For the first time in recent memory terms like maturity are being used in the context of India and Pakistan. Similarly, for the first time it has happened that instead of being in denial mode there is a semblance of acceptance of a Pakistani hand in the terror attack on Pathankot air base. Given the fractious and antagonistic nature of the relationship for the last 68 years, this is a major milestone. But unfortunately, IF this does not fill us with hope there are solid and compelling reasons for this scepticism.
We have been celebrating Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s assurance of cooperation in hunting out the culprits of the Pathankot terror attack. The reports that the Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Maulana Masood Azhar has been detained in protective custody have also added to the sense that Pakistan is cooperating. The seminaries and offices in areas like Bahawalpur have been raided. A six member joint investigation team (JIT) has also been set up by Islamabad. But this will convince only the most gullible and those believing in Pakistan’s sincerity towards fighting terror. After all, they are the past masters in making the world believe that they are fighting terror. Not just that, their military has got billions of dollars from the Americans for this purpose and we all know that the main culprit Osama bin Laden was hiding in the army’s own backyard. Pakistan has incubated international terrorism. We can listen to their argument that now they are also victims of terror and their army has launched a sustained operation and even appreciate that the past cannot be allowed to dictate the future, but it does make for some pragmatism to realise that this is an oft travelled road. In spite of a long journey the distance covered could be insignificant.
Lest it be forgotten a similar JIT was set up post 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. But nothing came out of it as the mastermind, Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, was released for lack of credible evidence with the finger pointing towards New Delhi for failure to provide clinching details. One of the main grouse was that the dossiers presented by India could not be used as solid tangible evidence to prosecute someone in a Pakistani court. Lakhvi was let off, even as the Federal Investigation Agency in Pakistan was able to establish other details of the conspiracy like the purchase of engine for the boat that dropped the terrorists near Mumbai, the sums of money transferred for the purposes of attack etc. In short everything peripheral to the attacks was established by the Pakistanis themselves, but still no action was taken against the mastermind.
So it is so far so good that the Pakistanis are not in a denial mode. Yet, they need to move ahead. In this case, movement forward requires the complete elimination of the infrastructure of terror that thrives in Pakistan. Yes, India has to be patient and there is a realisation that the movement would be slow. But doubts about Pakistan’s intent and sincerity would persist as long as the action against terror does not move to the higher level. Clearly, putting Azhar in protective custody is not enough.
The good thing about the changed situation is that within Pakistan there is a body of opinion that is emerging against the use of terror as a foreign policy instrument against India. These voices are questioning the wisdom of not acting against the perpetrators of such crimes even when the overwhelming evidence of their participation is such that it can be ignored only because Pakistan is unwilling to act against them. It is here that prime minister Nawaz Sharif can make a serious difference to the situation, and his efficiency as an administrator and serious pursuer of peace in the sub-continent would be judged on the basis of his ability to ensure that all the stakeholders work in coordination to achieve his political objective. Any missteps in this case would extract a heavy political price in terms of his credibility.
The Indian side has to wait and watch. This is not the time for any clever gimmicks or any extra initiative in developing the relationship. Right now the need is to stay engaged with minimum expectations. In this perspective the decision to defer the foreign secretary levels talks qualifies for the usage of term mature decision. The roadmap for the future of the ties should be left open, and the contours of the next step should be etched out only when there is some stability of the initial step. Or else a one step forward, two backwards routine would keep dragging the dialogue back.
The principal decision that the Pakistan side has to take is whether it is ready to live with India as a good neighbour. It has to accept that its anti-India obsession is baseless and is a needless waste of its resources. The concept that the unfinished business of the 1947 partition has to be addressed, and the goal of bleeding India by a thousand cuts as a retaliation for the 1971 war has to give way. It is only when Pakistan resolves this existential dilemma that it would be able to develop normal relations with India. It would then pursue peace with India, not threaten with the escalation of the conflict into a nuclear war. All cross border terror and infiltration would then come to a stop on its own.
It would be in that situation that the resolution of the dispute regarding Pakistan occupied Kashmir and the territorial matters would be settled effortlessly. Unless that necessary precondition is reached, even a solution to the boundary dispute would not yield durable peace and the conflict shall continue through other means. The signals that the Pakistani side has changed its anti-India definition would come very strongly and the multiplying force would be amazing. But till that happens, everything that comes from Islamabad would be looked at with scepticism. We have continued engagement, but we would not have a durable relationship.
Also Read:
Grieving a comrade & democrat in Hindu raj
