Mainstream Weekly

Home > Archives (2006 on) > 2010 > The Islamabad Fiasco

Mainstream, Vol XLVIII, No 31, July 24, 2010

The Islamabad Fiasco

Sunday 25 July 2010, by SC

#socialtags







While the two major incidents of the last few days—the horrific train accident at Sainthia station in West Bengal’s Birbhum district (where the Sealdah-bound New Cooch Behar-Sealdah Uttarbanga Express rammed into the Bhagalpur-Ranchi Vananchal Express from behind) in the early hours of July 19 claiming, as per initial reports, 67 lives and injuring as many as 121 passengers and the shocking misdemeanour of the people’s representatives in the Bihar Assembly on July 21 striking a new low in the history of such shameful spectacles on the floor of our legislatures—have hogged the headlines of late, the fiasco of the Foreign Secretary-level India-Pakistan talks in Islamabad on July 15 continues to agitate the media even after a week.

Last week it was observed in these columns:

…External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna’s visit to Pakistan and talks with his Pakistani counterpart focusing on the issue of terror is most welcome particularly when Islamabad too has reacted positively to the same subject in view of the terror attacks Pakistanis themselves are facing today.

These lines were written in the afternoon of Thursday, July 15. The Indian Express too pointed out editorially on July 17:

Until Thursday afternoon, it appeared that the two Ministers were close to agreeing on ways to build mutual trust, cooperate against terror, and identify a roadmap for the resumption of the peace process that had been stalled since the Mumbai terror attacks in November 2008.

But by late evening, when the two Foreign Ministers met the press after their lengthy confabulations in the Pakistan capital, it was clear that they had practically nothing concrete to offer to the media in terms of substantive results beyond disclosing that S.M. Krishna had invited his Pakistani counterpart, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, to the Indian capital for a further round of negotiations and the latter had accepted it. The two Foreign Ministers took opposite views on a host of questions in public with the Pakistan Minister even comparing the terrorist mastermind Hafiz Saeed with our Union Home Secretary, G.K. Pillai. His statement, while answering a query on the anti-India utterances of Hafiz Saeed, referring to Pillai’s pronouncement (based on Lashkar operative David Coleman Headley’s confession before the Indian investigators in America) that the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate of the Pakistan Army had been involved in 26/11 (Mumbai terror attacks) “from the beginning till the end”, was a clear case of Islamabad officially countering New Delhi’s charge of Hafiz Saeed’s actions in Pakistan with Pillai’s assertion that, Qureshi felt, was an unequivocal anti-Pakistan tirade. This has naturally enraged Indian public opinion for one cannot possibly compare the hate-speeches of an avowed jihadi leader with the considered views of a seasoned bureaucrat on the basis of an LeT operative’s confession. Krishna himself later told the media that Qureshi’s approach was so “ridiculous” that he did not even feel like reacting to it.

However, on the question of Qureshi’s contention that Krishna agreed with him on Pillai’s statement having queered the pitch of the bilateral talks, the Minister of External Affairs initially declined to get drawn into the issue saying that he was not going to score debating points with the Pakistan Foreign Minister but subsequently told a TV channel that while Pillai’s observation was absolutely true the statement was “ill-timed”. This has caused consternation in some sections of the Indian media which have pointed to the differing perceptions of the Union Home Ministry and the Ministry of External Affairs on the subject. But then Krishna is entitled to his view which, incidentally, is shared by a considerable section of the Indian public opinion that has all along refrained from hoisting the “nationalist” (read jingoist) banner especially in relation to Pakistan. The question being asked is: what was the need of Pillai restating in public, just on the eve of the Foreign Minister’s meeting in Islamabad, what the Union Home Minister had already conveyed to his Pakistani counterpart only in the recent past.

Yet these apart, what Qureshi did the following day, that is, on July 16, was somewhat unprecedented as he apparently calculatedly threw diplomatic niceties out of the window. As The Times of India has aptly noted, it was “startling” that “Qureshi’s personal diatribe against his guest” at a press conference that day crossed all limits when “Krishna was accused of being a marionette without a mandate to negotiate” as he was, in Qureshi’s opinion, constantly seeking directives from South Block. (Though this was perfectly legitimate on Krishna’s part, he has denied being in touch with New Delhi even once.) Subsequently it has been brought out that Qureshi himself was constantly trying to get guidance from his superiors. (One is not sure whether they were in the Pakistan Government or the GHQ in Rawalpindi.) Such ‘revelations’ on the part of Qureshi in public were, in the words of The TOI, certainly not “in the best traditions of Pakistani hospitality… not to mention some basic canons of diplomacy”.

It is true that Pakistan wanted India to give some indication of the time-frame for the genuine resumption of the composite dialogue, especially on the core issues of J&K, Siachen, peace and security, and Sir Creak, but New Delhi was clear in its mind that unless some specific steps were taken against the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks in particular (as spelt out by Union Home Minister P. Chidambaram to his Pakistani counterpart, Rehman Malik, in Islamabad) such a time-frame was not feasible and this was unambiguously stated by the Indian side during the talks.

Whether the talks broke down because of the inflexible stand of the Pakistan Army and its chief, General Kayani, or the media comments of Qureshi succumbing too much to Indian pressure, is a matter of conjecture. However, Qureshi’s utterances on July 16 and thereafter (for which even the former ISI chief General Hamid Gul has taken him to task) were intended to deflect media criticism but in the process he overshot his mouth. Nonetheless, it would be unfair and impertinent on the part of India to take a holier-than-thou attitude (as some sections of the media are doing) for Pillai’s statement just before the talks was definitely uncalled for. It is also necessary for New Delhi to avoid a rigid stand in relation to Pakistan. That is precisely why A.B. Vajpayee in Agra (2001) and Islamabad (January 2004) and Manmohan Singh at Sharm-el-Sheikh (2009) had taken a different position in the wider interest of the peoples of India, Pakistan and South Asia as a whole. Even if the BJP has forgotten that past and is immaturely demanding that South Block call off all negotiations with Pakistan, the dialogue process must not be terminated, even if temporarily, and bilateral engagement between the two countries must continue uninterrupted. In fact that dialogue needs to be enriched, broadened and deepened in the days ahead regardless of the magnitude of provocation from the jingoist elements on both sides of the border.

That is imperative for the sake of peace, security, cooperation in our region as well as amity and harmony among the masses of the two most important South Asian states. Instead of getting disheartened, we must redouble our efforts to avoid the pitfalls in the future and confidently move towards that objective in the light of the Islamabad fiasco.

July 22 S.C.

ISSN (Mainstream Online) : 2582-7316 | Privacy Policy|
Notice: Mainstream Weekly appears online only.