Making A Difference

Don't Miss The Subtext

In India's climbdown lies a strong message for Pakistan and the future of bilateral cooperation

Advertisement

Don't Miss The Subtext
info_icon
I

Pakistanis were outraged at what they thought was Manmohan’s insult to their president. In retaliation, Pakistan decided Zardari won’t participate in the Non-Aligned Summit (NAM) in Egypt mid-July. It had been earlier decided that the foreign secretaries of the two countries would meet to discuss steps taken by Pakistan to check terrorism against India. This would be followed by a Manmohan-Zardari stock-taking meet in Egypt. Now, instead of Zardari, Pakistani prime minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, perceived to be close to the army, will go to Egypt. This raises serious questions about Pakistan’s intent to curb terror against India.

Manmohan’s insult must have been particularly galling since Islamabad had been insisting on the resumption of the Indo-Pak composite dialogue. Under pressure from world powers to fight terror, whether directed against the West or India, as also to restore normalcy to Indo-Pak relations, Islamabad had looked upon the CD for respite. As terrorism is one of the eight issues on which India and Pakistan talk through a structured format, sources say revival of CD could have placed too many items on the platter, thereby diffusing the focus on terror.

Advertisement

So, what was the nature of last week’s dialogue between Manmohan and Zardari? In official parlance, it was a meeting between two leaders who were trying to measure the possibility of resuming the CD; their parley doesn’t presuppose an inevitable resumption of the suspended dialogue. Officials say Manmohan’s brusque message before the media was deliberate, aimed at convincing Pakistan that it must meet the two conditions—punish the perpetrators of 26/11 and dismantle the terror infrastructure—before India resumes the CD.

But wasn’t Manmohan’s very act of meeting Zardari a climbdown for India? Why meet and behave in a manner bound to be seen as insulting? Former diplomat Naresh Chandra told Outlook, "Not talking to Pakistan can’t be an option. India can’t be seen as going into a great sulk." Chandra believes Manmohan’s tough message had a "salutary" effect on Zardari, who must provide India comfort on the terror issue. However, former foreign minister Yashwant Sinha differs: "I am not particularly enthused by this encounter. History is replete with examples of how Pakistan has failed to do even the minimum to prevent terrorist activities against India."

Advertisement

The decision to meet Zardari was the outcome of the meeting of the core group of ministers earlier this month. Headed by the prime minister and consisting of finance, home, defence and foreign ministers, the core group discussed, among other things, New Delhi’s strategy of dealing with Islamabad. It was felt India must begin to engage Pakistan because the Americans and other western powers were discreetly asking the Indian leadership whether it felt ready to resume dialogue with Pakistan. Then US under secretary of state William Burns publicly expressed his country’s keenness to see India and Pakistan resume dialogue. The group also felt Pakistani military operations in Swat and elsewhere had persuaded the world powers that Islamabad was making serious attempts to dismantle the terror networks in the country. And though Pakistan hadn’t taken similar action against terror groups operating against India, New Delhi’s assessment was that it should take the initiative for talking with Islamabad before the US and others start pushing it in that direction. It was consequently decided to accept Pakistan’s proposal, communicated through its ambassador Shahid Malik last week, for a Manmohan-Zardari meeting in Russia.

Yet India had to do a balancing act, largely to blunt possible criticism at home. It was, therefore, decided that Manmohan should convey a tough message to Zardari that he shouldn’t construe the Yekaterinburg meeting as the resumption of CD; that there couldn’t be any forward movement unless Islamabad showed sincerity in taking action against the perpetrators of 26/11 and stop future terrorist attacks against India.

There are many who wonder about the effect of the tough message on Pakistan. "India has ceded ground and in a sense has decided to eat humble pie," former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal told Outlook. Sibal says India’s claim that the dialogue wouldn’t start unless Pakistan meets India’s condition on the terror issue is a matter of semantics. "For all practical purposes the dialogue between the two sides has begun. India has yielded without getting anything in return from Pakistan."

Advertisement

Agrees another former diplomat K.C. Singh: "It’s a climbdown that is being masqueraded as good neighbourliness." Singh doesn’t see any merit in Manmohan’s cussed behaviour. He explains, "If the PM felt Zardari was the man who could deliver on terror, then what was the point of undermining him by giving him the tough message before the media. The same message could have been delivered to him behind closed doors."

Officials in South Block point to the advantages of Manmohan’s strong message. For the first time, India has set a deadline for Pakistan to act. The foreign secretaries of the two countries are scheduled to meet before the NAM summit. The future of the Indo-Pak dialogue depends on the steps Pakistan takes to curb terror before NAM.

Advertisement

Officials, however, feel there’s another factor at play—Manmohan’s desire to go down in history as the Indian leader who succeeded in resolving outstanding issues, including Kashmir, with Pakistan. Will this desire overshadow his capacity to employ a tough line against Pakistan?

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement