Pathankot attack: Modi has given Nawaz Sharif a chance to salvage talks
The Pathankot attack has once again exposed our failure to develop an effective strategy to counter Pakistan's use of terror as a political tool against us. Each time a Pakistan-sponsored terrorist attack occurs, our dialogue gets interrupted.
It is resumed after an interval because Pakistan is seen to be gaining diplomatic advantage internationally by our rejection of dialogue. We are sensitive to US diplomacy which plays in favour of dialogue resumption. Within the country too, major newspapers and well-identified commentators push for resumption. In some cases, even those officially responsible for our foreign and security policies treat the issue of terrorism as secondary and advocate dialogue. All this shows the brittleness of our approach to terrorism.
Interests
We are told that it is in our own interest to have a dialogue with Pakistan and we should not let terrorists disrupt it. One can understand if during the process of a productive dialogue with Pakistan, that steadily moves the two countries towards normalisation, sporadic acts of terrorism occur, which are then investigated, the perpetrators punished and steps taken to prevent further acts - we take the position that breaking dialogue would not be in our interests as we would be doing exactly what the terrorists want.
But if the dialogue has been largely sterile, Pakistan has remained adamant on its "core" issues, those responsible for the Mumbai massacre have not been tried and credible action against jihadi groups targeting India has been absent, this position loses force. How is it in our national interest in that case to persist in a barren dialogue that primarily puts the burden on usto produce "results" and overlook terrorism?
The other argument that a dialogue is needed for conveying to Pakistan our expectations on the terrorism front and transmit evidence to Islamabad assumes that Pakistan is unaware of our concerns and ignoring the evidence of Pakistan-based jihadi activity against India given to them. In reality, terrorism has been on the agenda for years, and Pakistan is fully aware of what we expect. Pakistan has ignored our private and public exhortations on abjuring terrorism as an instrument of state policy and has treated our evidence as literature.
Expectations
If our expectations had been heeded by Pakistan and had it reoriented its policies accordingly there would be merit in continuing the virtuous process of a sustained dialogue. But, if instead, terrorist attacks are staged on our territory periodically and, leads provided are not pursued on grounds that additional evidence is needed and procedures have to be followed, then the argument loses merit.
Put them to test, experts say, as if the Pakistan has not been tested for three decades! It is claimed by dialogue supporters that each time talks have been successful in the past, terrorists have attacked - more the success, the more severe the attack. Apart from the implication that we should not link dialogue and terrorism, it is not clear what these successes are.
The Mumbai attacks were supposedly in response to a breakthrough on Kashmir. The acceptability of this breakthrough, which has remained a national secret, has never been tested. This is true of the Pakistan side too, although former foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri has tom-tommed it. This "success", which was personality-driven, and not system-driven, on Pakistan's side, remained embryonic, with its basis being rejected by Asif Ali Zardari and, in particular, Nawaz Sharif by their insistence on self-determination under UN auspices in Kashmir.
Some dialogue diehards, who have been cogs in our Pakistan policy under the previous government and have treated Narendra Modi's Lahore visit with withering contempt, argue that asking Sharif to take action against those involved in the Pathankot attack before foreign secretary-level talks amounts to laying down conditions. Others seek analogies from the latest episode of Star Wars to understand and address our Pakistan problem.
Terrorism
In their eyes, Pakistan's insistence that it will not discuss terrorism unless Kashmir is also discussed, does not amount to laying down conditions. Unless we discuss issues close to Pakistan's heart, they say, we will not get them to act on our concerns, which indirectly justifies the use of terrorism against us, as the implication is that we invite it because we obdurately deny the room Pakistan wants on Kashmir.
We may have different views on the sagacity of Modi's Lahore gesture, but having invested so dramatically in a renewed dialogue process with Pakistan, he is not wrong in demanding that Pakistan demonstrates its commitment to talks that Sharif has lobbied internationally, by taking action against those responsible for Pathankot. This is not laying down a condition - this is giving an opportunity to Sharif to save the dialogue he seeks from being aborted.