The Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers met at the Egyptian town of Sharm Al-sheikh on the sidelines of the NAM summit, a meet which was billed as an occasion where India would read the riot act to Pakistan following the latter’s failure to prosecute terror perpetrators and take any action on the executioners of the 26/11 attacks. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had set himself high standards by talking tough to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari over a month ago, when they last met in Russia as part of the SCO summit delegates. The outcome of the Egyptian round of talks, however, have been disappointing. Much to the dismay of many Indians, the prime minister bargained too much and got precious little in return. India has recognized, right from the Havana round of talks in 2006, that Pakistan suffers equally from the specter of terror as much as India. This contentious recognition is lop-sided given that India suffers directly from terror perpetrated, planned and executed by elements on Pakistani soil. Pakistan has vacillated from this assertion by terming terrorists alternately as “freedom fighters”, “non-state actors” amongst other terms to deny India the right to see these criminals being brought to justice. Additionally, while the prime minister’s spin doctors are quick to point out that Kashmir has been taken out of the declaration, a quick read of the document shows it to be very much present with the statement talking about India’s readiness to “discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues”. Then again, India has “de-linked” talks with terror; amazingly, the exact opposite has been India’s assertion for years, no talks till terror stops. The statement goes further to include Balochistan in the dimension of bilateral talks, a clear red-herring like the previous Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism that shifts focus from Pakistan to India as an equal perpetrator of terror and mischief in its neighbors affair. The effect of this inclusion will be profound and work against Indian interest, for we have now, on record, recognized Balochistan to be an issue that requires bilateral diplomacy rather than terming it as an internal matter of Pakistan.
Diplomacy and foreign policy is driven by the twin principles of pragmatism and national interest. A third variable may be trust based on bedrock of evidence. At the moment India’s policy towards Pakistan seems to fly in the face of all three principles. The Havana round of talks of 2006 were preceded by the train bombings of 7/11 in Mumbai, when the prime minister talked tough, albeit on Indian soil or on board his aircraft, only to capitulate in Havana and setting up the contentious Joint Terror Mechanism, which was given a decent burial after Pakistan used it as a bargaining chip against India. We initiated numerous ‘people to people’ contacts through rail and bus links only to be betrayed by Pakistan last year with the most devastating and daring 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai. The prime minister then solemnly held that talks with Pakistan will not resume till the terror infrastructure is removed from Pakistan and that the Pakistani establishment ends support, covert and overt, to Pakistani terror groups. Months have elapsed since a dossier indicting suspects in Pakistan have been handed over to our neighbor, only to see it indulge in double speak and indulge in the most vile sleight of hand. The question that arises to most minds is why after repeated betrayals by Pakistan, does our prime minister offer a hand of friendship to Pakistan? What material benefit has India got from this unnecessary kids glove approach to our neighbor? And more importantly, where does the prime minister see Indo-Pak relations in the coming five years, given the Pakistani track record of the past five?