The Hindu Business Line : Burden of the ‘Balochi’ blunder

The Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement, in which New Delhi agreed to delink terrorism from the composite dialogue with Islamabad, made many in India see red. The Mumbai terror attack is still fresh in public memory and any move suggestive of a softening Government stance is bound to invoke the people’s wrath, says RASHEEDA BHAGAT.

Politics is certainly the art of the possible… when everything is going right for a political party or a government which is sitting pretty, like the UPA government headed by the Congress party is at the moment, you can trust someone to emerge out of nowhere and shoot himself, read the government, in the foot.

And so we had the fiasco at Sharm-el-Sheikh, in Egypt, where the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan, Dr Manmohan Singh and Mr Yusuf Raza Gilani, met on the sidelines of the NAM conference.

This was followed by a joint statement — the long and short of which was that India had agreed to delink terrorism from the composite dialogue with Pakistan. Worse, what made not only the Opposition parties and the country, but also many within the Congress party itself, see red was the nod, even though in a passing sentence, to talk about Pakistan’s concerns on India’s involvement in the secessionist trouble it faces in Balochistan.

Outrage in India

Even as there was outrage in India, where the wounds inflicted by the Pakistani terrorists in Mumbai are still fresh and festering, the Indian side moved into damage control mode. While the Pakistan media celebrated this “victory” in Sharm-el-Sheikh, where their leadership had managed to “internationalise” its woes in Balochistan, Dr Singh sought to calm the nerves of an upset nation while addressing the Indian journalists attending the Sharm-el-Sheikh summit.

Dr Singh told the media that a composite dialogue cannot begin “until and unless the terrorist attacks that shook Mumbai are accounted for.” He added that the starting point of any “meaningful dialogue” with Pakistan would be the point when that country refuses to allow its territory to be used for terrorist activities against India. He ruled out the possibility of “any dialogue” with Pakistan, leave alone “composite dialogue”, till this happens.

But this blunder has pumped in a lot of wind into the hitherto deflated sails of the BJP, which launched an attack against the Prime Minister and the UPA government for the “sell-out” in Egypt. The UPA’s detractors alleged that India had agreed to the resumption of the stalled dialogue with Pakistan, bowing to pressure from the US.

We Indians are loath to admit what Pakistanis shout from rooftops — that their foreign policy is dictated by the Americans. That is why aam Pakistanis, whose dream is to educate and “settle” their children in the US, harbour such anti-US feelings in their hearts.

Granted that India is not in the least bit a pushover as Pakistan, rather unfortunately, has become over the last couple of decades. But it would be foolhardy to think that over the years our successive governments have not tried to be on the right side of the administration in Washington DC. The Indo-Chini bhai-bhai, Indo-Russi bhai-bhai phase is long over and as India marches towards the road to development, a free economy etc, not only the Government of India, but also the people of India, desire a cosy relationship with the US.

Welcomed by US

The US administration, of course, welcomed the joint statement and the news that India and Pakistan were soon going to resume the composite dialogue, even while the US Secretary of State, Ms Hillary Clinton, on her recent visit to India, vehemently denied that the Obama administration had anything to do with the Indian stance in the joint statement.

Much has happened after Sharm-el-Sheikh; the Prime Minister has taken pains to explain that there are no differences between him and several Congress leaders over the joint statement. He got the much needed shot in the arm when the Congress chief, Ms Sonia Gandhi, sent a clear message at the party’s core committee meeting held on Friday that she endorsed Dr Singh’s diplomatic initiative with Pakistan and senior Congress leaders should also stand by it. They were told to “explain” to the people that there has been no capitulation.

But despite such measures to repair the beating the Prime Minister’s image has taken, particularly his “soft” (read ‘terrible’) negotiating skills, lack of political acumen, etc., there has been a clear message after the event. The UPA government is in no hurry to carry on a dialogue with Pakistan. Not till it continues to dilly dally on taking action against the kingpins behind the Mumbai massacre. Flip-flops on this issue have been unending and even the small section of India which wants peaceful co-existence with Pakistan as a neighbour — what other choice is there? — is getting fed up with our neighbour’s antics, double-speak and plain deceit.

The Congress has also sought to present a united face and reiterated that there was no rift in the party and Dr Singh would clear the air in Parliament on Wednesday. But whatever he might say on Wednesday, the question is what was the Prime Minister thinking, allowing such a joint statement? He might be accused of lacking political astuteness, but surely no Chanakya-like skills are required to read the mood of the nation.

The Mumbai carnage snapped something vital when it comes to our blow-hot blow-cold relationship with Pakistan. Since then, the outrage in India is clearly palpable. Most Indians want nothing to do with Pakistan. Call it an illogical or immature reaction, or one which no government can afford to harbour against even the worst of neighbours. But take it or leave it; that is the public mood. And any government that ignores this will do so at its peril.

Also, the dragging of Balochistan into an Indo-Pak joint statement has had the dramatic effect of Pakistanis — the people as well as the government — making all kinds of wild claims. Of course, every act of violence in Pakistan is seen to have a RAW hand in it, and so was the case when the Sri Lankan cricketers were attacked in Lahore.

But agreeing to address Pakistan’s concerns on Balochistan had the electrifying effect of renewed claims that the separatist movement there is sponsored by India, that India indeed had a role to play in the Lahore incident, etc.

Web ranting in Pakistan

And ranting against India continues on Pakistani Web sites, forums and blogs. One Website, www.defence.pk , which describes itself as “Web’s authoritative source on Pakistani security and strategic affairs”, has these provocative comments in its “forums” section. Writes somebody calling himself ‘dabong1’: “When will Pakistani(s) get it into there (sic) heads that the only way forward is to have a Pakistani trained Kashmiri hezbollah attacking IOK forces........let’s give Pakistan’s full support to the Sikh freedom.”

Sikh freedom? In Kashmir? Anyway, his diabolic suggestion has several enthusiastic responses.

Says one: “Yes, that policy has earned fantastic dividends. Let’s use some more illiterate Pakistanis as cannon fodder, pump more money into jihadi madrassas and give more power to the non-state actors. Always pays off.” The message is followed by three smileys.

Says another: “Good. I also think the same. Can I donate some money to Kashmiri hezbollah?”

Chips in ‘Patriot’: “That’s good, man. Musharraf made a huge blunder by weak(e)ning Kashmir Freedom Struggle. We should send in more Mujahideen in IOK so that Indian Army loose (sic) more men. We should never back down from Kashmir Struggle unless India give(s) it more autonomy.”

Of course, every country has its share of mad-caps, but such nonsense rankles and tempts you to join the BJP when it says “Enough is enough, no more dialogue with Pakistan.”

(Response may be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in)

More Stories on : Foreign Relations | Terrorism | Rasheeda Bhagat

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Burden of the ‘Balochi’ blunder

The right nutrient mix

Global trade in a time of crisis

Transparency in the system

Monetary Policy