Taking a big gamble
Seema Sirohi |
Nov 23, 2011, 12.03AM IST
=================================================
=================================================
Trust but verify doesn't suffice when dealing with Pakistan's Deep State: the army-ISI combine.
Yet, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has concluded the army is "on board" with the idea of peace. The generals next door haven't said so, nor indicated a change of heart. The gamble is being taken on the assurance of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani whose leader, President Asif Ali Zardari, is currently stuck in a humiliating stand-off with the army over his ambassador in Washington, Husain Haqqani.
That the generals have demanded the head of the wrong Haqqani over an alleged memo while merrily subverting their country's constitution can't be lost on New Delhi. Internal mess? Yes, but this eternal internal mess always makes the external difficult, if not impossible.
But Singh has gone out on a limb for Pakistan. One hopes his instinct and judgment are right. The overture is especially significant because it comes on the eve of the third anniversary of the horrific Mumbai attacks in which the ISI stands implicated after the testimony of David Headley - to say nothing of the countless attacks of years gone by. This is not living in the past but taking a full accounting of the present.
The prime minister's gamble raises many questions. If General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani indeed says "aye" to peace with India, can we request him to simply go on record? There should be no shadows and ghosts if the process is to be sustained. The army-ISI complex can't both want peace and also remain anonymous so that it can wreck it at will. The world knows that it is the generals who make the consequential decisions as is apparent to any casual observer of Pakistani politics. The pretence that the civilian government actually runs Pakistan is useful on some issues but not on this one.
The generals must take responsibility in some fashion, either by gesture or with words. For starters, they could put Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) founder Hafiz Saeed in jail instead of letting him run around spewing venom. The case in Pakistan against the seven other LeT terrorists arrested in connection with the Mumbai attacks drags on with four changes in judges and no real movement. The Deep State has produced men for both the US and China, including Pakistani citizens, bypassed the judicial system at will and delivered because it wanted to or had to. But for India, it has produced only excuses.
Given the history of failed initiatives, the "on board" express is nothing but a tactical move by the Pakistani army to ease pressure on the border with India because of the strain from the Americans on its western front. No evidence of a strategic shift is in sight. Terror remains the largest policy tool in ISI's toolbox. Last week, Pakistan chose not to include Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) on the list of terrorist groups, once again an open admission that it may be useful down the line. A month after the Mumbai attacks, Pakistani officials had promised to act against the JuD if the United Nations banned the group, something the UN Security Council did shortly after 26/11. The world is still waiting for Pakistan to fulfil its promise.
A former ISI chief, Lt Gen Asad Durrani, famously wrote earlier this year that "terrorism is a technique of war, and therefore an instrument of policy". Take that with your morning tea.
That the generals have demanded the head of the wrong Haqqani over an alleged memo while merrily subverting their country's constitution can't be lost on New Delhi. Internal mess? Yes, but this eternal internal mess always makes the external difficult, if not impossible.
But Singh has gone out on a limb for Pakistan. One hopes his instinct and judgment are right. The overture is especially significant because it comes on the eve of the third anniversary of the horrific Mumbai attacks in which the ISI stands implicated after the testimony of David Headley - to say nothing of the countless attacks of years gone by. This is not living in the past but taking a full accounting of the present.
The prime minister's gamble raises many questions. If General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani indeed says "aye" to peace with India, can we request him to simply go on record? There should be no shadows and ghosts if the process is to be sustained. The army-ISI complex can't both want peace and also remain anonymous so that it can wreck it at will. The world knows that it is the generals who make the consequential decisions as is apparent to any casual observer of Pakistani politics. The pretence that the civilian government actually runs Pakistan is useful on some issues but not on this one.
The generals must take responsibility in some fashion, either by gesture or with words. For starters, they could put Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) founder Hafiz Saeed in jail instead of letting him run around spewing venom. The case in Pakistan against the seven other LeT terrorists arrested in connection with the Mumbai attacks drags on with four changes in judges and no real movement. The Deep State has produced men for both the US and China, including Pakistani citizens, bypassed the judicial system at will and delivered because it wanted to or had to. But for India, it has produced only excuses.
