There is little doubt that the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has come under increasing domestic pressures to call off the proposed Secretrary-level dialogue with neighbour Pakistan following the suspected terror attack in Pune last week.
But there is also little doubt that the talks have to be resumed since not talking indefinitely to the immediate neighbour cannot be a diplomatic option.
The government has rightly said it would wait for the findings of an investigation into this weekend’s bakery bombing before responding to the main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party’s demands to cancel upcoming peace talks
The explosion Saturday, caused by a bomb left in an unattended bag at a venue popular with tourists, killed nine people and wounded 60.
It was the first major terrorist attack in India since the 2008 Mumbai massacre when Pakistan-based militants ran amok in the country’s financial hub. Hence, thre is legitimate ground for suspicion that Pakistan might agtain be involved, directly or through what it calls its “non state actors.”
Unfortunately for India, the bombing came just a day after it set a date for first formal dialogue since the Mumbai attacks prompted it to suspend wide-ranging talks aimed at normalizing relations after six decades of hostility.
But then, this should have been – and must have been – anticipated, given the volatile relations and the frequency of the surprise terror attacks.
After all, the Mumbai terror attacks wre closely preceded by all the conciliatory observations that Pakistan Prsident Asif Ali Zardari had made in his tele-talk at The Hindusta times Leadership Sunmmit.
BJP has leaders have blamed the attack on Pakistan and have demanded the government call off the talks, scheduled for February 25 in New Delhi. Arun Jaitley said India shouldn’t restart peace talks until Pakistan stops allowing terrorists to base themselves there and punishes those involved in the Mumbai attacks.
“Terrorism and talks can’t coexist,” Jaitley said.
In all fairnes, the BJP needs to look at its own record when it was in power. Its government failed to anticipate or detect the Kargil intrusions and had undertaken the Lahore visit.
The BJP-led government had reactred with all the anger when Parliament Complex was attacked in December 2001. It positioned an estimated 700,000 troops on the border with Pakistan for 19 months and under the same pressure that it accuses the prsengt govfernment of, did not fire a bullet. The military stand-off was scaled down with no tangible military results, either tacfrical or strategic.
The government incitred the then President Pervez Musharraf to Agra without adeaquate preparations. It called off the summit abruptly after Musharraf ran away with media publicity and tactical advantage.
External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna has said that he would wait for the forensic experts’ report on the bombing before commenting on the opposition demand.
Pakistan Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani denounced the blast. “We condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations,” he said.
Even if the condemnation was pro forma, meant to continue with the talks, it would not be wise for India to call off the talks without adequate evidence of direct Pakistani involvement in Pune.
India decided to resume the dialogue, despite an acute sense of anger among the people at home, particularly among the Mumbaites, because the diplomatic and tactical gains from holding back had diminished.
India realises that given a lack of political will to curb terrorism and its inept system of investigation and trial, Pakistan was simply buying time, while mounting a diplomatic campaign to emerge as a victim of terrorism. Only a direct talk could call this bluff.
With investigations into the attack still under way, there could be no knee-jerk reaction to the Pune carnage.
India seems convinced that terrorists will attempt to strike at targets in India whether there are talks or not.
It has to talk since it is also clear that the terrorists are opposed to the dialogue.
So far as the talks themselves are concerned, there are low expectations. There is a lot of rational talk among a section of the intelligentsia that India must talk to help save democracy in Pakistan. This is hogwash and does not work with the Indian populace any more.
First, none from outside, least of all, India, can help save democracy in Pakistan. Zardari himself, a string of ministers and a whopping 8,000 well-connected individuals and families have been exposed to judicial and policed action after the amnesty given to them from trial for corruption has been ripped away by the judiciary at the highest level.
Secondly, the past record has shown that the so-called democracies have been the worst perpetrators of anti-India campaigns to keep themselves in power. Benazir Bhutto created the Taliban and ran a vicious ani-India campaign on Kashmir.
Kargil happened both, because of and despite, Nawaz Sharif. The bottom line is that the Army is in charge in Pakistan all the time and right now, it is cold to the president and has the prime minister of its side.
That being the case, India can start a tentative, limited dialogue. With that, it can fend off the obvious pressures from the West that needs Pakistan – more than India – in its campaign in Afghanistan.
Pakistan wants to discuss water sharing and other non-military issues. Fine. In her meeting with her Pakistani counterpart, the Indian Foreign Secretary can do no better than to repeat what Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in Parliament last year: that India is prepared to meet Pakistan’s concerns on water or any other issue more than half-way provided Islamabad implements its commitments and acts against terrorist groups.
Finally, after a round of talks, there can be a good pause when India could buy time to watch things as they are developing, both within Pakistan and on its border with Afghanistan.
