Indo-Pak joint statement at Cairo on Baluchistan, and the aftermath

[I-G]

Pak provided no evidence on India's role in Balochistan: US
PTI 30 July 2009, 08:49am IST


WASHINGTON: US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke on Wednesday said that Pakistani leaders brought up the issue of India's alleged involvement in Balochistan, but did not give any credible evidence to support their claim. ( Watch )

"I would be misleading, if I said it didn't come up," Holbrooke told State Department Press Corps when asked to comment on the meetings he had with Pakistani leaders during his last week's visit to that country.

Asked if Pakistan has provided him with any "credible evidence of India's involvement in Balochistan", he said: "The narrow answer to your question is no." However, he did not elaborate any further.

He also reiterated that Kashmir is outside his ability to discuss.

Responding to questions, Holbrooke said there is no difference with India on the issue of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"You know, India was the first country in the world I was ever aware of. I have a very special feeling for it. And if there's a rift, you have to ask the Indians. I didn't see any rift," the US envoy said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ole-in-Balochistan-US/articleshow/4836327.cms

 

[Yusuf]

US bails out India from Balochistan wrangle

WASHINGTON: Pakistan has not provided any evidence to the United States of India's involvement in the insurgency in Balochistan, and Washington

attaches no credibility to Islamabad's charges in this regard, a top US official has indicated.

The US view on Pakistan's allegation came during a briefing by the Obama administration's Af-Pak envoy Richard Holbrooke, who, while acknowledging that Pakistan brought up the subject during his recent visit to the country, told Washington's foreign press corps, "I would be misleading if I said it didn't come up, but the narrow answer to your question (has Pakistan given you any credible evidence of India's involvement?) is no."

Holbrooke's terse response to the Balochistan wrangle -- the latest between India and Pakistan -- broadly squares with the assertion in New Delhi that while Pakistan has raised the issue of India's alleged involvement in the region, it has offered no evidence, even as it falsely propagates in the Pakistani media that it has give a dossier to New Delhi in this regard. The Pakistani press is full of dark conspiracies of Indian intelligence involvement in the province, an inference to which New Delhi credulously allowed Islamabad to incorporate in a joint statement at Sharm-el-Sheikh.

The US has now, in effect, bailed out New Delhi. Holbrooke has previously rubbished Pakistan's charges about alleged Indian provocations from its consulates in Afghanistan, saying he had no reason to believe Islamabad's charges, and Pakistan would do well to examine its own internal problems. Other officials too have said Pakistan is merely trying to externalize a serious internal crisis while evading responsibility to crack down on home-grown terrorism.

In fact, Holbrooke's briefing following his latest visit to the region was notable for its dire tone with regard to Pakistan, a country which he characterized as "facing a staggering number of front-page story problems at one time." Describing Washington's efforts to stamp out terrorists in Pakistan frontier province, Holbrooke said it "hard to imagine a more dangerous area on the face of the earth today than an area which contains al-Qaida, Pakistani Taliban, Afghan Taliban, two and a half million refugees. It's just extraordinary how difficult it is."

The US envoy also trashed speculation about a rift with India that led to the reported cancellation of his visit to New Delhi with an extraordinary revelation. "You know, if there's a rift between me and India, it would be the first rift between me and India since I was seven years old. You know, India was the first country in the world I was ever aware of. I have a very special feeling for it," Holbrooke said.

Such expression of personal affection for countries is seldom expressed by US officials and is certain to rankle Pakistan, which is already sour about a perceived American tilt towards India over the last decade. Holbrooke went on to clarify that the only reason he scrubbed the New Delhi leg of his visit was because three of the four Indian interlocutors he engaged with were all going to be out of town. He would be going back in mid August, "within the limits of Indian independence (day)."

US bails out India from Balochistan wrangle - US - World - NEWS - The Times of India

 

[Ray]

It does not matter what the US has to say.

It is a gaffe.

We shall regret it!

 

[Daredevil]

Why not a military option against Pakistan?

If diplomacy could be translated into actual warfare, then the joint Indo-Pak statement at Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt would be tantamount to a massive decisive victory for Pakistan and a colossal defeat for India leaving it with a near defunct armory. In fact, India's composition exemplified everything that a country should not do in international parley: barter away ones advantage and willingly handover to its foe a new issue much to its own detriment. No wonder Pakistan walked away from this summit a clear winner having successfully set the agenda and manipulated the conclusion to suit its interests.

