National interest has no place in UPA's "out-of-the-box" diplomacy

By OP Gupta, IFS [Retd]

http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=303&page=2

If Dr Manmohan Singh had actually refuted Gilani's insinuations then and there at Sharm el-Sheikh, as Dr Manmohan Singh has claimed in Parliament to have done, why was it not faithfully reflected in the joint statement?

President Zardari recently admitted that terrorists were created and nurtured in Pakistan to get short-term tactical gains and were threat to Pakistan but the ISI chief Lt Gen Pasha has described terrorists as strategic assets basically to make `thousand cuts' into India and to secure strategic depth in Afghanistan.

It is pertinent to mention that democratic aspirations of Baloch cannot be clubbed with J&K matter as the people living in the Indian J&K have been exercising their democratic rights since 1948. As far as the 1948 UN resolutions and plebiscite are concerned, it should be recalled that the UN resolutions stipulate that plebiscite will be held only after Pakistan had totally withdrawn its people and armed forces from PoK and the UN had so certified to India. Pakistan and the UN have so far not fulfilled these conditions.

Following in the footsteps of Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh again betrayed the Indian people at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, in pious hope of trying to buy peace from Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani who is known to have no real control over the Pakistan military and its Inter Services Intelligence [ISI]. Dr Singh is reported to have relied upon a new Pak dossier on Pakistani investigations of 26/11 to make a U-turn without appreciating that Pakistani courts may not find adequate proof therein. And Gilani also may not be able to rein in the Pak military and the ISI.

On July 30, 2009, the Times Now TV channel demolishing the very basis of the Sharm el-Sheikh hopes of Dr Manmohan Singh reported that as per information available with the Maharashtra ATS the Pak ISI has directed the LeT to recruit more young Indian Muslims through the Indian Mujahideen and the Students Islamic Movement of India [SIMI] for more terrorist strikes in Maharashtra, which is a Congress-NCP-ruled state. Should Indian people rely on ATS findings or on fantasy and daydreams of PM?

At Munich, Neville Chamberlain, the then British PM, had surrendered the Czechoslovakia's sovereignty to Hitler in pious hope of buying durable peace which only stoked further appetite of Hitler leading to the Second World War.

After the jehadi attack on Mumbai [26/11/2008] by ten Pakistani terrorists sponsored by Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba [Let], the UPA government has been making brave statements to the effect that formal bilateral talks with Pakistan shall not be resumed till [1] a credible action was taken by Pak to bring perpetrators of the Mumbai attack to justice; and, [2] credible actions were taken by Pak to dismantle infrastructures of terrorism in Pakistan from where attacks on India take place. But without these two objectives having been achieved Dr Manmohan Singh in the joint statement issued at Sharm el-Sheikh on July 16 agreed to delink action by Pak against terrorism from resuming composite dialogue. But in face of stiff criticism of this joint statement as a sell-out to Pakistan, Dr Manmohan Singh told the Indian Parliament on July 17:

"I also conveyed to Prime Minister Gilani that sustained, effective and credible action needs to be taken not only to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack to justice, but also to shut down the operations of terrorist groups so as to prevent any future attacks. It has been and remains our consistent position that the starting point of any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan is a fulfilment of their commitment, in letter and spirit, not to allow their territory to be used in any manner for terrorist activities against India". PM repeated these in the Parliament on July 29.

But gist of statements of Dr Manmohan Singh made before the Parliament on July 17 and July 29 strangely finds no reflection in the joint statement of July 16. How is it that if Dr Manmohan Singh had really spoken to Gilani on the above lines these found no place in the joint statement? Were Indian officials accompanying the PM so naïve as to ignore these substantive policy matters personally conveyed by one PM to another PM?

Shri Shiv Shankar Menon, the outgoing Foreign Secretary, feeling the heat of criticism told the media that the joint statement was poorly drafted, and, Shri Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State for External Affairs, came out with another childish explanation that the joint statement was only a diplomatic document and not a legal document so it was not binding on India.

