:: Editorial

Firm line with Pak was much needed

Sept.29 : At the moment, there is not much more to say to Pakistan than what external affairs minister S.M. Krishna conveyed to his counterpart S.M. Qureshi in New York on Sunday that — the level of conversation cannot progress to a higher level unless Pakistan shows that it is serious about acting against its citizens who plotted and executed the Mumbai blasts last year. Taking his cue from the national mood in this country, Mr Krishna "flagged" to his counterpart the need for Islamabad to go beyond these seven or eight key individuals to address the broader question of tackling forces and elements of the Pakistani state whose bidding is done by the terrorists raised especially to launch covert attacks against India. So it is not just a question of dealing with Hafiz Saeed, the terrorism ideologue. The JuD and LeT leader only symbolises a larger issue in India’s eyes. Reinforcing the sentiment, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh observed from Pittsburgh that the only obstacle to better ties between the two countries was that Pakistan had not given up its "old attitude regarding the use of terror as an instrument of state policy". Dr Singh is not given to such bluntness normally. He may be seeking to put the ghost of Sharm el-Sheikh behind him, and he may also be speaking some home truths to vent his displeasure with the United States for the sanction given by its Senate last week to the tripling of non-military aid to Pakistan, although it is widely acknowledged that Islamabad harnesses such windfalls to bolster its military position against this country.

The forthright talk by Indian leaders was necessary. But it does not amount to delineating a new policy toward Pakistan. Typically, then, the Pakistani side has sought to react in a tit-for-tat fashion, with its foreign minister saying Islamabad too had issues to sort out with India (meaning the bogey of Balochistan, which has been cooked up of late). Pakistan’s foreign secretary Salman Bashir noted with guile that the two countries cannot afford to get stuck on one point. He was referring to the issue of Mumbai, and terrorism more widely, that India has been emphasising, overlooking mischievously that India is raising nothing less than matters of crucial security concern. New Delhi can’t wait for the next meeting of its officials with Pakistan to convey the same message unless the articulation is embedded in a specific policy matrix.

The signalling of a wider policy in relation to Pakistan should be global in its reach as the matter concerns nothing less than dealings with one of the most dangerous and irresponsible countries in the world. It also needs to cut across subject domains — such as economy, trade, Kashmir. The assumption to be made and conveyed to the world is that Pakistan foments terrorism in the region, no matter what it says, and that India and Afghanistan are both its victims. New Delhi has been too coy with Washington. It needs to clearly inform the United States that it would go its own way on Pakistan because America’s policy toward that country is wrong-headed — that in the name of stabilising Pakistan, it stabilises the Pakistan Army and its Inter-Services Intelligence, the very people who give security cover and institutional support to Mullah Omar and other top Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. India also needs to take into account that America’s much-touted AfPak policy is tottering, being undermined by its own authors. This gives New Delhi greater latitude in its dealings with the rulers in Islamabad.