or are not convinced that the change will serve their personal and regime interests

Pakistan-India relations are extremely complex. They have talked on their contentious issues from time to time. However, there are few instances of the talks succeeding in resolving concrete problems. The focus has been on conflict management rather than conflict resolution.

Pakistan-India talks do not produce a breakthrough in their troubled relations because both sides are not oriented towards opting for a major departure from the traditional approaches to their bilateral problems. The civil and military bureaucracy and the intelligence community have developed such a state of mind and worldview that does not leave much scope for an out-of-the-box solution. The political leadership lacks the will to give a lead to the foreign policy and security establishment. Rather, they fall victim to their policy briefs based on conservatism, caution and advice to doubt the intentions of the other side.

This seems ironic because the ordinary citizens of both countries, when not under the spell of the propaganda orchestrated by the civil-military-intelligence establishment, manifest a keen desire to visit each other and maintain peaceful and cordial relations. The two governments do not encourage free movement of people and groups and exchange of literature, art, drama, culture and other creative activities at the societal level because they think this will weaken their capacity to dominate bilateral relations.

Due to strong and negative historical baggage and fixations of the foreign policy and security establishment with a tough disposition, ordinary diplomacy cannot be successful between India and Pakistan. A turnaround in their relations can be possible if policy makers and enforcers shift away from their current mindset, one that has trapped them in the traditional state-oriented, straight-jacketed approach towards each other.

The new relationship should reflect the principles of restraint, flexible diplomacy, wilful compromise and political choice.

There is a need to restrain the cultivated aura of self-righteousness, negative image of the adversary and overestimation of one's capacity to deal with the situation. They need to avoid adopting a dismissive attitude towards the adversary because this makes it difficult to resolve problems through peaceful diplomacy. If the adversary is viewed as weak, evil and nasty, there is hardly any chance of a meaningful dialogue.

These biases make it extremely difficult to engage in problem-solving diplomacy. The talks are held either just for the sake of talking or to demonstrate to the international community that both believe in dialogue and peaceful resolution of disputes.

Flexibility in diplomacy depends on the capacity of the leadership to opt for a wilful compromise and a clear-cut choice for resolving problems and promoting peace. This implies that the topmost leadership's disposition holds the key to problem solving. If they make a conscious and unambiguous choice for peace and demonstrate the capacity to pursue it, the foreign office, bureaucracy and intelligence agencies will change their traditional narratives and strategies accordingly.

The top leadership in Pakistan and India either lacks the will to charter a new course for their bilateral relations or are not convinced that the change will serve their personal and regime interests. They pursue the safe approach of relying on advice from the bureaucratic-intelligence elite because, if the leadership follows such advice, this elite mobilises support for such policy by invoking their linkages with a section of the media and societal groups.

If, on the other hand, the top political leadership decides to opt for a completely new strategy, it has to face opposition or discontentment first from the bureaucratic-intelligence elite and then it has to mobilise domestic public opinion in favour of the new approach, which is not always an easy job at a time when the top political leadership faces numerous internal problems.

India's prime minister is not expected to shift the single issue (terrorism) focus of his government's policy towards Pakistan after having faced strong domestic opposition to the initiative shown by him in the Sharm el-Sheikh talks in July 2009. His political clout is derived completely from the Congress Party's hierarchy, limiting his ability to act autonomously.

India faces another dilemma. Its officials and political elite feel perturbed by India's inability to derive tangible political dividends in the regional context from its size, population, economic and industrial development and military power. India, viewing itself as a player in the bigger political league of the global system, finds itself bogged down with Pakistan, a player of the lesser league.

India's leadership would like to deal with Pakistan the way the US dealt with the Taliban government in Afghanistan after the terrorist attacks in the US in September 2001. From time to time, India's security community explores the possibility of using the military option against Pakistan. However, good sense prevails and this option is dropped. After all, India is not the US and Pakistan is not the Taliban's Afghanistan. Global developments also help Pakistan save itself from India's displeasure, if not wrath. The US sympathises with India on the Mumbai tragedy but it will not support India engaging in military adventurism against Pakistan.

Pakistan's top civilian leadership is even more constrained from taking the initiative to break out of the traditional mould of Pakistan-India diplomacy. Its major concern is not Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT) but the overall terrorist onslaught by a variety of militant groups that threaten the Pakistani state and society.

A strident Indian statement against Pakistan or a public demand for punitive measures against the LeT may satisfy the imperatives of India's domestic politics but it enables the militant groups in Pakistan to mobilise public opinion in their favour by playing up anti-India sentiments. Further, the government of Pakistan does not want to be seen as taking action against these groups under pressure from India, especially when some of these groups like the LeT have cultivated support at the societal level due to their welfare activities.

Pakistan needs to decide about the role of groups like the LeT in its future security vision. As the militancy card has come to haunt Pakistan, should it not review its security approach altogether? It can put a check on the public statements and activities of the militants' leadership to defuse tension between India and Pakistan.

If Pakistan and India continue to pursue this current diplomacy and appear more interested in satisfying the needs of domestic politics, there is little hope for improved relations in the near future. However, they will continue to talk because they have learnt the art of talking without progress.

good, but article all things said by any neutral experts so nothing new? if there would have been email link to this article i would have reminded mr that there was successful back -channel talks between india-pakistan under INDIAN prime minister MANMOHAN SINGH and president General MUSHRAFF and there was centrality that they had reached certain settlement through some give and take

there isn`t smoke without fire

 

[ajtr]

good, but article all things said by any neutral experts so nothing new? if there would have been email link to this article i would have reminded mr that there was successful back -channel talks between india-pakistan under INDIAN prime minister MANMOHAN SINGH and president General MUSHRAFF and there was centrality that they had reached certain settlement through some give and take

there isn`t smoke without fire

Email: [email protected]

http://spaces.brad.ac.uk:8080/display/ssispsru/Dr+Hasan-Askari+Rizvi

 

[nandu]

Don't want to visit India on leisure-trip: Qureshi

Islamabad: Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi on Saturday upped the ante by saying he was unwilling to travel to New Delhi for talks unless India is prepared to hold a "meaningful, constructive and result-oriented" dialogue to resolve outstanding issues with Pakistan.

"I do not want to visit India for a leisure trip. I want to go for meaningful, constructive and result-oriented talks if the right atmosphere prevails and if they are fully prepared (for talks)," Qureshi said after addressing a joint news conference with visiting British Minister Sayeeda Warsi.

He was responding to a question from reporters on whether he would travel to New Delhi for talks in view of Indian government's current position.

Following a meeting with Qureshi in Islamabad on Thursday, External Affairs Minister S M Krishna had announced that he had invited his Pakistani counterpart to visit India for the next round of their parleys.

Qureshi reiterated his assertion that Krishna had come to Pakistan with a limited mandate.

"At our talks, I said that they (Indian side) should raise terrorism if it was among their priorities because it is also our concern. You can raise (the) Mumbai (attacks) but we have our concerns," Qureshi said.

Among Pakistan's concerns is the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, where curfew has been imposed and there are killings, he said.

Qureshi contended that India raised its concerns and "then became selective" in taking on Pakistan's concerns.

"If you (India) are answerable to your people on terrorism, we too are a democracy and have to satisfy our people," he said.

Qureshi said he had not raised any issues with Krishna that were not part of the eight components of the composite dialogue.

This was done because Pakistan does not want the four years of efforts made through the composite dialogue to go waste, he said.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/india-visit-only-if-talks-result-oriented-qureshi-38103

 

[ajtr]

Kayani played the spoilsport
Pak Army chief's intervention during the talks altered Qureshi's tone and tenor ​

Ashok Tuteja
Tribune News Service

New Delhi, July 17
Pakistan Army Chief Ashfaq Pervez Kayani is widely believed to have played a spoilsport in the peace talks between India and Pakistan in Islamabad on Thursday.

Kayani, seen as the real power centre in Pakistan, called on Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani in quick succession just before External Affairs Minister SM Krishna was scheduled to meet the two Pakistani leaders.

The script of the dialogue between Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmud Qureshi went horribly wrong after that.

The two sides appeared quite relaxed and happy when they broke for lunch around 1300 hrs (Pakistan Standard Time) after the first round of talks. After all, the two sides had painstakingly worked out the agreements during Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao's visit to Islamabad last month. The agreements were expected to be announced by the foreign ministers. A draft joint statement was also ready in which the two sides had proposed to announce the upcoming meetings between top officials like culture and commerce secretaries, exchange of fishermen and prisoners and other CBMs like LoC trade. The formulation on certain subjects was to be okayed by the two ministers.

The meeting after the lunch also went off reasonably well. But then Kayani came into the picture and reportedly told the civilian leadership that it should not budge an inch on the Kashmir issue and seek a time frame from India for resolving the issue.

The tone and tenor of Qureshi changed at the third and final rounds of the marathon talks. He is said to have insisted on the time frame for settlement of various issues while not being prepared to give the same for the trial of seven LeT operatives being tried in Pakistan courts for their involvement in the Mumbai attacks.

Krishna asked him why the trial could not be speeded up and why the Pakistan Government could not take action against JUD chief Hafiz Saeed, whose involvement in the Mumbai attacks had been established beyond doubt in the dossiers given by India. To this, Qureshi said the judiciary in Pakistan was independent and the government could not do much in the matter.

Meanwhile, when asked why India was reluctant to deal with the Pakistan Army since it happened to be the real power centre in the neighbouring country, official sources said in a sarcastic tone:: "They call themselves a democracy and we have to believe them"¦we can't deal with Generals."

"We know where the power rests in Pakistan but we have to deal with the civilian leadership as long as it is there," they added. Krishna and Qureshi are now expected to come face to face in another three days when they will attend a conference in Kabul on July 20. The event will review reconciliation moves between the Hamid Karzai regime and the Taliban. It is to be seen if they will hold bilateral talks after their disastrous meeting in Islamabad.















The Hidden Dissuader

l Kayani, seen as the real power centre in Pakistan, called on President Asif Ali Zardari and PM Yousaf Raza Gilani in quick succession just before External Affairs Minister SM Krishna was scheduled to meet them.

l He reportedly insisted the leadership to not budge an inch on Kashmir and told it to force India to give a time frame for resolving the vexed issue.

l It is believed that Qureshi's reluctance to not give any time frame for completion of the trial of seven LeT operatives in Pakistan courts for their involvement in 26/11 was at Kayanai's behest.

 

[ajtr]

Either there are two groups with in UPA wrt relations between india and pak ie MMS and sSM other group is chidambram+anthony+finance minister.But the question is on who's side Rajmata is? Or the other thing is USA pressure is really telling on MMS as this news suggests.

Home secretary's comment on Pak role in 26/11 upsets PM​

Sunday, July 18, 2010 23:30

Prime minister Manmohan Singh has taken a dim view of Union home secretary GK Pillai's statement directly accusing the Pakistan establishment and the inter services intelligence (ISI) for their role in controlling and coordinating 26/11 Mumbai attacks , made on the eve of external affairs minister SM Krishna's visit to Islamabad.

It is learnt that Singh was upset with the timing rather than the content of the statement by Pillai, sources said. He is understood to have told Krishna that he completely disapproved of the way the home ministry went public on Pakistan's role in the Mumbai attacks . It could not be independently confirmed whether the prime minister personally spoke to Pillai.

Krishna had called on Singh soon after his return from Islamabad on Friday and gave a detailed account of his talks with Pakistan foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and meetings with president Asif Ali Zardari and prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.

He also apprised the PM of how the initial warmth and commitment to restore confidence soon evaporated once the strongly-worded statement of Pillai sounded in the middle of the talks. The warmth was replaced by tit-for-tat responses on a range of issues.

Soon, the fissures over Kashmir, contradictory views on action against perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks and disagreement over Balochistan lay bare.

Krishna, on his part, told Singh that he tried to salvage the situation by telling his counterpart that there was nothing new in what Pillai had said. An update on the investigations done by the Indian agencies and also by the US authorities had already been sent and Pakistan had assured action as well.

Krishna even agreed with his counterpart that Pillai's statement was "uncalled for" :evil: . But the damage had been done and the current round led to the fiasco.

It is learnt that Singh appreciated Krishna's composure despite provocation. There are indications that the "mild-mannered" home secretary may not do the talking anymore on the Indo-Pak issue in future.

The prime minister's office has also expressed surprise that officials were talking on crucial issues when the mandate to do so was with the political leadership and home minister P Chidambaram in particular.

It will now be left to the Union home minister, who had handled the situation when he visited Pakistan last month at the time of SAARC summit and established a rapport with his counterpart Rehman Malik, to undo the damage.

 

[ajtr]

Needed, change in tactics​

B Raman

New Delhi would do well not to give in to Islamabad's arm-twisting tactics and foreclose its options. While talks with Pakistan should not be suspended, it would be in India's interest to withdraw the invitation to Shah Mahmood Qureshi. Instead, it would be wise to let P Chidambaram steer the dialogue process with his Pakistani counterpart, Rehman Malik

Remember the late Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's tenure as Foreign Minister of Pakistan under Yahya Khan? Remember his crude exhibitionism and unparliamentary remarks about Mrs Indira Gandhi in the months before the Indo-Pakistan war of December 1971? How outrageously he would conduct himself in the UN Security Council when it debated the growing tension between the two countries! Others may remember Benazir Bhutto, his daughter who was the Pakistani Prime Minister in 1989, standing before a crowd near the Line of Control in Pakistan occupied Kashmir facing Indian territory and shouting hysterically: "Azadi, azadi". She, too, had some uncalled-for remarks to make about PV Narasimha Rao, former Indian Prime Minister.

Mrs Gandhi and Rao both ignored the behaviour of their Pakistani counterparts and continued doing what, according to them, had been in the national interest. India should similarly ignore contemptuously the behaviour of Mr Shah Mahmood Qureshi, the Pakistani Foreign Minister, and his unnecessary remarks about Mr SM Krishna, Union Minister for External Affairs, made while briefing Pakistani media on Friday on the Ministerial-level dialogue that took place on the previous day.

Mr Krishna and Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao must be complimented for conducting themselves with great personal dignity as befitting representatives of a responsible nation with a mature political leadership at its helm and for refusing to let themselves be provoked into paying Mr Qureshi back in kind. One of the objectives of Mr Qureshi had been to create doubts in the minds of the Indian public about Mr Krishna's credibility and professional competence. Another was to fabricate the illusion of a crisis in the hope of making the West and the Islamic world exercise pressure on India. The Bharatiya Janata Party and some of its leaders and spokesmen are unwittingly walking into the Pakistani trap by their campaign against Mr Krishna at a time when the political class should stand by him unitedly.

When the Bhuttos indulged in their anti-India antics, there was no global television. Interested observers had to read the news in print the following day and wait for the visuals which arrived days later. There were no live transmissions or debates. Most of the world did not follow what went on and the international community did not have any idea how the Pakistani Foreign Ministers and Prime Ministers comported themselves. But thanks to the global TV networks today, the whole world had an opportunity of watching live the belligerent doublespeak of Mr Qureshi and the Indians' measured response which will stand the nation in good stead.