The transcript of media briefing done by SS Menon at Sharm el-Sheikh on July 15 [which is posted on the MEA website] shows that Menon had long meetings with Pakistan Foreign Secretary on 14th and 15th July so it is evident that the text of the joint statement was settled with the Pakistan side by none other than Menon. Now Menon claims that it was poorly drafted. No wonder Shri Yashwant Sinha rightly demanded sacking of Menon. Such embarrassments to a PM become due when a Foreign Secretary is appointed not on merits but on considerations of coterie and connections.

At Shimla [1972] Smt Indira Gandhi despite the Indian Army having decisively defeated the Pakistan Army surrendered all the strategic advantages secured by the Indian Army to wily ZA Bhutto on Bhutto's insincere promises and in her own pious hope of establishing `durable peace' with Pakistan. Shimla agreement was hailed by sarkari journalists as a bold step, a new page in history of India-Pak relations, etc. At that time I as a probationer had asked Shri PN Haksar as to how durable peace will be which he was trying to achieve but he gave no reply. It was shocking that in search of elusive durable peace Indira Gandhi relied upon a verbal commitment of Bhutto to convert the Line of Control in J&K into an international border by legally completing merger of Pak-occupied Kashmir into Pakistan. A Prime Minister of India asked Prime Minister of defeated Pakistan to de jure gobble up Indian territory. It was pure and simple surrender at Shimla by India. After all the Indian position has been that entire J&K is Indian territory.

At the Havana NAM Summit in September 2006 Dr Manmohan Singh had also got carried away by insincere promises of Gen Musharraf and agreed with Gen Musharraf to resume formal peace negotiations that were frozen after the July 11, 2006 train blasts in Mumbai. With much fanfare in the press they decided to put in place an India-Pakistan anti- terrorism institutional mechanism to identify and implement counter-terrorism initiatives and investigations. Did this help India prevent further terrorist attacks on India after September 2006 by Pakistan-based terrorists? At Sharm el-Sheikh Dr Manmohan Singh again committed the same mistake of too quickly trusting Gilani which he had done at Havana in trusting Musharraf.

The joint statement of September 16, 2006, issued at Havana reads: "The two leaders met in the aftermath of the Mumbai blasts. They strongly condemned all acts of terrorism and agreed that terrorism is a scourge that needs to be effectively dealt with. They decided to put in place an India-Pakistan anti-terrorism institutional mechanism to identify and implement counter-terrorism initiatives and investigations." But this mechanism failed to prevent 26/11 attack on Mumbai in 2008.

The July 16, 2009 joint statement too promises that India and Pakistan will share real time credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats. Since the ISI is believed to aid and abet terrorism in India the Indian intelligence community has been rightly objecting to such stipulations as transmitting intelligence to Pak government will harm Indian interests by compromising Indian assets in Pakistan.

Following are five objectionable extracts [A, B, C, D and E in italics] from the joint statement of two Prime Ministers of July 16, 2009 issued at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt:

1.

Both leaders agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both countries. Both leaders affirmed their resolve to fight terrorism and to cooperate with each other to this end.

At Havana PM had accepted the formulation that Pakistan and India both are victims of terrorism ignoring the basic difference that India is victim of terrorism planned by Pakistanis on Pak soil with aid, abetment and connivance by official agencies of Pakistan such as ISI whereas terrorism within Pakistan is by Pakistanis themselves.

Musharraf had at least pledged on three occasions not to allow territory under Pakistan control to be used for terrorist attacks on India but swiftly moved to puncture these pledges by saying that freedom fighters could not be equated with terrorists.

President Zardari recently admitted that terrorists were created and nurtured in Pakistan to get short-term tactical gains and were threat to Pakistan but the ISI chief Lt Gen Pasha has described terrorists as strategic assets basically to make `thousand cuts' into India and to secure strategic depth in Afghanistan.
2.

Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh reiterated the need to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice. Prime Minister Gilani assured that Pakistan will do everything in its power in this regard.

One dossier is no proof of change of heart by the ISI. And the Maharashtra ATS has punctured this assurance of Gilani.
3.

Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas.