However to decipher the true significance of this encounter, we need to reach beyond the innuendos and the syntax inherent in the documentation. Lost in the polemics of delinking terrorism from the composite dialogue and the reference to Balochistan is a far more important nuance of Indo-Pak relations. A message that rings loud and clear and which India has repeatedly failed to comprehend: Pakistan has not changed its attitude and continues to indulge in wordplay that is plain chicanery.

The entire document reads like an exercise in deception. Compartmentalising terrorism and the composite dialogue gives Pakistan maneuvering space to drag its feet. It can claim to be in the process of normalising relations with India while covertly abetting terror on the side. If Pakistan's intention was beyond reproach, then the need for this clause, "action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed", would be redundant. Moreover, Balochistan is a red herring thrown in to muddy the picture, place India on the defensive and an issue to be resurrected at a later time as an equalizer to Kashmir.

Making a bad situation worse is India's gullibility which it flaunts as moral bravado.

"Just put the cards on the table, I am not scared," Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is quoted to have remarked to Yousuf Raza Gilani at the recent summit in his trademark self effacing style; a characteristic that may be an asset in domestic politics when confronting political adversaries but is a definite liability on the international stage. The net effect of PM Singh's candor was the inappropriate and self incriminating reference to Balochistan.

India's display of naiveté becomes all the more unacceptable in light of the premonitory events preceding this arbitration. A few days prior Lashkar-e-Tayiba founder Hafiz Mohammed Saeed, who had been in custody since December for his role in masterminding the Mumbai attacks, was released from jail. Apart from indicating a lack of resolve on reigning in terror, what this release signified was Pakistan's blatant disregard for India's sensibilities. In effect Pakistan was cocking a snook at India, ahead of this deliberation.

In lieu of a firm, uncompromising stand that this delinquency warranted India responded with its standard accommodating nature which only reinforces the concept of India as a soft nation that is incapable of hard decisions: in other words a wimp. Terrorism remains the contention numero uno between the two countries as far as India is concerned. Yet India readily acquiesced to the Pakistani version of the draft.

For Pakistan treachery has always been second nature. Kargil stands out as another example of this continuing deceit. In February 1999, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the leader of the hardline Bharatiya Janata Party , shed his inhibitions and hopped onto a bus to Islamabad carrying with him a message of peace and goodwill. On his trip he made it a point to visit Minar-e-Pakistan (a monument built at a site where Indian Muslims first articulated their demand for Pakistan) to affirm India's recognition of Pakistan as a nation and to allay any misgivings that Pakistanis had about India's notion of their existence. In return, barely two months later, Pakistan sent hordes of army personnel disguised as militants to invade a large swath of Indian territory triggering the Kargil conflict.

Since the early 1990's Pakistan, through its proxy agents, has conducted a relentless campaign of terror against India, bombing its cities, hijacking its planes and attacking its Parliament with the Mumbai attacks of 26/11 being the most recent in this endless and more to come series of diabolical acts.

Every terror attack has engendered a stereotype sequence of events that religiously repeats itself at regular intervals. Terrorists attack India, India seethes with anger and lodges a protest with Pakistan. Pakistan initially denies any involvement and then reluctantly agrees to look into it under world pressure. Months later the whole episode is forgotten and we are back to square one.

The tenor post 26/11 however did seem slightly different at the outset. People's wrath had prompted the Indian government to mount a sustained diplomatic offensive. And for once Pakistan appeared to be responding positively to India's concern. The present resolution throws a monkey wrench into the whole process. Again Pakistan has managed to wriggle out of a tight corner, thanks to India's naivete. The cycle repeats itself.

The top leadership of the two countries has met several times over the last decade starting with Vajpayee's historic bus ride. Each time Pakistan has chanted the same mantra: we will not let terrorists use our soil to launch attacks against India. But terrorists continue their activities unabated with India appearing as a hapless victim incapable of protecting itself.

An analysis of the decade long tete-a-tete between the two countries leads one to the following conclusions. One, Pakistan on its own will not act to eradicate anti-Indian terrorists from its midst for its own official machinery is inextricably intertwined with this anti-India strategy. Two, the present civilian government even if it appears sincere at times is incapable of countering the diktat of the all powerful Pakistan Army [ Images ] that calls the shots in that country and whose anti-India mindset is impregnable. If that is the case aren't we wasting our time dealing with a powerless broker?

Lastly, it is obvious that India does not have the diplomatic finesse or clout to force Pakistan's hand.

That brings us to an existential conundrum: what do we do in this setting? The joint statement at Sharm-el-Sheikh indicated that both "Prime ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward."

