Want Afghanistan? Take Balochistan instead

 

 

If you could possibly arrive at a consensus between India and Pakistan, expect it to be a stormy one. The joint statement by the two countries at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt at the recent non-aligned summit had all the qualities of a political potboiler — and startling brinkmanship.

The primary question at stake in Parliament and the media was whether India had bitten off more than it could chew by alluding that its ‘role’ in fomenting trouble in Balochistan was on the discussion table with Pakistan as part of the composite dialogue process. Some analysts say the joint statement delinking action on terror from the composite dialogue process has come as a bolt from the blue.

In the joint statement, of the total three summary points one point alluded to India’s role in creating troubles in Balochistan. As per another point, the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan was de-linked from Pakistan’s responsibility to take action against people who planned and helped execute 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai.

“Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed,” the statement said.

Opposition parties are up in arms saying it is tantamount to declaring that Islamabad’s actions against terrorist groups operating from its soil was no longer a pre-condition for resumption of talks between the two countries. “The joint statement is a continuation of the earlier Indian negotiating strategy of yielding ground to satisfy Pakistani hunger in the hope this will make it less disposed to bite. We continue to want to test Pakistan’s good faith, even as it has failed all previous tests,’’ former Foreign Secretary, Kanwal Sibal, told TSI. (see interview); Defending the India-Pak joint statement in Parliament, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said there was no change in the Indian position. For good measure, he also added that the Pak dossier makes it clear that LeT inspired, financed and executed the Mumbai attack and also this is the first time Pakistan had formally briefed us on a terror attack in India.

While the impact of the statement on the dialogue process is yet to be assessed, the government appeared to have tied itself up in knots. Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon set the ball rolling by telling the media that the joint statement was “wrongly drafted’. Does the Foreign Secretary get paid to help make ‘wrong drafts’, questioned one irate MP in the Lok Sabha. If that was bad, Home Minister P Chidambram’s attempts to save the situation took the cake. He said India had nothing to do with fomenting any trouble in Balochistan! Compounding the chaos was junior foreign minister Shashi Tharoor who sought to dilute the value of the joint statement itself by claiming that it was only “a diplomatic paper” that had no legal sanction, a dangerous game to play.

According to political sources, there was considerable disquiet in the Congress over the joint statement, though no one has chosen to differ publicly with the PM. In his column, former Union minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, a Congressman and ex-diplomat in Pakistan, noted that there is no question of India wanting to meddle in Balochistan. There are others though who say Manmohan has taken the right stand at the right time. “After years of backroom diplomacy, we have reached a crucial stage. The PM needs our backing,’’ says Salman Haider, whose tenure as Foreign Secretary under IK Gujral in the mid-1990s, saw relationship between the two neighbours at an all time high. The proof of the pudding would lie in the eating. In the days to come, it would be important to see how Balochistan plays out. “India’s hands are clean. We have nothing to hide”

Former Foreign Secretary Salman Haider’s tenure during IK Gujral’s Prime Ministership marks the golden period of tranquility in Indo-Pak relations, an era marked by the Gujral doctrine, his boss’s ultimate peace initiative with Pakistan. He tells TSI that the two countries have taken a long route to get where they have.

What is your take on the raging controversy over including Balochistan in the Prime Ministerial joint statement?

Balochistan has been talked at Sharm el Sheikh between India and Pakistan at the non-aligned summit. India’s hands are clean. We have nothing to hide. This is a policy of accommodation. No substantial damage has been caused, notwithstanding a great deal of hand wringing by the media and others. I would tend to agree with the statement issued by the Ministry of External Affairs. They have explained what the real position is.

There is the overwhelming sentiment that India has compromised its diplomatic position.

India and Pakistan have taken a different route to try to reach some accommodation on Kashmir. There has been back channel diplomacy going on for years. A lot has been put in. It is only now that results are bearing fruit. I believe what is happening now in south Asia is historic and revolutionary. It has never happened before.

What about hawks in the Indian establishment who say the country has been betrayed?

They are not hawks. They are merely inaccurate. “Pakistan’s intention is to arraign us as state sponsor of terror”

Ex-foreign secretary, Kanwal Sibal, says India’s policy of accommodating Pakistan has flopped

What do you make out of Prime Minister’s Balochistan statement and the ensuing controversy?

The joint statement issued at Sharm el Sheikh has generated a lot of controversy, and rightly so. It is not obligatory to issue such statements each time the Indian and Pakistani leaders meet, but we have developed an unhealthy practice of doing so in order to create an illusion of progress for domestic audiences.

Each successive document, unfortunately, devalues the previous one and no one document remains a reference point for understanding the status of key bilateral issues. The 2004 Islamabad declaration, important for the obligation Pakistan took to prevent terror from territory under its control, was followed by two joint statements in 2005 in which it was agreed that terrorism would not be allowed to derail the bilateral dialogue, that it would be irreversible, which diluted in effect Islamabad commitment.

The September 2006 Havana declaration equated India and Pakistan as victims of terror, overlooking that India is a victim of Pakistani terror and the reverse is not true. Why we reasoned that accommodating Pakistan would serve our goals better is unclear. The result of numerous joint documents with Pakistan, in which we have yielded ground to it, is that we have no guiding document left which pins down Pakistani responsibilities on terror.

Where does this leave India vis a vis Pakistan? Has India opened a front which it politically and diplomatically cannot control?

India has given legitimacy to Pakistan’s accusations about our interference in Balochistan in the eyes of its own public and the international community. Pakistan’s intention is to arraign us internationally as a state sponsor of terrorism; counter our accusations with its own and deal with the issue of terrorism on an “equal” basis. The attempt is to deflect criticism for having begun a veritable dialogue with Pakistan, without delivery on terror.

What about foreign secretary making a point about bad drafting?

I am not sure he meant it that way. Since the draft has caused a lot of confusion, with our side claiming that a wrong construction is being given to the text, he is acknowledging it could have been drafted better. The final responsibility lies at the political level, not at the bureaucratic level.

MoS Shashi Tharoor has said that the joint statement is merely a document. It has no legal validity. Do you agree?

Technically he is right. It’s a political document, not a legal one. But one can’t agree to a document at the highest level and then say it is dispensable. Tomorrow if a document no longer suits the Pakistani side they can disown it too.

What is the way ahead?

We have delinked and debracketed action on terrorism from the composite dialogue process, while agreeing in the same breath that India is ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding ones. The meaning is clear — the composite dialogue will be held irrespective of Pakistani action on terrorism.