India's negotiating stance of "action against anti-India terrorism first, rest later" and the growing international understanding of India's approach to dialogue between the two countries post-26/11 have unsettled Pakistan. Expectedly, Mr Qureshi's behaviour did not betray any nervousness or remorse over the reported admissions of David Coleman Headley, head of the sleeper cell of Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and 313 Brigade of Ilyas Kashmiri in Chicago, to Indian interrogators about the role of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence in the Mumbai attacks. It reflected petulance and anger over his failure to bully Mr Krishna and the Government of India into changing their negotiating stance and accepting the Pakistani position of "talk on all or talk on nothing" just as the Bhuttos' failure to bully their Indian counterparts into accepting the Pakistani viewpoint found expression in their thinly veiled misconduct. One should ignore Mr Qureshi's barbs and look ahead.

What now are the options before India? The BJP has demanded that talks be called off with Pakistan. This will be an unintelligent choice. There may be a time in future when India has to act of its own accord against the anti-Indian terrorist infrastructure in Pakistani territory which may either take the form of military action or covert action. India has to convince the international community that it tried all other options to make Pakistan see reason and that only when those options failed, it was forced to resort to military or covert action. There are any number of Governmental statements and doctrines in various countries regarding the circumstances under which covert action would be justified. The most important of these are a speech given by Mr George Shultz, the US Secretary of State in President Ronald Reagan's tenure, and an introduction to a report on terrorism written by Mr George HW Bush, Reagan's Vice-President and chairman of the presidential task force against terrorism. These state that covert action against a state sponsor of terrorism would be justified when all other options fail.

Negotiation is one of the options that must be tried. It could have one of two outcomes: The Pakistani establishment sees reason and acts against anti-India terrorism, thereby obviating the need for covert action, or it continues to avoid action, thereby justifying our resorting to covert action. It is, therefore, important that we continue with our negotiations with Pakistan in the hope of establishing normal relations while at the same time reviving and strengthening our covert action capability for possible use.

Should India continue dialogue with Mr Qureshi? Would it not be a poor reflection on India as a nation and further encourage such behaviour by Pakistan? The Indian Government cannot refuse to negotiate so long as Mr Qureshi is Pakistani Foreign Minister as Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has every right to appoint him.

So the only option available to us is to keep the negotiations going while at the same time protecting our national dignity by confining our future talks to interactions between the Indian Home Ministry and the Pakistani Interior Ministry. India should withdraw the invitation to Mr Qureshi to visit New Delhi issued earlier and instead invite Mr Rehman Malik, Pakistan's Interior Minister, for continuing the dialogue with Mr P Chidambaram, Union Minister for Home Affairs.

The writer, a former senior officer of R &AW, is a strategic affairs commentator.

 

[ajtr]

Either there are two groups with in UPA wrt relations between india and pak ie MMS and sSM other group is chidambram+anthony+finance minister.But the question is on who's side Rajmata is? Or the other thing is USA pressure is really telling on MMS as this news suggests.

Home secretary's comment on Pak role in 26/11 upsets PM​

And now this..............So it confirms USA has been back seat driving all the time

US steps in to 'save' Indo-Pak dialogue​

* Hillary Clinton phones foreign ministers of both countries and persuades them to meet on the sidelines of Kabul conference

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: The United States seems to have stepped in to salvage the India-Pakistan dialogue process, persuading the foreign ministers to once again "talk about talks" on the sidelines of an international conference in Kabul on July 20.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is believed to have talked to both, Indian External Affairs Minister SM Krishna as well as Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi on telephone ahead of the Kabul conference attended by 70 world leaders to discuss the future of Afghanistan.

Immediately after Clinton's pep talk, Qureshi reportedly called Krishna.

An Indian daily, The Asian Age, reported from Bengaluru that Qureshi had apologised "to his Indian counterpart for any perceived insults thrown at him while he was on the Pakistani soil". As the call comes ahead of the Kabul conference, Qureshi is also believed to have suggested a one-on-one meeting with Krishna.

Media reports suggest that the foreign minister's call came after he received a rap on his knuckles for his personal attack on Krishna from his own Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, and later, from the US secretary of state, who is also heading for the Kabul conference.

Clinton, who spoke to Krishna on Saturday, said she wanted to meet him separately at the summit, saying, she also "disapproved" of the tone and tenor of Qureshi's language and behaviour during his interaction with the Pakistani media.

Clinton told Krishna that she wanted to see the resumption of talks between India and Pakistan and assured that Pakistan was being persuaded to take "credible action" against those who had unleashed the terrorist attacks on Mumbai in 2008.

On the failure of the Islamabad talks, the Indian version is that the Pakistan Army's anger on Home Secretary GK Pillai's statement and insistence on a timeline on Kashmir and Siachen, as well as removing the reference to 26/11 in a joint statement, were the reasons of the "deadlock".

They believe that Krishna and Qureshi were said to have made good progress during their first session of talks, which started at 11am and lasted for nearly five hours, well beyond the schedule. The two also had a working lunch.

Krishna's schedule was to leave at 3:20pm and to reach Prime Minister Gilani's office to meet him at 3:30pm. The call on President Asif Ali Zardari was to follow at 5:30pm at the Presidency. Just 15 minutes prior to his departure, Krishna was informed that the order had been reversed and the call on Zardari would precede. In the time slot Krishna was to meet Gilani, army chief Ashfaq Kayani met the prime minister. Kayani had also met Zardari.

When the talks resumed after Krishna's two call-ons, the atmosphere had totally changed and Pakistan took a stringent posture and expressed anger at Pillai's statement.

Further, Pakistan wanted any mention of 26/11 removed from the joint statement, insisting that "Pakistan is as much a victim of terrorism as India is, you have had one 26/11, we have a 26/11 everyday".

They also wanted that Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Balochistan be included in the joint statement, to which Krishna, fearing a fallout akin to that of Sharm el-Sheikh, said a firm no.

Countering that Krishna was receiving phone calls during negotiations, they said that it was in fact Qureshi, who was getting chits from his officials during the conference.

When Qureshi referred to the AJK elected government, he received the first chit instructing him to refer to the phrase 'Indian-occupied Kashmir'. The second chit asked him to raise the issue of Balochistan.

Reports further said officials from both sides had worked past lunch on July 15 to produce a draft of common points for the joint ministerial press conference. But when the Pakistani side sent the draft to Qureshi for his approval, the minister shot it down.

 

[Pintu]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ow-to-India-Pak-talks/articleshow/6185087.cms

Qureshi deals fresh blow to India-Pak talks
TNN, Jul 19, 2010, 01.25am IST

NEW DELHI: Any suggestion of even a semblance of a climbdown by Pakistan, after the heat generated by its foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi's outburst on Friday, was cast aside by Qureshi himself who said he was not going to go to India "for a leisure trip".

With this, the fate of the talks now hangs in the balance as Indian officials interpreted the remark as a euphemism for Pakistan's insistence on making its action against India-specific terror groups subject to finding solutions to issues like Kashmir and Siachen.

Qureshi also said he was referring only to a member of the Indian delegation, and not foreign minister S M Krishna, when he spoke about Indians talking to Delhi on phone during the dialogue but he quickly dispelled any notion about Pakistan reaching out to New Delhi in the wake of what has happened in the past few days with his 'leisure' trip remark.

"I will not visit India for a leisure trip. I will only go if India is ready for meaningful, result-oriented and constructive talks and the environment is conducive for the parleys," he said. India had extended an invitation to Qureshi to visit Delhi later this year.

As expected, the remark further exacerbated the situation with officials in India, stating that it was Islamabad which seemed intent on damaging the process of dialogue by not doing enough to address India's concerns over terrorism.

Qureshi's remark has been seen in India as Pakistan's insistence on a timeframe for solutions to issues like Kashmir and Siachen, one of the main reasons for the collapse of the talks on Thursday. "There are certain issues which have been there for decades and it is impossible to stipulate a time period for their solution.
Pakistan can't blackmail us into solving these issues by combining them with its action against India-specific terror groups," said an official, adding that Pakistan's sudden belligerence on Kashmir was an attempt to fish in what Islamabad sees as troubled waters of the state.

While the government was willing to be guided by the assurances provided to PM Manmohan Singh by his
Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani in Thimphu, the Congress party itself is not amused by the turn of events in the past few days. Party sources said that at a time when more and more evidence is tumbling out to prove involvement of Pakistan state agencies in 26/11, there is no question of initiating the composite dialogue process in any other guise unless there is tangible action taken by Pakistan to dismantle the terror infrastructure.

Almost authenticating India's apprehension further, Qureshi also said India was not addressing Pakistan's concerns. "We listened to their concerns about Mumbai and terrorism and they too should have listened to our reservations. If they are answerable to their people, we too as a democracy are answerable to parliament and people of Pakistan," he said.

 

[Pintu]

Regards

 

[ajtr]

This talk ain't going nowhere —Shahzad Chaudhry​

The need for peace in South Asia is as much India's as it is Pakistan's. Under a nuclear umbrella and a strategic equilibrium of sorts, there is neither a threat, nor a probability of an insane military mind dreaming of a limited war, or even a conflict

"Two roads diverged in a wood. And I took the one less travelled by. And that has made all the difference" — Robert Frost.



These Track II dialogues are interesting events. One gets to mingle with all sorts: young, old, the not-so-old diplomats, academics, generals, hacks entrenched within the establishment and the not-so-entrenched liberals and progressives, conservatives and the rightists, spooks — old and new — but, importantly, all well drenched in the colours of their standards, Indian or Pakistani. And it makes you wonder, as one sits and observes the various hues and shades of human exposé, if one really rises above the make-up that one gathers in years past. A constant reminder that one needs to imbibe for the sake of what is perhaps falsely perceived as a joint future — since neighbours invariably are impacted by what goes on, on the other side of the wall — is to rise above one's shallowness, which in reality is how the subcontinentals must be characterised, in order to secure a more peaceful and congenial future, not for one's self, but for one's children. An impossible dream or a possible mission statement — depends what colour of glasses you are wearing that day.

What stands between the dream and its realisation is another motley group: Hafiz Saeed, Lakhvi, Kasab, Headley, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Mumbai, S M Krishna and a host of others on both sides of the divide whose day is made by keeping both sides quarrelling. Those who are left by the wayside, as this crowd travels the beaten path of the last 63 years, include the grandfatherly Manmohan Singh, meaning well, with a bias for resolving issues with Pakistan, but without a political constituency that clips his ambitions considerably and makes him dependent on his political masters. He is equally benign and harmless to his own political and bureaucratic machinery that chugs along the familiar track, unable to take the road less travelled for fear of chancing upon the unknown, howsoever innovatively promising and refreshing. And, his Pakistani colleague, the equally spare Yousaf Raza Gilani who studiously conveyed to his Indian colleague in Thimphu the strategic change in Pakistani thinking and the desire to think anew the relationship with India. From the Pakistani side, the president needs no convincing on the need to turn the chapter in Pakistan-India relations; he believes in it as a creed, and guides the political process in this endeavour. The foreign minister is an assiduous supporter of the cause: enlightened, progressive but a tad over-ambitious. He is also pragmatic and cautious with a budding political career, and must therefore give voice to all opinions within the establishment.

The army, as an organisation, is like a lumbering bear: slowly moving, awakening to the thought of a new construct — a war may never happen unless things become hopeless. There is no chance in the 21st century as the nature of war has changed irreversibly. A nation must look beyond traditional security constructs to survive challenges. Finally, there is the military might, including that ultimate leveller of differentials, nuclear might. These are now diminishing as measures of relevance in a constantly evolving world. They cautiously watch the process as it unfolds, hoping on one end that a change may actually proffer a different set of conditions where perennial security considerations morph into cooperative regional efforts to provide against threats of a combined hue of terrorists, drug traffickers, money launderers and cyber vandals. While, on the other end, in failure remains the comfort of a familiar operational environment, of large established forces, set-piece battle moves and a mindset that travels from one generation to the next — operational focus being a given. When some, therefore, want to factor in the Cold-Start dynamics as a game changer in the Indo-Pak operational environment, I cannot help but suppress my anguish at the naiveté that is intended to befuddle the uninitiated and seek an unworthy cause of eminence in search for newer relevance. The two countries, in actual fact, are always in a perpetual Cold-Start position. Try saying "go" one of these days.

It was in such a backdrop that a 'well-entrenched' Indian journalist of eminence shared the Indian belief that Pakistan must "provide" India with a schedule of actions along a time-line that would bring to justice the perpetrators of Mumbai, inclusive of action against Hafiz Saeed, reassuring India that Pakistan had indeed delivered on what has all of India seething against the 26/11 planners and perpetrators. My refrain is simple: on first impulse, how may Pakistan, another sovereign country with whom India has neither an arrangement nor an understanding or a history of such preferential interaction, seek entreaties expected mostly of vassal states? Forget about the legal or investigative fidelity entered into only in India on the basis of a partial inquiry, the expectation of Pakistan to 'deliver' is quixotic. The need for peace in South Asia is as much India's as it is Pakistan's. Under a nuclear umbrella and a strategic equilibrium of sorts, there is neither a threat, nor a probability of an insane military mind dreaming a of a limited war, or even a conflict — cold start or lukewarm notwithstanding. And pray, what might happen, were Pakistan not to 'deliver'? A continuation of the current situation, tbe status quo! So be it. We have learnt our way through it, we will learn a little more.

There is a lot to do within in both countries. Kashmir burns, again, as does the entire east and northeast. India will do well to get a handle on these burning issues. They also have to contend with an indigenous Taliban-like movement that will soon embroil the over 150 million Muslims of India and the state. Pakistan already has her hands full. Today it is useless to recount the genesis or the nurturing entities of what ails the region in the terrorism context. What is of utter urgency is to counter the trend. But, if only Mumbai was to encapsulate the entire extent of terrorism and its manifestations in South Asia, India must revert to some basic lessons in statecraft.

A commentator on Indian media exclaimed surprise over the fact that when India's newest rising profile has been well registered in Washington and in Beijing, how were the Pakistanis so indignant as not to notice the same and ended up treating the Indian foreign minister with such disdain?

Diplomacy is a tango of the two. Imagine S M Krishna and Shah Mehmood Qureshi doing the tango. What will be the result? A lot of clinks and clanks — typical of two straitjacketed, iron-clad (literally) entities entangling each other as they go through their steps. Why the din then on the recently concluded 'peace dialogue' between India and Pakistan air in, air out. South Block and Shiv Shankar Menon, both equally iron-cast, rule the roost. The political leadership in India remains a bystander and the poor S M Krishna must bear the brunt of ridicule. It is not only in Pakistan, even in India the security establishment calls the shots — except that the bureaucracy adds even more weight in Indian stubbornness. Free the poor Krishna from his captivity. Let him relax and smile, and enjoy his grandchildren — or allow him some flexibility.

 

[ajtr]

The republic of fear —Dr Syed Mansoor Hussain​

It is this 'fear'-based environment that allows the terrorists to work their evil so successfully. They realise that the safety and welfare of the average Pakistani is not really the major concern of the ruling elite

A few weeks ago I wrote in these pages that one of the major problems in Pakistan is a lack of respect. Respect for each other as well as that for institutions and this lack of respect even extends to how different institutions of state feel about each other. As I have thought more about it, it seems that what holds this society together is not respect but fear. Fear is what motivates most people as well as their actions in the present environment.

It might seem a stretch but the more I look at the situation in Pakistan, the more it resembles Thomas Hobbes' 'state of nature' where life as he described was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Written more than 300 years ago, these words described a society where there was no rule of law. The enlightenment philosophers developed the notion of a 'social contract' between the rulers and the ruled that eventually produced some order and predictability in the life of ordinary people.

Perhaps what we are seeing happen in Pakistan is the breakdown of this social contract if it ever indeed existed. A drive down almost any city street illustrates this point perfectly. The traffic is utterly disorganised and it is literally 'every man for himself'. It is not respect for any traffic rules but fear for personal safety that prevents accidents. The same ethos pervades the rest of our society.

The great disappointment is that even with an elected government in place that supposedly governs by the will of the people, what we see is an ascendant 'feudal attitude'. The ruled and the rulers are completely divided and those that rule us are imbued with the idea that they are superior and as such the laws that apply to ordinary people do not apply to them. As far as they are concerned the law is an instrument available to them to coerce people into complete subservience.

Pakistan is really governed today as it has always been by the permanent superior bureaucracy including the police forces. This is a gift to us from our former British masters. Before independence, the Indian Civil Service — the precursor of the present day senior civil service — ruled India and Pakistan in the name of the 'King Emperor' and even though it had towards the end many 'native' officers, these 'Indians' were entirely subsumed by the ruling ethos of the superiority of the rulers and the inferiority of those that they ruled.

As far as the feudal classes are concerned they also thrive on the memories of the rights they were given during the times of the Raj when every feudal lord, big or small, could function literally like a 'monarch' in his domain. Even though most of the royal states and big feudal estates have disappeared, that noxious ethos of inherited superiority still exists and has as a matter of fact poisoned the well of public life.

Almost any person who does well financially now takes on the airs of a feudal lord, lives with a retinue of subservient servants and drives around with a private army of armed guards. This includes many of our 'liberal' elite as well as our 'maulanas' — the modern 'princes of the church'.

The feudal ethos and the bureaucracy's inherited disdain for the ordinary people now permeates society at all levels. Even our supposed 'representatives' elected by the people, once elected, fall into this mind set. That many of them are descendants of the once ascendant feudals does not help the situation. As far as the rest of the people are concerned, the poor and the disadvantaged can expect neither any protection nor help from the powers that rule them and therefore essentially live in a world where fear is their daily bread.

It is this 'fear'-based environment that allows the terrorists to work their evil so successfully. They realise that the safety and welfare of the average Pakistani is not really the major concern of the ruling elite and as such they can terrorise the people and the rulers will not really come down hard against them as long as they themselves are safe. Personal safety of our rulers is guaranteed by the retinue of armed guards that they surround themselves with and that also at public expense.

Often I have wondered what it is exactly that the terrorists want. There are the usual explanations. Some on the Left think that the terrorists want a truly 'Islamic' society; others of a more conservative bent insist that the terrorists are really 'foreign' agents bent upon undermining the existing order so that the Pakistani 'nukes' can be taken over by 'infidels' and this the 'bastion' of Islam left at the mercy of marauding invaders.

The truth is probably simpler. The terrorists as well as their fellow travellers in the religious establishments are just taking advantage of the breakdown of the 'social contract' to drive the proverbial wedge deeper into the existing chasm between the rulers and the ruled. Once all semblance of law and order disappears, society they hope will then descend into a state of chaos. And from this chaos will in their opinion arise a system that they will control.

Interestingly, in this precarious environment the two forces that can possibly pull us back from the brink are the Pakistani army and the superior judiciary, two institutions that do not have a very pristine past. But in the present situation, the army is for all practical purposes totally committed to fighting the terrorist threat and the superior judiciary seems to have finally woken up to its responsibility as the arbiter of the rule of law.

If these two institutions continue to perform their appointed functions then the previously ineffectual civil society can perhaps find the gumption to reinvigorate the social contract and restore the right of all Pakistanis to be treated as equals under the law. But then, "if wishes were horses..."

 

[Pintu]

This article was published in The Statesman on 17th of July, 2010.

http://www.thestatesman.net/index.p...alking-&catid=39:perspective&from_page=search


Let deeds do the talking

17 July 2010
IT should be amply clear by now that Pakistan foreign minister Qureshi is a spoiler deliberately wrecking the Indo-Pak peace process. His provocative remarks after talks with SM Krishna concluded indicate this. One TV anchor ascribed his misconduct to pressure exerted by Pakistan's media. Another TV anchor asked what alternative is there to continuing with dialogue when two nuclear powers confront each other. Both views reflect popular perception. Both views are extremely naïve.
Qureshi's wrecking spree was not impelled by Pakistan's media. Let's get a few things straight. India is continuing with a fruitless dialogue in order not to displease America. Pakistan is wrecking talks to please China. Both governments behave like pawns on the Sino-US chessboard. In February this year, Qureshi visited Beijing where he taunted India by saying that he was ready even if India wasn't to give China a blank cheque for helping achieve Indo-Pak peace. This was on the eve of the Indo-Pak foreign secretaries' meeting.
Before the latest talks of the foreign ministers, President Zardari had visited Beijing to get his briefing. By wrecking the peace dialogue Pakistan is thumbing its nose at America . It can do that because it is backed by China which holds trillions of US treasury securities to render President Obama into a prize wimp.
India can follow a soft line or a hard line. India follows neither. A soft line involves a radical peace formula for Kashmir leading to a South Asian Union as I have repeatedly advocated. If that is considered futile in the light of Pakistan's intransigence, there is also a hard line India can adopt. India can do what I had suggested on 22 December, 2008.
I wrote in these columns: "India can tighten security internally on a war footing. It can seal all Indo-Pakistan borders and raise its guard militarily. It can break diplomatic relations with Pakistan and close down its embassy in Islamabad . It can sever all trade, cultural and people to people contacts with Pakistan . It can lobby in the UN to declare Pakistan a rogue state that has become the hub of global terrorism. It can urge all nations to impose trade sanctions against Pakistan and cut off all aid. It can give recognition and offer moral support to those separatists in Baluchistan who seek independence. It can do the same with Pashtuns in the NWFP who want to join up with their tribal brothers in Afghanistan. It can do all these things simultaneously. And then it has only to guard against precipitate action from across the borders, and wait. What the Indian government must resolutely avoid is to launch a military adventure under foreign advice. Sooner rather than later, Pakistan will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. It would be seen then how far and how effectively can China continue to prop up Pakistan ."
These steps with Pakistan would need to be augmented by India cutting off trade with China and blocking all its exports to India unless Beijing stops encouraging Islamabad. At present China is vulnerable. It desperately needs exports to maintain domestic stability. But India's economy can survive loss of trade with China. The time to play this card is now. Critics will describe this as extreme recklessness. We can heed the critics and play it safe. We can continue to talk with Pakistan to please America . We can continue to bleed as Pakistan inflicts terror strikes against us. We can continue to talk of playing a global role while acting like a puppet nation.

The writer is a veteran journalist and cartoonist

 

[ajtr]

How not to have talks —Imtiaz Alam​

The harder positions taken by the respective security apparatuses and their unwillingness to entertain each other's 'core concerns' are not letting diplomacy find its way out of the conflicting demands of the adversaries

One is stunned by the amateurish way the crucial Pak-India foreign ministers' moot has been handled — starting with the unwarranted remarks first by Indian Home Secretary G K Pillai and ending with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi's outburst against his polite interlocutor, External Affairs Minister of India, S M Krishna. What could have been a good beginning has turned into public acrimony, thanks to the two establishments who scuttled a sensible course taken by their respective foreign ministries to break the impasse. This is an example of how not to have talks between India and Pakistan.

The foreign ministers' talks did not help overcome the gap between the two sides' position, despite the preparatory meeting of the two foreign secretaries, Mr Salman Bashir and Ms Nirupama Rao, on June 24 in Islamabad to make preparations for their foreign ministers' meeting and who had agreed on an agenda and (hopefully) the contours of a possible outcome. If there were still unbridgeable gaps on security concerns, the two sides should have taken more time to sort them out behind closed doors instead of feeding into the mutually demonising circus so zealously pursued in the subcontinent. If during his visit to Islamabad on June 26, Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram had thoroughly discussed the new dossier(s) of information that revealed the confessions by David Coleman Headley, allegedly involving the ISI, certain army officers and other perpetrators belonging to Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT), then why did Mr Pillai try to preface the foreign ministers' talks a day earlier? It seems that the Home Ministry of India vetoed any movement on any count other than a satisfactory action by Pakistan's Ministry of Interior against all those allegedly involved in the Mumbai terrorism.

Mr Krishna himself said in his joint press conference along with Mr Qureshi that he "was here to see what action Pakistan has taken so far" on the confessions made by Headley. If that were the case, and this is what seems to have disturbed most Mr Krishna's quite articulate Pakistani counterpart and brought their meet to an acrimonious end, then the concerned security officials from the two countries should have met to clear the Mumbai-related mess first instead of putting their foreign ministers in an unenviable position. While the Indian delegation, as expected, stuck to its Home Ministry's core concern about the lack of action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage before agreeing to move on any other count, Mr Qureshi's sweet Seraiki talk and sensible urge to push for the resumption of a composite dialogue could not substitute for a lack of sufficient action by Pakistan's Ministry of Interior on Headley's revelations. The biggest CBM Mr Krishna was looking at was a solid action against those identified by Headley before embracing Mr Qureshi's priorities on which both were on the same page.

Discovering the futility of not having talks in a most troubled region, and prodded by the US, the two prime ministers had agreed in their one-on-one interaction at Thimphu to give the talks yet another try to bring the peace process back on track after it was derailed by the 26/11 terrorist attack on Mumbai in 2008. The earlier effort by Dr Manmohan Singh and Prime Minister Gilani at Sharm el-Sheikh had backfired on the Indian prime minister who was accused of being 'soft' on Pakistan. Failure of both the attempts shows that the harder positions taken by the respective security apparatuses and their unwillingness to entertain each other's 'core concerns' are not letting diplomacy find its way out of the conflicting demands of the adversaries.

India and Pakistan are back to the same point where the Agra Summit had failed. Only after the assurances that the Indian leadership had sought against alleged terrorism emanating form the territories under Pakistan's control were granted by General Pervez Musharraf, did India agree to sign the January 6, 2004 statement at Islamabad. Some measures to check cross-border infiltration, subsequently, paved the way for unprecedented forward movement on almost all components of the composite dialogue process. The solid basis behind the success of the four-year process of dialogue was that all components of the Pakistani establishment were on board and there was a bipartisan consensus in India and the initiative pioneered by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was carried forward by the Congress party. Both these factors are now missing. Neither does a bipartisan consensus exist in India, nor does the unity of command that was once the hallmark of General Musharraf's regime.

General Musharraf did push the process to the point of a major breakthrough even on Kashmir, but the Indians delayed it till the time the former military dictator lost his ground. In Pakistan's case, the Zardari government did show courage to make fresh moves but was hamstrung by the Mumbai backlash. Finding no response from New Delhi and under pressure from the media and the judiciary, the democratic government found it convenient to let the security establishment maintain its intransigence towards India. On the other hand, reeling under a popular backlash of the Mumbai attack, Mr Manmohan Singh, a genuine peacemaker, was not given a bailout by the Pakistani establishment that continues to harp on the beaten path of strategic depth/intrusion through unreliable proxies most of whom have turned their guns on Rawalpindi.

Regardless of Mr Qureshi's equaliser to cast his counterpart in a pathetic position, probably in retaliation for what the Indians have been saying about whom to talk to in Pakistan, both the foreign ministries are least autonomous to make their decisions. But by embarrassing his counterpart, Mr Qureshi has created a bad precedent for his upcoming visit to India, if at all it takes place. His minders, one suspects, have pushed him to a point where a courteous Shah Memood Qureshi would never have liked to be. The Indo-Pak dialogue was initiated with greater American effort. The Americans do not want to see Pakistan divided on two fronts. With the fate of the American surge in southern Afghanistan at stake and its strategic dependence on Pakistan, Islamabad is no more in a hurry to comply with Indian preconditions. The Pakistani security establishment may get an upper hand in the Afghan affairs as the US coalesces in, but not against India. Conscious of the security of the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, the Manmohan government tactically agreed to negotiations while exerting pressure on Pakistan on Mumbai and to restrain jihadis from crossing the LoC.

This strategic uncertain equilibrium is unlikely to stay. Yet another terrorist action in India can lead to unseen and unaffordable consequences. There could be a limited war getting out of hand that could alter the entire strategic environment and upset the whole design of the war on terror. This is the likely scenario that must wake up everybody in the region and the world at large. Let both sides not become a hostage to their self-delusionary strategic devices. The war on terror in Pakistan and Afghanistan has entered a critical stage which no power in the region and the world can afford to lose. Both sides must provide a way out and offer face saving for those who can deliver. Let us get over the Mumbai fallout, put the culprits on trial and go back to the spirit of the January 6, 2004 statement and pick up the thread of negotiations where it was left before 2008, instead of reinventing the wheel.

 

[ajtr]

DIPLOMATIC BUBBLE: Indo-Pak talks: what happened?​

By Saeed Minhas

ISLAMABAD: Is it true that instead of showing any positives from the recently-held ministerial meetings between India and Pakistan, the foreign ministers from both the countries preferred to play to their respective hawkish galleries thus lessening if not completely nullifying the impact of the much-hyped talks?

The diplomatic corps and intelligentsia in Islamabad were overtly expressing in advance that no major break-through should be expected from these talks between Shah Mehmood Qureshi and SM Krishna. But following the talks, now they are dismayed that both sides spoiled the opportunity crafted by their common friends like the UK, the US and even China.

The diplomatic gaffe from Qureshi is certainly not in sync with these high-profile talks, which had three rounds (one scheduled and two unscheduled in the span of just 12 hours) throughout the day. If a statement on the eve of the talks from Indian Home Secretary GK Pillai accusing the ISI of the Mumbai attacks and reiterating the same old Jamaatud Dawa mantra was a non-starter, then the tantrum shown by the Pakistani foreign minister can best be dubbed as a diplomatic blunder and nothing else.

To find some clues, meetings and interviews with some friends, known to represent the establishment mindset, revealed that it would be naïve to even think that agencies from both the sides were not playing their part in these talks. What might have brought a cool customer like Qureshi (many call him submissive) to set aside all basic norms, many diplomatic sources and establishment gurus believe, is the American double-talk with Pakistani Khakis over their proposed Afghan exit-strategy.

Whether they will able to pull out of the troubled Afghan lands, or whether their allies in NATO would be able to sustain the increasing number of body-bags (378 during this year so far, with over 50 percent belonging to the US) and financial burden (running into trillions of dollars), is not what matters, to Pakistani policy makers but what hurts them is the pressure from the US to share the Afghan turf with the Indians.