Let me play devil's advocate and pose the question: why? Is it essential that we cling to an approach that has yielded no results? We have persisted with this policy for over a decade. We have shown exemplary restraint in the face of extreme violent provocation and dutifully internalised the loss of lives of our citizens. How long can we wait and for what? Another attack like Mumbai 26/11 or until our country is completely devastated and destroyed? After all terrorists have vowed to bleed us to death through a thousand cuts.

Diplomatic correctness warrants that we eschew a military option and India's ethical values have always nudged us in this direction. But do we have a choice when there is no authority in Pakistan capable or willing to stem the rot? Does it not then become our bounden duty to take all measures to safeguard the lives of our citizens?

Precision surgical strikes covered by the readiness for wider military involvement if necessary must be a standing, practical option executable as a last resort to extract a permanent and lasting peace from our wayward neighbour. Yes, there is a definite downside to such a venture: the danger of conventional warfare escalating into a much dreaded nuclear combat. And it is this concern that has repeatedly kept our leaders from pursuing this path and it is this bogey that Pakistan has repeatedly flagged to blackmail India into inaction.

But we must remember that this is a bogey that cuts two ways. Our neighbours despite their macho talk suffer from the same trepidation that we harbor. They must realize and probably do, that they are not be immune to the deadly consequences of a nuclear fallout. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, a nuclear war between India and Pakistan is a mere chimera, not a practical possibility.

India's naivete and Pakistan's deceit have inadvertently conspired to produce a stalemate that maintains a dangerous status quo between Pakistan aided terror and India's inertia. To break this logjam, we need to be pragmatic. A military option kept hanging like a Damocles sword in tandem with an ongoing dialogue is vital to ensure results.

Vivek Gumaste

 

[Pintu]

Pak says committed to resuming dialogue with India :: Samay Live

Pak says committed to resuming dialogue with India

Tags:

Published by: Ravish K
Published: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 at 19:04 IST

Rezaul H Laskar

Islamabad, Aug 4 (PTI) Insisting that "war is not anoption" in the region, Pakistan today said it is committed toresuming the dialogue process with India as talks are the onlyway forward to improve the bilateral ties.

Mutual cooperation and dialogue are the only way forwardand will benefit both countries, Foreign Minister Shah MahmoodQureshi told reporters after a function at the Foreign OfficeTraining Academy here.

"We have to engage to resolve all issues," he said.

Asked about India's recent launch of its firstnuclear-powered submarine 'INS Arihant', he said "Pakistandoes not want to follow an arms race in the region but thereis balance due to the strategic ability of Pakistan."

"This balance clearly indicates that war in not an optionin the region and it will be a suicidal attempt," he said.

Though Pakistan has taken "serious notice" of the launchof the nuclear submarine, it "is fully aware of its defenceneeds and confident of its defence strength," he said, addingthe country also has no aggressive designs against anyone.

As dialogue is the only way forward and there did notseem to be any lack of will among leaders of Pakistan andIndia, it is expected that the dialogue process will resumesoon, Qureshi said.

"There is a need for leaders of both countries to adopt acareful and optimistic attitude for the resumption and successof the dialogue process...With positive attitudes, we can makeprogress," he said.

 

[Ray]

TIME TO GET REAL
- India has given Pakistan cause to celebrate
Brijesh D. Jayal

It is ironic that in the midst of a red alert of another possible terrorist strike in Mumbai, where allegedly seven specific targets were identified, India should have given cause to the Pakistan army’s general head quarters in Rawalpindi to celebrate. The reason, a joint statement by the prime ministers, Manmohan Singh and Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani, after their meeting on the sidelines of the non-aligned movement summit at Sharm el-Sheikh.

What has bewildered many in the Indian strategic community is the volte face by India in accepting that “action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and that these should not be bracketed” — contrary to the stand India had taken after the 26/11 (and earlier) terrorist attacks. The message to the Pakistan army and the ISI is that they can continue unhindered with their “silent war of inflicting a thousand cuts” on India, while the Pakistan government will sit on the diplomatic table with India signalling to the international community their involvement in banishing the scourge of terrorism

The United States of America and its Nato allies are presently concerned with Afghanistan, al Qaeda and the Taliban, and not with terrorists fathered and nurtured by the Pakistan army to wage jihad in Kashmir. They need Pakistan’s support for operations in Afghanistan. Hence it surprises no one when the US secretary of state, on a visit to India, cheers this diplomatic feat.

Among other issues, the joint statement agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both countries and the leaders affirmed their resolve to fight it and to cooperate with each other to this end. No mention was made of who qualify as terrorists as there is no agreed definition of a terrorist even among the international community. One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. There is even talk in Western capitals of differentiating between good and bad Taliban in Afghanistan. Nations are guided solely by national interests and India needs to recognize this reality.

Endless reference to both nations being victims of terror without differentiating who the perpetrators are, distorts the entire picture. India is a victim of terror born out of Pakistan’s state policy where outfits have been created by the ISI as strategic assets to wage asymmetric war on India. Pakistan, on the other hand, is victim of its creation, the Taliban, who now are reacting to Pakistan supporting the US and Nato presence in Afghanistan. To overcome this rather obvious contradiction, Pakistan has now succeeded in trapping India into bringing “Balochistan and other areas” into the equation. Having introduced a red herring, the stage is set to bolster Pakistan’s oft-repeated claims that India is interfering in these areas. Worse still, every attack in Balochistan and other areas by the Taliban will be painted as an Indian-sponsored terrorist attack with suitably fabricated evidence.

Not surprisingly, on his return, a combative Gilani fired the first salvo by claiming that the joint statement “underlines our concerns over India’s interference in Balochistan and other areas of Pakistan”. In one go, India has achieved the diplomatic feat of moving from being an internationally accepted victim of Pakistan-sponsored terror to being accused of sponsoring terror in Pakistan.

It was in January 2004 that Pervez Musharraf reassured Atal Bihari Vajpayee that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan’s control to be used for supporting terrorism in any manner. This solemn pre-condition resulted in an agreement to move forward with the process of the “composite dialogue”. That this rapprochement had the nudging of the US became apparent when Colin Powell, then secretary of state, boasted to US News and World Report about the US’s role: “We have been working with the Indians and Pakistanis for almost two years, from a period of ‘We’re going to nuclear war this weekend’ to, you know, this is a historic change. And so I think a lot of the seeds that were planted are now germinating and you’ll (see) us harvesting crops.”

In July 2006, when seven bomb blasts took place in Mumbai suburban trains leaving 209 dead and 700 injured, the truth of dealing with Pakistan should have dawned on us. A strong statement made by the prime minister was followed by the minister of state for external affairs announcing that India would suspend talks with Pakistan until Musharraf abided by his 2004 promise of ending all support to cross-border terrorism. This proved to be hollow rhetoric.

Barely two months later on his flight to Havana for the summit of the NAM in September 2006, the prime minister surprised everyone by mentioning that Pakistan was also a victim of terror. At the conclusion of the meeting with Musharraf, the PM read out a joint statement that said, “They have decided to put in place an Indo-Pak anti-terrorism institutional mechanism to identify and implement counter-terrorism initiatives and investigations.” Not only had we forgotten the Mumbai train blasts, but clearly we continued to put blind faith in Musharraf, the architect of Kargil and of a subsequent coup in his country.

Our belief in ‘setting a thief to catch a thief’ naturally produced nothing tangible except some sharing of intelligence, to our detriment.Then followed the July 2008 suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, during which 58 people including two Indian diplomats were killed and 141 injured. The New York Times on August 1, 2008, reported allegations by unnamed US officials of Pakistan’s ISI having aided the attack. During the 15th SAARC summit in Colombo in August 2008, Gilani assured India that his government would carry out an independent investigation of the attack. India should have known that these were hollow words, as it is common knowledge that the GHQ Rawalpindi and the ISI do not share their plans even with their own government. Both India and Pakistan were now playing the game of hollow rhetoric as far as terrorism was concerned.

The most daring of all attacks was on Mumbai on November 26, 2008. No ordinary attack, this bore the marks of one that was planned and supported by the military, clearly indicative of what the future holds. Mumbai was held hostage for three days and glaring shortcomings in our intelligence and anti-terror planning were on display to the world. Among the 173 people killed were some foreign nationals, and over 300 were injured. One terrorist who was captured has recently confessed guilt during his trial. The US and Israel, which lost citizens, have since conducted thorough investigations, but have revealed little to the public. It is possible that the US now realizes that containing the Pakistan military and ISI was easier said than done. Their own anxiety in Afghanistan coupled with the Pakistan military’s craftily exaggerated fear of India has made the US conclude that the only option from their own perspective was to work on the soft Indian state. So when Hillary Clinton welcomes the Sharm el-Sheikh initiative, she knows too well the part the US is playing behind the scenes in nurturing and harvesting the crop that Colin Powell had sown.