Given the history of failed initiatives, the "on board" express is nothing but a tactical move by the Pakistani army to ease pressure on the border with India because of the strain from the Americans on its western front. No evidence of a strategic shift is in sight. Terror remains the largest policy tool in ISI's toolbox. Last week, Pakistan chose not to include Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) on the list of terrorist groups, once again an open admission that it may be useful down the line. A month after the Mumbai attacks, Pakistani officials had promised to act against the JuD if the United Nations banned the group, something the UN Security Council did shortly after 26/11. The world is still waiting for Pakistan to fulfil its promise.
A former ISI chief, Lt Gen Asad Durrani, famously wrote earlier this year that "terrorism is a technique of war, and therefore an instrument of policy". Take that with your morning tea.
Is the Indian prime minister betting on a transformation of the ISI, an organisation that has birthed and nurtured terrorist groups against India for decades? The ISI and LeT are brothers-in-arms and protection and immunity from prosecution are a given. The hope that sprang briefly in the wake of the Osama bin Laden raid when Pakistani liberals began asking hard questions about the competence and credibility of the Deep State is already a thing of the past.
The civilian government failed to convert the question mark into even the smallest bit of leverage. The success of the Pakistani army's non-cooperation movement against the Americans is for all to see.
If the US was unable to convert its leverage from the bin Laden raid into anything substantial with all the carrots and the many sticks at its disposal, there is little likelihood of India succeeding. And India's peace process with Pakistan can't depend on the hope that the Deep State will end its support of terrorism.
So what does it really mean in the end? That India will simply absorb future attacks, get used to living with a terror-infested Pakistan and watch out the best it can? Perhaps. But at least India should reject the moral equivalence Pakistani leaders have sought to establish on the issue of terrorism. We are not victim-victim, bhai-bhai. India is at the receiving end of state-sponsored terrorism.
If Pakistan is a victim today because its society is gripped by jihadi fever thanks to the contagion released by the ISI, it has only itself to blame. The blurring of lines here is insulting. The Mumbai attacks should not be equated with Samjhauta Express because there was no state role in the latter. But Pakistan has slowly established it as a talking point with New Delhi, with Washington and in the think tank circuit. Clever, but few buy it.
Except the prime minister has for some reason. Breakthroughs in difficult relationships are always welcome and a transformation with Pakistan would be historic. But the lure of legacy must not obscure reality.
The writer is a senior journalist.
The civilian government failed to convert the question mark into even the smallest bit of leverage. The success of the Pakistani army's non-cooperation movement against the Americans is for all to see.
If the US was unable to convert its leverage from the bin Laden raid into anything substantial with all the carrots and the many sticks at its disposal, there is little likelihood of India succeeding. And India's peace process with Pakistan can't depend on the hope that the Deep State will end its support of terrorism.
So what does it really mean in the end? That India will simply absorb future attacks, get used to living with a terror-infested Pakistan and watch out the best it can? Perhaps. But at least India should reject the moral equivalence Pakistani leaders have sought to establish on the issue of terrorism. We are not victim-victim, bhai-bhai. India is at the receiving end of state-sponsored terrorism.
If Pakistan is a victim today because its society is gripped by jihadi fever thanks to the contagion released by the ISI, it has only itself to blame. The blurring of lines here is insulting. The Mumbai attacks should not be equated with Samjhauta Express because there was no state role in the latter. But Pakistan has slowly established it as a talking point with New Delhi, with Washington and in the think tank circuit. Clever, but few buy it.
Except the prime minister has for some reason. Breakthroughs in difficult relationships are always welcome and a transformation with Pakistan would be historic. But the lure of legacy must not obscure reality.
The writer is a senior journalist.
=================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment