|
 India and Pakistan keep ‘talking' to each other at various levels but this is as far as it goes.
No chamatkars occurred in the wake of the SAARC home ministers' conference, preceded by foreign secretary level talks on June 24 which were meant to prepare for the foreign ministers' July 15 talks in Islamabad. The silver lining in the talks and the forthcoming foreign ministers' moot is that these are the first high-level Indian visits to Pakistan after the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
India continues to blame Pakistan, particularly the ISI, which is politely referred to as `the Establishment', for organizing terrorism in India while we express our inability to control the jihadi forces and point to our own war against them. We may be helpless in this regard but what are other countries expected to do then?
India after the Mumbai terrorism vowed that it would not talk unless Pakistan clamps down on the terrorists who are waging a war against India. A few symbolic steps were taken but they gradually unraveled, starting with the Lahore High Court ordering the release of Hafiz Saeed. The main accused Lakhwi and his partners remain under-trial in Adiala but a positive outcome appears unlikely and its pace is not to India's liking.
Despite this, however, India agreed to restart the negotiations following Prime Minister Gilani's meeting with the Indian premier in Thimphu (Bhutan) this April at the SAARC Summit. Apparently, the stalled peace process was revived with a nudge from the Americans.
The United States, however, itself became mad when Faisal Shehzad tried to bomb Time Square in New York. The U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, talked of "severe consequences" for Pakistan had the bomb gone off. No less a person than the U.S. President, Barack Obama, stated after the arrest that the main threat to Pakistan was not India but the "cancer" of terrorism emanating from within and it is in Pakistan's own interest to fully and finally dismantle the whole terrorist network in the country.
The Government, however, has hardly taken any meaningful and long-term forceful steps to stem the tide of terrorism emanating from Pakistan. The madressahs continue to operate without any checks and the so-called madressah reforms initiated by Musharraf with so much fan-fare are nowhere to be seen. The curriculum from the primary to the university level continues to brainwash students against the infidels (read Hindus and Indians) and arms are easily available throughout the country. Sectarian and jihadi outfits are periodically banned but they remain operational under new names without any let or hindrance.
It is possible that our rulers in their street wisdom may be privately telling the Indians and the Americans that they are trying their best to control the menace of terrorism but certain elements within the `Establishment' are supporting them and they are helpless. If this apprehension is correct then the other side may be thinking that the Pakistani side they are negotiating with are not powerful enough and it amounts to waste of time. They should instead be talking directly with the ‘Establishment.' This is exactly what the Indian PM told Gilani in their phone conversation following the Mumbai attacks; the PM promised to send the DG ISI to meet his counter-part in RAW but backed out within a day.
What is going to be discussed in the composite dialogue if it is revived? India desires to talk about terrorism but the discussion does not go very far. Pakistan is keen to see a resolution of the Kashmir dispute based on a plebiscite as under-lined in the UN resolutions. This is obviously unacceptable to India particularly now when Pakistan is in a weak bargaining position. To quote Nirupama Rao, a "creative solution" for Kashmir needs to be considered but who is going to find it? 
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
