Opinion Poll...
Should Bihar govt release naxals & save cops? |
|
Eagle's Eye: Pak Army against peace with India |
| Category »
Editorial Posted On Thursday, July 29, 2010 | If there ever was any doubt about the Pakistan Army directly handling the country's foreign policy of hostility towards India, that must have been removed by the manner in which Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi bombed the meeting of the foreign ministers of the two countries held in Islamabad. He cancelled the draft produced by the two delegations of common talking points which spelt out a mutually acceptable framework for future meetings presented in a language that worked around obvious differences on a timeline for resumption of talks on Kashmir and Siachin. Informed sources indicated that since the Army Chief Ashfaq Pervez Kayani has, from the beginning, sought a time-bound solution of the Kashmir issue, which he considers as the "core", he had instructed that there was no point in pursuing the bilateral dialogue unless India met his condition.
External Affairs Minister S. M. Krishna's meetings with Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani were re-scheduled so that he could meet them after Gen Kayani had called on them. He proved spoil sport and is said to have told the civilian leaders not to compromise with India till the Government fixed a time-frame for resolution of the contentions issues listed under the composite dialogue. The military's orders were dutifully conveyed to Qureshi, who did the needful by canceling the draft agreement because India had not given in on the time-frame demand. He explained his conduct in the most undiplomatic way, throwing etiquette to the winds and using undignified language, there by shaming his own country. His petulance crossed all limits and revealed in clear light that the Army is not on board the Gilani-Manhoman Singh peace process in order to bridge the trust deficit between India and Pakistan.
Though the entire exercise was pre-planned, the Military establishment felt hurt by the Union Home Secretary GK Pillai's comment, based on the testimony of David Headley, that Pakistan Army's Inter Services Intelligence was involved in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack from beginning to end. Gen kayani's hostility to India is well known. Prior to his present assignment, he headed the notorious ISI and was responsible for dispatching hundreds of trained and armed jihadis to Kashmir to commit acts of terror in the State. As soon as he took over as Army Chief he debunked his predecessor Gen Musharraf's back-channel diplomacy and clearly stated that relations with India could not improve till the "core" issue of Kashmir was settled.
The present PPP-led Government, which was angry with Musharraf for having murdered democracy in Pakistan and destroyed its constitution, also repudiated all that he had done and sought a fresh dialogue with India with priority to resolution of the Kashmir issue, a natural consequences of that policy was deterioration in the relations with India, particularly after the ISI master-minded Mumbai terror attack that seriously disrupted the process of dialogue and added to the mistrust between the two countries. Of course, attempts will be made to put the dialogue process back on track, but things will not be the same as the Army is not on board. If the Army wanted to highlight the Kashmir issue to involve the US, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton poured cold water over such moves, by refusing to mediate. She clearly stated that the Kashmir Issue, though an impediment in Indo-Pak relations, need to be resolved by the two countries through talks, without outside interference.
It needs to be noted that even though the Pakistan Constitution was drastically amended to deprive the President of dictatorial powers of dismissing governments and dissolving parliament and provincial legislatures, the Army still remains supreme and Pakistan's democracy continues to function under its guidance and orders.
It is conceivable that Mr. Pillai's statement must have set the Army and the ISI on fire because both are facing a tough time defending their links with the murderous Taliban who menace the US and NATO troops in Afghanistan.
Accordingly, Mr. Qureshi and his team were unwilling to give any assurance about future terror attacks mounted by Lashker-e-Tayyeba and Jammat-ud-Dawa not taking place in India, nor about prosecuting Hafiz Sayeed and other terror master-minds for planning and executing the Mumbai attack.
Obviously, the Army has prevailed on the servile civilian leadership to keep up strained relations with India in order to convey to the Americans that it cannot pay undivided attention to the Western border with Afghanistan to check infiltration of Taliban because it was occupied on the eastern border with India. But the US has repeatedly refused to intervene. Another setback for the Pakistan Army could be the United States considering putting the Haqqani Taliban network on the list of terrorist outfits. Gen Kayani has been trying his best to broker a deal between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the Haqqani faction led by Sirajudding Haqqani on power sharing and ultimately handing over power to the Taliban of its choice after foreign forces have left Afghanistan. Mrs. Clinton has poured cold water over the Army's efforts and disclosed that the Haqqani Taliban also need to be categorised as international terrorists and dealt with as such.
It is obvious that Pakistan does not want to be tested on the action it takes against terrorists and master-minds like Hafiz Sayeed. Despite all the glib talk about democracy having been established in Pakistan with a civilian government in control, the Military-ISI structure remains at the heart of Pakistan's power structure and despite saying many things about joining the war on terror and punishing the culprits, terror remains a useful force-multiplier. Therefore, Islamabad refuses to be held to any commitment on terrorism. If Islamabad could give India a time-frame for completing the legal processes against the Mumbai masterminds including Hafiz Sayeed and involved Army officers, and getting them punished, it may have some justification for asking India for a time-frame for resolution of various outstanding issues. But, it refuses to give any commitments, and only wants one-sided action by India, which is unthinkable. Apart from, the yawning trust deficit, all evidence including confessions of Kasab, Headley and the charge sheets against the accused in the Pakistani court including planning, the brains trust and equipment point to Pakistan. New Delhi cannot deal with ultimatums in the face of take-it or-leave-it stance.
While India has refused to give any binding commitments, it proposed several confidence building measures to bridge the trust deficit which would ultimately create a favourable atmosphere for resolution of the many outstanding issues. Both sides had generally agreed to commerce Secretary-level talks on economic cooperation and trade; Culture Secretary level talks to promote people-to-people contact and friendly exchanges; meeting of Indo-Pak judicial committee on release of prisoners and fishermen; meeting of the Joint Working Group on Cross-LoC trade, as well as, increasing the number of trips, besides looking at easing entry permit rules and talks between Water Resources officials, which India would like to conduct within the framework of the Indus Waters Treaty. On the Sir Creek issue, it needs to first respond to the proposals made by India after the joint survey of the creek was done.
New Delhi was hoping that action by Pakistan on the terror front -- which the international community also is demanding -- would catalyse the process of taking on Pakistan's agenda. India did not put any specific goalposts other than to say action against terrorism should be expeditious. This had been conveyed earlier also by Home Minster P. Chidambaram during his meeting with his Pakistani counter-part Rehman Malik. But Pakistan wants Mumbai to be forgotten, which India cannot afford to do. As regards Mr. Qureshi's claim that the Indian deletion sought repeated instructions from New Delhi because it was not empowered. Sources disclosed that he too had left the conference room with his delegation. Clearly he was answering to a higher authority and although he is a Maqdoom, that authority was not god.
For bilateral talks to proceed in future, the Pakistani generals have to change their thinking on India and keeping up a posture of confrontation to justify the Army's existence and its huge budget. It should stop meddling with foreign policy and let the civilian government conduct it as it deems fit. Politicians have a way of communicating with each other and democracy must be a chance to survive in Pakistani.
MK Dhar, NPA
|
 Print
|  Mail it
|
|
Friday, September 03, 2010