Singh’s ‘Soft Approach’

There is a need to examine and analyze the factors which led to aggressive and rather hostile stance on Pakistan by New Delhi. The joint statement issued at a meeting held between the Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers in the sidelines of NAM summit last month at Sharm el-Sheikh pledged to resume composite dialogue and to de-link the issue of terrorism from the Indo-Pak normalisation process. It was acknowledged by the Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram at the internal security summit that, "India faced no serious strike after the Mumbai attacks but it does not mean that the threat of terror has vanished or receded." The two prime ministers at Sham el-Sheikh as reported by the Indian daily newspaper The Hindu agreed that "terrorism is the main threat to both countries and both leaders affirmed their resolve to fight terrorism and to cooperate with each other to this end. That dialogue is the only way forward and action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed."

When the Indian Prime Minister was heavily criticised by the BJP leader L. K. Advani of changing the country's position on terrorism and what he called as Pakistan's involvement in cross border terrorism, it was quite obvious that the main opposition party in the country was trying to exploit what is perceived as "Singh's soft approach" on Pakistan. BJP's stance on resuming composite dialogue with Pakistan was suspended after the Mumbai terrorist attack in November 2008, where orders were issued by New Delhi that talks should not be resumed with Pakistan unless Islamabad hands over to India. Therefore Singh's readiness in Sharm el-Sheikh to resume dialogue process with Pakistan without insisting on handing over terror suspects was termed as a "sell out" and a sign of "weakness" by his opponents. Realizing the backlash on the substance of joint statement, the Indian Prime Minister immediately after his meeting with the Pakistan Prime Minister while talking to reporters from his country sidetracked on the joint statement and insisted that his country would not resume talks with Pakistan without sorting out the handing of terror suspects to India.

It was during the debate in the Indian parliament on the joint statement issued by India and Pakistan which caused a major rift and discord between Congress and BJP. Speaker after speaker from BJP and other opposition parties blamed the Indian Prime Minister of deviating from the established Indian position on the resumption of composite dialogue with Pakistan and pursuing a "soft approach' vis-à-vis their eastern neighbour despite what they alleged as sneaking of terrorists in India from Pakistan. The BJP president Rajnath Singh told reporters that the Singh government issued joint statement with Pakistan Prime Minister in Sharm el-Sheikh under pressure from the United States. According to him, "We see a strong possibility of international pressure, particularly from the US, behind the joint statement, which delinks talks between India and Pakistan from terror and unilaterally mentions Balochistan." Expressing BJP's dissatisfaction and criticism over the government's flip-flop on its Pakistan policy, he said the Prime Minister owned it to the nation to explain how this came about and under what pressure.

Singh however tried to defend his position and took control measures by arguing that the only option to dialogue with Pakistan is war and that neither India nor Pakistan can afford a war as such a scenario is not only devastating for 1.6 billion people of South Asia but also impracticable. Singh was supported by his party chief Sonia Gandhi who argued that no sane element would prefer the sustenance of confrontation as the process of dialogue can only ensure betterment and welfare for the poverty stricken people of both the countries. She asserted that, "No one should be in any doubt on our party's position vis-à-vis Pakistan. It remains unchanged. We support the resumption of the dialogue process with Pakistan, but only after it has demonstrated its seriousness to bring the perpetrators of Mumbai terror attacks to justice and to prevent its territory from being used to launch terror attacks on any part of our country."

If in India, Singh was criticised primarily by the BJP of compromising on his country's vital national interest by delinking terrorism with the holding of composite dialogue with Pakistan and also mentioning the issue of Balochistan at the Sharm el-Sheikh joint statement, his flexible but pragmatic stance was viewed favourably in Pakistan as analysts in Islamabad termed the unconditional holding of composite dialogue with India as a great foreign policy victory for Pakistan. But, for the sake of not providing more ammunition to the hard liners in New Delhi, Pakistani policy-makers and analysts toned down their jubilation.

As far as Manmohan Singh is concerned, Singh acted in a very responsible and prudent manner to withstand the pressure which he faced from hard liners, not only from the right-wing parties like BJP but also from his own party. Unlike the BJP government which reacted aggressively to the attack on the Indian parliament of December 13, 2001 by downgrading diplomatic relations with Pakistan, banning India's airspace for Pakistani aircraft, suspending air, road and rail links with its eastern neighbour and deploying massive forces along borders with Pakistan, Singh reacted to Mumbai terror attacks by suspending composite dialogue with Pakistan and issuing some veiled threats to Islamabad. The statesmanship expressed by Singh not only helped in preventing the outbreak of another round of Indo-Pak hostilities but also neutralised 'hawks' who in view of their 'hidden agenda' were very much interested in provoking armed conflict with Pakistan. It is true that in view of the nuclear factor, it was not possible for India and Pakistan to engage in an all out war, but border skirmishes or the revocation of ceasefire alongwith the line of control and international border holding between the two neighbours since November 2003 would have been a possible eventuality.

However, even today, almost a year after the Mumbai terror attacks, it is clear that composite dialogue between India and Pakistan may not resume so soon. Although, a relatively secure government composed of Congress (I) and its allies is in power after the recent general elections in the country, yet given the domestic constraints, New Delhi is least likely to resume composite dialogue with Pakistan unless certain Indian conditions are met by Islamabad. These conditions are not endorsed by Pakistan, particularly those dealing with the handing over suspects of Mumbai terror attacks to India without concrete evidence. In that case, the Indo-Pak standoff on the composite dialogue will continue and the two neighbours are least likely to take steps to unleash the normalisation process.

The way out from the present impasse in Indo-Pak relations is focusing on finding practical solutions to the contentious issues; acting above ego and avoiding rhetoric. If the two sides are unable to proceed in the direction of normal cooperative relations in the last six decades or so, it is a reflection of their parochial mindset and imprudent approach which is a cause of enormous hardships and ordeals for millions of people of South Asia. It was rightly remarked by the Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers at their meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh that, "the real challenge is development and the elimination of poverty." Now, one has to see to what extent the two sides pursue a practical approach as far as dealing with the fundamental challenge faced by the two countries is concerned.

Moonis Ahmar is a Visiting DAAD Fellow at the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, University of Erfurt, Germany. He is also Professor of International Relations at the University of Karachi and Director, Program on Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution.

Facebook | Twitter | Email

Comments (0)

Show/hide comments

Show/hide comment form