General Shankar Roychowdhury, an former chief and Rajya Sabha MP, quotes Brigadier S.K. Malik to conclude that hatred of India is a deep-rooted article of faith in the Pakistan army, deliberately nurtured over the years and handed down through the ranks for generations. The Indian security establishment would do well to heed these and many other such warnings. That there will be another terrorist attack on Indian soil is not in doubt. What is in doubt is how the Indian State will then react. From events of the last few years we seem to be running out of options and indulging in hollow rhetoric. It’s time to get real and accept that the Pakistan army and the ISI are committed to a silent war and unless the internal structure within Pakistan changes, India is at a grave risk. Talk by all means, but know your enemy.

Ad hoc handling of national security issues is detrimental to the long-term security interests and morale of the country. The nation needs to be taken into confidence. The government needs to assess the long-term security threat shorn of short-term national or international pressures, to share it with the people in clear terms and to tell the people what is being proposed to safeguard the security interests of the country and the price the nation should be prepared to pay. A white paper on national security should be prepared by the government and be discussed across the country and in Parliament. The matter is too sensitive to be politicized or deferred. On the issue of national security, let the nation display unity, resolve and some spine.
The author is a retired air marshal of the Indian Air Force

You be the Judge

 

[RPK]

'Has India let Pakistan off the hook?'


Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said he has not conceded ground, but it remains true that Pakistan has taken little action to demonstrate its intention to tackle terror.


Rajiv Pratap Rudy
MP, Rajya Sabha, Spokesperson, BJP

‘We went to Sharm el-Sheikh as a victim of terror and returned from there as someone accused of sponsoring terror’

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s decision on two recent occasions — on climate change and Baluchistan — confirms that he has opted for a kind of unilateralism which has made even his partymen uncomfortable. Even If we treat the 2°C cap as an aspirational commitment and ignore it for a while, we can’t condone his action to incorporate Baluchistan into the the text of Indo-Pak joint declaration signed at Sharm el-Sheikh.

The monumental lapse has eroded the consistent foreign policy pursued by the Indian government. While we appreciate the stand of the government to endorse former PM A B Vajpayee’s policies, the two can’t be equated. The January 6, 2004 joint statement between Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf was a landmark initiative but we did not budge when issue of terror was brought up in Agra and even allowed the talks to fail.

The first dilution of the Vajpayee line was seen in 2006 at Havana where Manmohan Singh made an effort towards reviving parity between India and Pakistan when he pointed that Pakistan was also a victim of terror. A moral equivalence was sought to be brought between India and Pakistan by him by equating both as victims of terror — ignoring the fact that terror remained Pakistan’s major export to India. The major lapses by the Prime Minister negated Vajpayee’s philosophy completely. Sharm el-Sheikh brings out two lethal lapses by India’s foreign policy negotiators.

First, incorporating Baluchistan in the joint statement was a conscious and deliberate move on the part of Pakistan with the obvious intent of pointing an invisible finger at India. Apparently, after Sharm el-Sheikh, the blame of sponsoring terrorism was shifted to India and we became a sponsor of terror overnight. Before Sharm el-Sheikh, Baluchistan never figured in any diplomatic text between the two nations.

The second major lapse was to de-bracket action on terrorism from the composite dialogue process. The joint statement overemphasised the need for dialogue, but delinked dialogue from action against terror. Shockingly, the Prime Minister, on his return to India on July 17, dramatically changed his statements with regard to what happened at Sharm el-Sheikh.

The condition precedent for a composite dialogue on January 6, 2004 was not to allow its territory to be used for terrorist activities against India. The Prime Minister has now weakened his position on July 27. The condition to not allow its territory to be used for terrorist activities against India is now only for full normalisation of relations and no longer a prerequisite for commencing a composite dialogue with Pakistan. The joint declaration at Sharm el-Sheikh implicitly means that the dialogues can commence without terror as a connection.

The Congress party’s stand on this issue is ambivalent and it reluctantly came out in support of the Prime Minister. Though the Congress President on July 30 supported the Prime Minister for his statement, she was reluctant to endorse the joint statement. Perhaps, she was aware that press conferences have no locus in international affairs and signed statements are the only texts that matter.

Manmohan Singh’s recent stand does not represent a continuity in India’s foreign policy. The NDA’s foreign policy was to negotiate from a position of strength. The Sharm el-Sheikh declaration is a negotiation out of fear and a dialogue minus the issue of terror. The Prime Minister erroneously told the nation that there are only two options — dialogue or war. The fact remains Sharm el-Sheikh was an episode of shame. The paradox is that India went to Egypt as a victim of terror and returned as an accused.

P C Chacko
MP, Lok Sabha, Congress

‘We will decide when to have the composite dialogue — and this will resume only after Pakistan takes action on terror’

Instead of criticising the joint statement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza Gilani, our political opponents should hail it as a major diplomatic success of India vis-à-vis Pakistan.

Pakistan initially refused to admit that its citizens had attacked Mumbai. However, after having been pressured by India, it has admitted for the first time, that terror activities against India are being planned on its soil. Pakistan had already arrested five terrorists who had links with the Mumbai attack. We are still not happy or satisfied. Our Prime Minister told Pakistan in unambiguous terms that it had to book everyone linked to the Mumbai attack. The Lashkar-e-Taiba chief Hafeez Sayeed has to be brought to justice. Though Pakistan is on the defensive, it had initially claimed it had nothing to do with the attack.

This is just the beginning but it is a beginning in right direction. Earlier, we could not convince other countries that Pakistan always emerged unscathed after committing grave crimes against India. But Pakistan is now on the defensive and we have been able to mobilise world opinion in our favour. The BJP government could not even achieve one-tenth of what this government has accomplished today.

The opposition has completely misinterpreted the ‘delinking of dialogue and terror’. India has a very clear and firm position. We will go for a composite dialogue only if Pakistan takes concrete action to book all the culprits responsible for the Mumbai attack. It is our prerogative to schedule the composite dialogue. In plain language it means that, dialogue or no dialogue, we want Pakistan to take action; we want Pakistan to immediately proceed with anti-terrorism measures while the composite dialogue will take place later.

The BJP is also making a hue and cry over the mention of Baluchistan in the joint statement. Baluchistan is an internal affair of Pakistan. If Pakistan wants to mention Baluchistan, why should we oppose it? I do not understand the logic of the BJP’s argument. We have not contributed to the problems in that region. If Pakistan’s prime minister talks about his concerns, it doesn’t bind us. If he feels that he has some information about Baluchistan, let us have it. We condemn terrorism in any form, in any part of the world, perpetuated by anybody in unmistakable terms.That is the message of this text.

The BJP is taking an opportunist stance. During the NDA regime, it continued a dialogue with Pakistan even after the Kargil war and the attack on Parliament. Is it India’s position that it will not talk to Pakistan or any other country? Certainly not! There was a lot of hype over former Prime Minister A B Vajpayee’s trip to Agra to meet President Musharraf. What happened after that? He went back without having signed a joint declaration. He returned to Pakistan after having accused India.

We want to see if Pakistan behaves as a responsible nation. That is the message we give them. I cannot think of a better joint statement between India and Pakistan at the moment. The BJP claims our foreign policy has developed cracks like the Delhi Metro’s pillars. The foreign policy pillars of this country were not shaken when the Prime Minister returned from Sharm-el-Sheikh but they were shaken when the former Prime Minister went in a bus from here to Lahore. When he reached Lahore, our foreign policy pillars were shaking because all this while Pakistani soldiers were infiltrating into Kargil.

 

[RPK]

No more a puzzle- Hindustan Times

The controversy over the India-Pakistan joint statement in Egypt continues to haunt the country and rock Parliament. On Tuesday, the Lok Sabha witnessed a walkout after foreign minister S.M. Krishna said that there could be no talks with Pakistan till it acted against Hafeez Saeed, the mastermind of the Mumbai terror attacks. This statement was seen to be contradicting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s earlier intervention on the issue and the joint statement text. This ambivalence, however much the UPA may profess to be the opposition’s creation, stems from the contradictory positions that the PM himself has taken in explaining the joint statement.

The PM’s July 17 statement in Parliament has three contradictory references. At one place he says, “India seeks cooperative relations with Pakistan and engagement is the only way forward...” On this score, there can be no dispute. However, this is preceded by: “...that the starting point of any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan is a fulfilment of their commitment, in the letter and spirit, not to allow their territory to be used in any manner for terrorist activities against India.” So far so good. Inexplicably this is followed by: “Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process, and, therefore, cannot await other developments.” Worse is the fact that in his statement to the Lok Sabha on July 29, the PM replaces the “starting point of any meaningful dialogue” with “full normalisation of relations” and continues with the rest of the sentence.

Clearly, full normalisation of relations can only happen through dialogue. Between July 17 and 29, there was a shift in the PM’s position. The only explanation for such contradictory positions is that India is succumbing to US pressures. It is known that the US requires Pakistan in its fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan and it is not prepared to brook any diversion of Pakistan’s attention to its eastern border. Hence, the pressure’s on India to delink the dialogue process from the fight against terrorism.