Many of them share the common perception that accusing Pakistan of being India-centric is as naïve as considering that Russians and Chinese have dumped their plans to have access to the warm waters or Americans are no more concerned about the Chinese or Iranian threat to their hegemony in the region.

In the face of cold-start strategies (India's Pak-specific war doctrine) and prick-and-bleed policies being practiced on Pakistan's soft-bellies like Balochistan and the north-western region, the Pakistani establishment is not ready to close its eyes to both internal and external factors threatening its very existence or strategic edge, especially when multiple forces with multiple designs are competing/operating simultaneously in its vicinity.

Strategic depth still remains the mainstay of the Pakistani establishment but due to a paradigm shift in the ground realities, bitter experience of dealing with the leftovers of the US-CIA-funded and ISI-run jihadi monster and changing scenarios of the region's strategic importance in the coming days, this depth is no more dependent on sub-conventional actors, rather it is focused primarily on a visible deterrence and secondly, on a pro-active diplomacy.

In the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks in November 2008, India's shutter-down approach towards Pakistan is well documented. Whereas, riding on its specially-developed relationship with the Americans and being a victim-of-terrorism-state itself, Pakistan has been gaining diplomatic currency in the recent past by not only showing its willingness to open bilateral or even trilateral talks with India but also to earn respect from the world bodies for its cooperative gestures, military adventures and strategic plus intelligence sharing acts. In return, the establishment has been asking to protect its strategic interest, development as well as investment needs and instead of over-stretching the Pakistan Army from east to northwest, its primary concerns should be given due consideration.

Ranging from decades-old disputes such as Kashmir, water, Sir Creek and Siachen to recently added ones like the controversial dams, terrorism, and financing the insurgencies in each others' terrains, both countries have adopted various means of proxy wars, yet they have managed to accumulate more problems then resolving any single one from the existing list.

Trust deficit, therefore, keeps surfacing whenever there are chances of heading towards conflict resolution. In this context many analysts believe that if the US plans to groom Afghanistan as another proxy war zone for not only India and Pakistan but to settle its scores with the other regional powers, then the mess is likely to multiply in magnitude and manifest. By constantly urging the Indians to play a crucial role in Afghanistan, they believe, the Americans are playing a game, which might backfire with severe consequences for all the stakeholders.

A high-profile Afghanistan conference is about to take place on July 20 in Kabul where US President Barack Obama's diplomatic queen Hillary Clinton along with his military and strategic bigwigs will appear in person to share (as many diplomats consider dictate) the views of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, foreign ministers from 40 nations and 30 other delegates from interested nations and organisations.

According to a leaked agenda of the upcoming Kabul conference reported by a British newspaper, all the countries fighting in Afghanistan would announce to hand over the country's security to the local Afghan Forces by 2014. If we give any credence to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who had admitted recently in Brussels that the international community had "underestimated" the size of the challenge in Afghanistan, then we can only hope that hastening towards winding up this mission or concluding it without caring for the respective 'national interests' of all the stakeholders might not bode well for the region and the rest of the players involved. How the world leaders, led by the UN secretary general and aided by Secretary Clinton, will look at this is something which everyone will be interested to know, including both India and Pakistan. Therefore, analysts believe that any future developments between the nuclear-armed archrivals would be hinging partly on the outcome of this Kabul conference or largely on the broader American policy regarding Afghanistan and the region.

 

[ajtr]

Puppets of peace​

By Jalees Hazir | Published: July 18, 2010
Print Facebook Digg StumbleUpon Text Size
Discussions in the media on last week's Pak-India talks in Islamabad focused on some disturbing differences that surfaced during the joint press conference and were accentuated the next day by candid remarks of Paki-stan's Foreign Minister. The bullying tactics and dramatic antics of the Indian government and the docility and ineptness of our own also received due attention. However, not much was said about two inter-connected fundamental problems blighting the Pak-India peace process: Lack of vision on part of the leadership of the two countries and their inability to view normalisation of relations outside the American framework.
The leaders on either side swing like erratic pendulums between two equally unproductive postures; assuming the false tone of reconciliatory American puppets on the one hand and mouthing jingoistic mutually irreconcilable rhetoric on the other. In the short-term, this approach might suit the Indian government whose growing strategic partnership with the US has led to a synchronisation of the narrowly-defined and short-sighted foreign policy objectives of the two countries but it spells disaster for the prospects of lasting stability and durable peace in the region. Pakistan, that is the target of this team of bullies, cannot afford to continue to play ball with them.
Since the Mumbai attacks, the Indian government seems to be happily playing the B-team for the Americans when it comes to its dialogue with Pakistan. In the recently concluded talks, its insistence on the single-point agenda of terrorism, and bulldozing the Pakistan government to do more to quell it, was what led to a deadlock. The rude dismissal of Pakistani concerns and a refusal to discuss them until it satisfies India regarding its sincerity to tackle the terrorist organisations echoes the tone now discarded by the US, at least in its public posturing, and is obviously encouraged by the meddlesome superpower. The statement of the Indian Home Minister a day before the talks directly implicating the ISI in the attacks cannot be brushed aside as a coincidence either.
That the US and India are both interested in cutting ISI down to size and bringing the Pakistan army under pressure is obvious. Why they want to do it is no secret either. Convinced that the civilian government in Pakistan would not resist the strategic goals of the two bullies in the region, they view the two targeted institutions as irritating hurdles in their hegemonic designs. The failure of Pakistan's Foreign Minister to bring evidence of Indian involvement in Balochistan and FATA to the discussion table gives credence to this perception about the PPP government. Similarly, the government's lack of conviction in pursuing the crucial issues of water and Kashmir also indicates that it is playing its part in a scripted normalisation process that has little to do with the interests of Pakistan. The entire exercise seems to be aimed at paving the way for the US game plan in Afghanistan and its cruel vision for the region's future that, like elsewhere in the world, feeds on the misery of the people.How wise is it for two neighbours to redefine their problematic relationship according to the wishes of a bully from the next block? Are they not inviting the unscrupulous and greedy muscleman to call the shots in their street? And that is what the visionless puppet governments in India, as well as Pakistan must understand. Allowing the US to direct their bilateral relations from behind the scenes is a sure recipe for disaster. The imperialist bully arm-twists and corrupts the aid-dependent Pakistan government and it plays upon the regional power fantasies of the Indian political elite to serve only one insincere goal: global hegemony. The Indians might be happy that the US is bent upon beating Pakistan with a stick to death. They should know that the bunch of carrots it is dangling in front of their eyes is little more than illusions. In any case, none of these carrots will help the cause of the Indian people. Like the people of Pakistan, they will be at the receiving end of the stick.
Endless hostility between Pakistan and India does not serve the interests of people of the two countries, and it is important to work towards a resolution of disputes that lie at the root of these hostilities. Any normalisation that is based on real or imaginary perceptions of state power, rather than concepts of justice and fairplay, is bound to be short-lived. The redefinition of Pak-India relations must be grounded in these concepts and a desire for the welfare of their citizens. And for the dialogue to produce any positive results, it is important that governments that represent the two nations, rather than visionless puppets, direct the process.
The biggest challenge for peace-loving citizens on either side is not the reconciliation of hardened positions but bringing to the fore a leadership that truly represents the interest of their lands and people who inhabit them. It will not be difficult for such a leadership to stay clear of bullies from the next block who, in the garb of nudging them for friendship, pit one against the other and sow newer seeds of enmity. It will not be difficult for them to understand the virtues of real peace, to be fair to each other and reconcile their differences in a win-win solution to our problems.
True, there are serious issues involved and over the years the two states have created narratives that demonise the other. But a sincere leadership with a vision in Pakistan and India will not be afraid to move on from the existing mutually irreconcilable positions and build a future based on mutual benefit, respect and trust. It will not be afraid to be fair to each other. A lasting peace can only be built upon the foundation of justice. It cannot be achieved by puppets, weak or strong, that are guided by principles of power; their feet not on the ground but in the air, and their movements guided by hidden hands that pull their strings from above.
The writer is a freelance columnist.

 

[ajtr]

Enough is enough!​

By Inayatullah | Published: July 18, 2010
Print Facebook Digg StumbleUpon Text Size
Profile in Politics
The drama staged in Islamabad on July 15, 2010, under the title of the so-called "Composite Dialogue", has now turned out to be a replay of the Agra Summit held in 2001 between former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
According to reports, Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said that his counterpart S.M. Krishna was not ready for the composite dialogue, rather was more interested in "narrowing down" the talks only to terrorism. He revealed that Krishna was receiving telephone calls from Delhi during the conference held in the Foreign Office, at Islamabad.
In response to Qureshi's Friday statement, Krishna, now in Delhi, said: "All core and burning problems between the two neighbouring countries were deliberated upon with the aim of reducing trust deficit." He also added that he "didn't receive any calls from New Delhi during the meeting." As a result, the so-called composite dialogue proved to be counterproductive, adding to the existing mistrust, bitterness and animosity created after the Mumbai tragedy, rather than moving towards greater harmony.
The point is: has Washington's plan to bring the two nuclear neighbours in South Asia together failed? Probably, yes! This plan was conceived by Washington for two reasons. First, to ensure joint action by India and Pakistan against terrorism. Second, to facilitate the success of its AfPak strategy to end the war in Afghanistan, and ensure a safe exit to the US and NATO forces. But it seems that even though the US administration failed, this meeting provided an opportunity to Krishna to insist on speedy action against the Mumbai terrorists, as well as impose restrictions on various banned outfits still functioning under different names. Krishna, particularly, targeted Hafiz Saeed and accused Pakistan's ISI for much of the trouble. Qureshi, finding himself pushed to the wall, decided to retort by raising the issue of Kashmir and human rights violations.
However in one stroke, Krishna not only dismissed the charge of human rights violation in IHK, but also successfully scuttled any mention that was made with regard to the Kashmir issue. This made the environment of the so-called composite dialogue hostile, leaving almost no hope for future talks.Nevertheless, Krishna invited his counterpart to visit Delhi which was accepted by Qureshi, as a diplomatic courtesy. So this was the end of the Islamabad parleys. As far as the joint briefing of the two Foreign Ministers is concerned, the less said about it the better. At best, it was a good photo session, which brought the many series of the composite dialogue, during the past few years, back to square one.
Both Pakistan and Washington need to find out the causes for the failure of the negotiations right at the beginning. Who is responsible for the present deadlock? Was it due to BJP's pressure on the Congress-led government? One thing that is clear is that the mischief backfired, whosoever was the master mind behind it.
Indeed, if the present geopolitical and strategic environment of the region demands resolution of contentious issues, before it is too late, Washington must devise a new plan to end the present impasse. But why would India change the present Indo-Pak impasse as long as Washington continues to promote Indian hegemony over the South Asia region to counter China? And how can India ever succeed in achieving hegemony when it is not acceptable by any one of the countries in the region?
Washington is well advised to review its grand strategy about the South Asia region, falsely posing India as a regional power, and take necessary measures in the interest of not only the region, but also the world at large. Only then would the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan move towards its desired strategic goal. Till then Pakistan should tell India "enough is enough!"
The writer is the President of the Pakistan National Forum.

 

[ajtr]

NightWatch

For the Night of 16 July 2010​

India-Pakistan: The Foreign Ministers' talks in Islamabad yesterday have deepened suspicion and resentment, despite public statements that the Indians were pleased. Indian External Affairs Minister Krishna told the press, "I'm going back (to India) with the assurance from the highest level that information shared during Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram's visit here and the leads that have emerged from Headley's interrogation by the FBI and Indian investigators would be investigated. If these could help unravel the conspiracy and go after the culprits it could be the biggest confidence-building measure."

Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi thinks Krishna snubbed him and sidestepped Pakistan's concerns. In the joint press conference, the men described the talks as constructive -- which means they achieved nothing -- and agreed to meet again.

Subsequently, Qureshi insulted Krishna in public in saying today that the Indians are not ready for dialogue; are not "mentally prepared to engage in dialogue." Krishna fired back that his "mandate was very clear," implying the Pakistani expectations were not realistic and missed the point.

Comment: Since 26 November 2008, India single mindedly has pursued one issue with Pakistan: justice for the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks on that date. Every Indian initiative or response has put progress on terrorism based in and supported by Pakistan as the top issue for discussion, the condition for talks on all other issues.

Pakistan has indulged a fantasy in thinking the Indians would get over Mumbai after several years and move beyond it to issues such as water rights to the Indus. They made a strategic blunder in this assessment.

The Indians take away confirmation that Pakistan remains unserious about suppressing anti-Indian terrorist groups; about overhauling its intelligence apparatus whose support for the anti-Indian Lashkar-e-Taiba has never stopped; and about abandoning terrorism as an extension of state policy. Pakistan continues to be a state supporter of anti-Indian terrorism. That made yesterday's meeting a dialogue of the deaf.

Mumbai update. According to the Indians, David Headley, a U.S. citizen who helped plan the 2008 Mumbai attacks, said Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) gave Lashkar-e-Taiba 2.5 million rupees ($53,000) to buy a boat to carry the Mumbai attackers from Karachi, The Times of India reported 16 July. The terrorists then hijacked an Indian fishing boat at the Pakistani maritime boundary to reach Mumbai.

Headley has identified two ISI officers who handled the attackers through a voice sample, and Indian investigators have information indicating that ISI chief Lieutenant General Ahmed Shuja Pasha met one of the handlers, Sajjid Mir, who is currently held in a Pakistani jail. All of the information has been shared with Pakistan, an Indian source said. Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi declined to address this information raised by the Indians.

Comment: The Indians are in a quandary. They know -- because Pakistani analysts have found -- that Pakistani military governments, especially that of Musharraf, have a record of advancing and deepening popular support for Islamic extremism, measured by the exponential growth in madrasahs during periods of military rule. A few years ago The Daily Times published an extensive expose that presented the data.

At the same time, politically, military governments tend to mend fences with India. Musharraf went so far as to propose a solution for converting the Line of Control in Kashmir into a permanent border.

The result of this combination of policies is that Kashmir becomes less violent but anti-Indian terror increases. Thus, under Musharraf's tenure Kashmir devolved into a law and order problem for India, tourism increased and India began withdrawing soldiers. However, Pakistani intelligence supplied and financed the LeT attack against Mumbai in November 2008, three months after Musharraf resigned as President.

Elected civilian governments in Pakistan restrain the growth of Islamic extremism, including the proliferation of madrasahs, but do so by using Kashmir human rights and self determination to generate popular and Army support.

The result of this combination is increased infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir State during the past two years that has slowed the return to civil normality in Kashmir. However, there have been no new major LeT terrorist attacks against India.

Under both forms of government Pakistani intelligence avoids executive control by switching its emphasis, alternately supporting terrorism against India or Kashmiri militants.

Lately, India is pressing an advantage in that the elected Pakistani government shares India's concern about the threat of Islamist terror and even a takeover of government at some point. However, the Zardari-Gilani leadership in Islamabad seems to lack the power, and maybe even the knowledge, to control the extremists. The Indians remain willing to help them, to be sure, as this week's talks showed.