news details |
|
|
| Optimism and reality | | | Given the manner in which Pakistan has facilitated Hafiz Saeed's release, it will be foolhardy on India's part to go on extending an olive branch to it from time to time.
SUNITA VAKIL
When the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh chose the first policy speech in the new Parliament to put across his idea of engagement with Pakistan through a compre- hensive and constructive dialogue, one was aptly reminded of Milton who once said "peace hath her victories, no less renowned than war". Mr Singh's initiative of holding peace talks with Islamabad reflects that the PM wants to give dialogue with an estranged neighbour one more chance. "If the leaders of Pakistan have the courage, determination and statesmanship to take this road to peace, we will meet them more than halfway" he said. While many believe that the olive branch extended in the direction of Islamabad does not warrant any optimism especially in the absence of any faintest clues that it is striking to stem the export of terrorism- no one can seriously argue the need for channels of official communi- cation to mend fences with neighbours for the future of the subcontinent. It is also true that the past talks between the two neighbours did not produce any change in the thinking of Pakistan's political and military leadership. It is true that Islamabad has all along used talks as an opportunity for grandstanding. But for all that, there is no realistic option to engagement. New Delhi's official position of imposing a blank rejection on talks post 26/11 has infact not goaded Pakistan to undo the damage done to the peace process which proves that it is least concerned about improving relations with India.
There may be a point to Dr. Singh's making a bid for peace with Pakistan. But won't it be misplaced optimism to expect a positive response from the country given its insincerity in punishing 26/11 culprits and dismantling the terror infrastructure on its soil? All evidences reinforce the conviction that Pakistan is doing little to root out terrorism. It would be naive to view the actions taken by Pakistani regime post 26/11 as satisfactory despite much international pressure bearing down on it. The terrorist infrastructure, including their communication and funding networks still remain intact. Its unwillingness to frame charges against the alleged culprits despite a well compiled dossier provided by the Indian Government is an open case of the country's insensitivity to terrorism. Though Dr. Manmohan Singh has put the onus on Islamabad to take action against the terror network, it is apparent that Pakistan authorities have been dithering and dallying in their prosecution of the case and presentation of evidence. Instead, they have come out with the "insufficient evidence" cliche signifying that they are not keen on reining in Jehadi diaspora.
Indeed, in the 60 years of our bilateral relations with Pakistan, the latter has resorted to lies and deception. Time and again India has often extended a hand of friendship to Islamabad but the country has a suspicious track record of reneging on its promises. From Lahore bus service to Agra Summit, India has gone out of the way to mend broken fences, only to be rebuffed each time. Even Kargil was planned when Indo -Pak talks were underway. A studied silence maintained over New Delhi's request to punish criminals like Dawood Ibrahim and others conveys the country's insincerity and portrays its real image that is quite disturbing. And, yet we are hoping against hope that this time they may oblige and "bring to justice" those involved in Mumbai attacks.
Though the PM's Lok Sabha speech involved far too many optimistic leaps of imagination, but years of persistent effort have only proved the futility of such an exercise. India is only fooling itself if it thinks that Pakistan will help it bring the perpetrators of 26/11 to book. As External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishan has said "Pakistan's seriousness to fight against terror is still under a cloud" by allowing the key plotter of Mumbai attacks to walk free, Islamabad has shown its true colours. Infact, its half hearted efforts of curbing Taliban calls into question its sincerity in combating terrorism. While Pakistan's action on its Western front resulted from the US pressure, it has no desire to eliminate terrorists on its eastern front which are used to balkanise India. The release of Hafiz Sayeed, chief of Jammat-ud-Dawa, a front organisation of the Lashker, blamed for the Mumbai attacks on technical grounds, is therefore hardly surprising. This, despite the strong evidence provided by New Delhi on the LeT's involvement in 26/11, shows that there is no change in the Pakistani mindset. It is anybody's guess that the fates of other main terrorists behind the Mumbai carnage like JuD's Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi and Zarar Shah will follow the same course. It is unfortunate that JuD, which was declared a terrorist organisation by the UN Security Council, has been functioning under an assumed name mocking the world by promoting Jihad. Infact, all Pakistan based terrorist outfits which export terror to India are being nurtured through years by Pakistani establishment with the one point agenda of bleeding India. Obviously, Islamabad is in no mood to eliminate them. This being the case, can we still hope that Islamabad is genuinely interested in curbing terrorism or engaging in fruitful talks?
Since credibility is central to India's position regarding the resumption of dialogues. The onus is on Islamabad to take action against the terror network. But Saeed's release has proved that the country continues to play a safe heaven for dreaded terrorists besides playing a supportive role in training and funding them. The truth is that there is no change in Pakistani mindset of using terrorism as an instrument of state policy. It still speaks of "moral, diplomatic and political" support to Kashmir. It still terms well collated evidence as "insufficient" to avoid implicating criminals India wants to bring to justice. And most of all, it still calls for third party meditation despite India's point blank refusal. One only needs to factor in how Islamabad has reverted back to the perennial Pakistani buzzword of Kahmir to understand how capricious the state still is. Prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani' latest statement that "Pakistan remains committed to finding a just and peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the UN Security Council resolutions and aspirations of Kashmiri people" reveals the bluff and bluster of Pakistani rulers who should have learnt their lessons by now. By talking about kashmir they are skirting the real purpose of a dialogue with India besides showing reluctance by apprehending the perpetrators of 26/11.
The truth is that Dr. Singh's initiative could mark a bold, new beginning provided the two countries are sincere about ushering in an era of peace and prosperity. Seeing merit in India's offer, Pakistan's response could have been more forthcoming and without any riders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