In fact, this comes as a part of a larger package of the new Indo-US strategic relationship that was unfolding with the Indo-US nuclear deal and has now proceeded much further with the visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. A landmark achievement for the US has been the signing of the agreement on ‘end use monitoring’ of US defence and defence-related equipment. US spokesmen see this as “a tangible accomplishment,” which will “prove a boon to US companies such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing.” These lucrative defence contracts are accompanied by the US’s expectations that nuclear commerce will result in business up to $10 billion.

On July 18, on the eve of Clinton’s visit, the New York Times had set out a five-point agenda for the US. First, it said: “It is time for India to take more responsibility internationally. It needs to do more to revive the world trade talks it helped torpedo last year.” In other words, India must allow the Doha round to proceed unhindered by diluting its positions on Non-Agricultural Market Access and Agricultural Safeguards.

Second, “as a major contributor to global warming, India is urged to join the developed countries in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.” Universal targets applicable to both the developing and the developed countries are loaded in favour of the advanced capitalist countries, the major contributors to global warming. India’s per capita emissions are 1/17th of that of the US.

Third, it says, in return for US assurances of putting pressure on Pakistan to take action against terrorism, India “needs to help allay Pakistan’s fears”. This is what explains the contradictions as well as the inexplicable reference to Balochistan in the joint statement.

Fourth, India is being asked “to do a lot more” in preventing “global proliferation”. In other words, we shall be forced to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. All these treaties are discriminatory in favour of the five N-weapon countries and impose unequal obligations on the others. This is the reason India continues to oppose these treaties.

Finally, India is being urged to jettison its independent foreign policy: “drop pretensions to non-alignment” in order to emerge as a “major world power”. It makes the point tellingly by stating: “During the negotiations on the nuclear deal, the Bush administration managed to persuade New Delhi to grudgingly support United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iran’s nuclear programmes. India now needs to do more.”

The icing on the cake is the following: “Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his party have a strong mandate... that means it has no excuses not to do more” (read: the government no longer needs the Left’s support to survive).

The controversies concerning the Indo-Pak joint statement are just part of a larger jigsaw puzzle, which is defining the contours of an India rushing into becoming a subordinate ally of the US. This can only happen at the peril of India forsaking its place of pride in the comity of nations.

 

[Daredevil]

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backwards: Sharm al-Sheikh

One Step Forward, Two Steps Backwards: Sharm al-Sheikh

Guest Column by Ishan Kaushik

(The views expressed by the author are his own)
There you have it. Pakistan now says that no dossier on India’s alleged involvement in Balochistan was given to India. Reason? An editorial in the Daily News says this:

“..Pakistan wisely decided not to present the intelligence dossier on Balochistan. The reference to Balochistan had done the trick. And Mr. Geelani has nicely covered up by saying ‘India never asked for it’..”

In a subsequent TV interview, Pakistani Prime Minister Geelani told his audience that Balochistan would be raised in future talks with India, but did not make any reference to a dossier.

And, in the latest issue of Friday Times, editor Najam Sethi writes that Pakistan provided evidence of India’s role in Balochistan:

“the mention of Balochistan in the joint statement is an Indian quid pro quo for Pakistani action against the LeT. It suggests that Delhi is ready to take its hand out of Balochistan..”

Which would seem to suggest that Balochistan did come up for discussions, in whatsoever a manner, rather than a simple unilateral mention by the Pakistani Prime Minister, as is our official position.

Why did the Pakistanis bring up Balochistan? In fact, Pakistan maintains it has other “dossiers” accusing India of just about everything except the runaway birth rates in that country: for our role in the attacks against the Sri Lankan cricket team and the Matawan Police station, help to Baitullah Mehsud, and for good measure, of even assisting the Taleban!

What explains this activism amidst calls for resumption of dialogue? One reason is, as Pakistan lurches from one crisis to another, the optimism of the people, prevailing after the country’s general elections, is waning. Zardari is seen to be weak and returning to his old habits. A recent piece by Pakistani journalist Ayaz Amir, when writing about the President, says (regarding him), “tales of cronyism and corruption are rife”. Power is slowly but decisively moving away from him to the Army/ISI with Prime Minister Geelani as the civilian face. The second reason is the fear, now that US/NATO are planning for a longer exit strategy than first envisaged, Pakistan will come under greater pressure to act against the Taleban, al Qaeda, LeT, JeM and other terrorist groups. It is important for Pakistan to hunker down, show India to be an intransigent power bent on weakening Pakistan so that it cannot afford to remove troops from its eastern borders, or weaken its “assets” that are needed to challenge India’s growing influence in Afghanistan (hence the hesitation to take on the Afghan Taleban in the Wazristans), and continue to oppose India in Kashmir. But the most important reason is that Pakistan’s civil society (increasingly brave but still small), is still too weak to challenge the country’s anti-India mindset and the self-absorbed political culture fostered by Pakistan’s education system, media, forces of radical Islam and the defense forces.