This line of the joint statement does not show what Dr Manmohan Singh told Gilani when Gilani broached this subject with Indian PM. Speaking to media after his return to Islamabad Gilani said: "The joint statement...underlines our concerns over India's interference in Balochistan and other areas." Pakistan also accuses India of assisting Pakistan Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

Almost all Indian analysts have been critical of this one-sided reference to Balochistan in the joint statement as they rightly apprehend that Pakistan will present this one-sided formulation as some sort of acceptance by India of Pakistani accusations of Indian involvement in fomenting insurgency in Balochistan and blunt Indian efforts to paint Pakistan as epicentre of Islamic terrorism.

PM told the Parliament on July 29 that India is ready to discuss all issues including Pakistan's `misgivings' and `totally false' allegations on Balochistan as New Delhi has nothing to hide. SM Krishna, new Foreign Minister, replied in Parliament that a reference to Balochistan was allowed as India has nothing to hide.

If Dr Manmohan Singh had actually refuted Gilani's insinuations then and there at Sharm el-Sheikh, as Dr Manmohan Singh has claimed in Parliament to have done, why was it not faithfully reflected in the joint statement?

There is another side of this Baloch reference in the joint statement which has generally been overlooked. As Pakistan has brought it on the India-Pakistan bilateral forum, India would be entitled to keep asking questions about state of affairs in Balochistan and express hope that Pakistan would address democratic aspirations of Baloch people peacefully. I am sure Pakistan would lament at leisure putting this Baloch reference in the joint statement. This reference has given an opening to India.

As soon as Gilani had broached this Baloch matter Indian side ought to have conveyed its good wishes that the Government of Pakistan would succeed in addressing democratic aspirations of Baloch people in peaceful manner. And that this reply too ought to have been reflected in the joint statement.

In his statement of July 29 in the Parliament PM has stated that Indian Consulates in Afghanistan engage in normal diplomatic activities. It is technically incorrect as Consulates function under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and are supposed to engage in all activities other than diplomatic.

Here it is pertinent to mention that democratic aspirations of Baloch cannot be clubbed with J&K matter as the people living in the Indian J&K have been exercising their democratic rights since 1948. As far as the 1948 UN resolutions and plebiscite are concerned, it should be recalled that the UN resolutions stipulate that plebiscite will be held only after Pakistan had totally withdrawn its people and armed forces from PoK and the UN had so certified to India. Pakistan and the UN have so far not fulfilled these conditions. Further, Pakistan insists that at such plebiscite there will be no third option for Kashmiris. Having seen rapes and killings of Bengali Muslims in East Pakistan by Punjabi Muslims, the late Sheikh Abdullah had wisely decided not to look any more towards Pakistan.
4.

Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Dr Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.

In view of public criticism of this formulation of delinking action by Pak against terrorism from composite dialogue, PM has been giving twist in the Indian Parliament [July 17 and 29] that as these two are not interlinked, action against terrorism by Pak must precede holding formal talks on composite dialogue and continue whether composite dialogue is resumed or not. If this was the directive of PM at Sharm el-Sheikh he failed to get it properly reflected in the joint statement.
5.

Prime Minister Dr Singh reiterated India's interest in a stable, democratic, Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

When Pakistanis [Baloch, Sindhis, etc] themselves are trying to destabilise Pakistan from within by fighting against Punjabi hegemony so as to fulfil their democratic aspirations, it was most unwise on part of Dr Manmohan Singh to talk about stable Pakistan in the joint statement. This formulation is distasteful to many Baloch, Sindhis, etc. It is better for India to remain silent on such internal matters rather than taking sides.

India and Pakistan do not and cannot share `common destiny' as Pakistan is epicentre of Islamic terrorism in the world and is a theocratic Islamic state, whereas India is a secular and democratic state.

It is quite clear that Sharm el-Sheikh joint statement was issued by Dr Manmohan Singh so as to help the Obama administration in selling his AfPak policy more smoothly on the Capitol Hill. There are better ways in which India could help Obama administration in executing its AfPak policy.

[The writer has served as Indian ambassador to many countries and may be accessed at www.opgupta.org]