The debate in India’s parliament: the Government clearly had underestimated the extent of the outrage that PM’s surrender at Sharm al-Sheik would arouse. The delinking of the composite dialogue from Pakistani action against terrorism was bad enough, although there is some sense in the explanation that this would “free” the Pakistani Govt. to act against the LeT, JeM without it being seen to be under Indian pressure. But the gratuitous mention of Balochistan was over the top. An internal issue (of several decades) of Pakistan was converted, at least partially, to a bilateral problem. It could provide Pakistan with an alibi not to take action on the LeT. The Government’s defense of the Balochistan mention was not just weak but at times absurd. Foreign Secretary Menon dismissed its mention as “bad drafting” and Minister of State Tharoor thought it didn’t matter since the Joint Statement was not a binding legal document!

The Government’s broad thrust was that there is no alternative to dialogue, with the Finance Minister behaving as he had just discovered that war was not a solution and that Pakistan could not be erased, as if that was what the issue was about. References to former Prime Minister Vajpayee’s efforts to normalize relations with Pakistan were thrown in for good measure. The Prime Minister was told (by Geelani) terrorist attacks on India were by non-state actors. Unless PM thinks the ISI is a “non-state” actor, he should have told his counterpart a thing or two. The reference to Balochistan (or, perhaps the reaction to it in India) apparently even took the US by surprise, and Holbrooke, during his visit to Pakistan, had to bail out Manmohan Singh by saying the Pakistanis had given him no credible evidence about India’s involvement in that province.

India’s policy is predicated on wishful thinking: we do what we can to strengthen the democratic forces in Pakistan, attempt to distance the Pakistani people from the Army-ISI-mullah-terrorist alliance. As a normal nation, Pakistan would then put in place a more rational policy towards its neighbors. And India, right next door, would be a partner in progress.

The truth of the matter is somewhat different. Everything that Pakistan has done so far, and more importantly, wants to do in the future, has nothing to do with this vision. The latest British Foreign Affairs Committee Report has concluded that whereas President Zardari believes terrorism to be the “main enemy” of his country, “large parts of the security establishment of Pakistan continues to be fixated on India”. Mumbai, the terrorism in Kashmir, the continuing subversion of our eastern states, the use of the underworld network of Dawood, the attempts to disrupt our financial system by pushing in thousands of crores of counterfeit money printed at the ISI presses in Quetta etc. should bear out the soundness of these conclusions. In addition, lest we forget, Pakistan is part of the Chinese strategic calculus against India; Gwadar, the Karakoram highway etc. are projects to help Pakistan to bypass India. The fact that neither of the projects is viable is another matter.

Curiously, the PM referred to President Ronald Reagan. The late President of the United States probably was no match to Manmohan Singh in intellect. But he held steadfastly to a few core beliefs that brought down the Soviet empire. That strength of conviction is sadly lacking in our leadership as we are increasingly seen to be doing everything we can to further US Af-Pak policy objectives, whether they are in our national interest or not. We keep hearing from the Prime Minister that he would make the borders between Indian administered and Pakistani occupied Kashmir irrelevant. Is this is the best we can come up with? Kashmir is not about a divided people. Kashmiris on the Pakistani side of the border are Kashmiris only politically. There is no common language or culture between the tribal and grafted populations there with the Kashmiris on the Indian side of the border. The Prime Minister takes an oath to defend our borders, not to make them irrelevant. South Asia is not Europe. We do not have a common strategic vision, to put it mildly.

Politics without a vision becomes petty and venal but having a vision without reference to ground realities is a pipedream. Peace with Pakistan would be desirable, but at what cost? Why has this Government not gone back to the joint Parliamentary resolution of 1994? The result is that we often give the impression that we do not believe in what we say.

The Pakistanis have welcomed the PM’s statement in Parliament terming it statesmanlike. My own feeling is that they too were surprised at the Indian reaction to Sharm al-Sheikh and don’t want to make things difficult for Manmohan Singh. They know this is India and the mood will pass.