July 22, 2006

IT is quite unfortunate that the Mumbai train blasts have, as was feared by many, ended up in pointing the finger at Pakistan and then suspending the foreign secretary-level talks and freezing of peace process between the two countries. So the terrorists succeeded in causing not only bloodbath and mayhem in the financial hub of India but also considerable damage to the normalisation process. Terrorism, which is a major destabilising factor in Indo-Pakistan relations has yet to be rightly responded by the two countries.

The July 11 blasts which killed 200 in Mumbai and the July 14 suicide bombing in Karachi which killed a religious leader had one common objective: to wreck peace in the two mega cities of South Asia. The questions arise: How the menace of terrorism can be countered and why the terrorists are able to sustain their activities? What should be the right response to the challenge of terrorism?

The 9/11 has spawned a spate of terrorist attacks in different parts of the world. Whether it is the suicide bombing or a bomb attack, the sufferers are innocent people. Madrid, London, Sharm-al-Sheikh, Baghdad, Bali, Delhi, Mumbai and Karachi are some of the cities visited by the worst kind of terrorism. An accusing finger was pointed at Islamic extremist groups, particularly Al Qaeda and Lashkar-i-Taiba, of masterminding and executing such attacks but instead of formulating a coordinated plan to track down the perpetrators and dismantle their infrastructure, there has been resort to blame game.

The gruesome terrorist acts in Mumbai have also not been rightly responded and instead led to unsubstantiated allegations against Pakistan by India. Little interest has been shown by New Delhi in seeking cooperation of Pakistan to undertake a probe into the incident and also to take collective steps to effectively deal with the menace, in general. There is no way to identify, much less prevent, a handful of elements who remain a constant source of threat to the majority of population. However, the only option before the state (or states) is to take well-planned, coordinated measures to root out all forms of terrorism and subversion. Things get complicated when some religious groups sanction these acts as a legitimate response against injustices and foreign occupation.

As a result of the support given to terrorist acts for a particular cause by some sections in the Muslim world, many world leaders including President Bush, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Putin have reacted strongly and are aggressively pursuing their war on terror. Whether it is the curtailment of civil liberties in the United States by the Bush administration or excessive use of force by Moscow to quell insurgency in Chechnya or the freeze of peace process with Pakistan announced by the New Delhi, the fact remains that these measures have not led to suppress, much less eliminate, the threat of terrorism.

Unfortunately, instead of giving a prudent response to the acts of terrorism, India has reacted irrationally by suspending foreign secretaries’ talks with Pakistan, and without providing any hard evidence has blamed Islamabad for being behind the Mumbai blasts. New Delhi’s decision to freeze the peace process is a knee-jerk reaction and contradicts its earlier stance, which it adopted immediately after the Mumbai explosions.

On July 12, the Indian Home Secretary V. K. Duggal told a news conference in New Delhi that “the confidence-building measures with Pakistan will continue. The peace process will not be slowed down.” However, the environment of optimism that prevailed in Pakistan about India not making peace process a casualty of Mumbai train blasts was soon shattered when New Delhi began to point a finger on Pakistan.

On July 14, the Indian prime minister at the end of his visit to Mumbai made it clear without naming Pakistan that, “it cannot be business as usual for us. We must recognize that terrorists are trying to spread their tentacles across the country. Terror modules exist in Mumbai and in many parts of the country. We have credible information to this effect. We are certain that these terror modules are instigated, inspired and supported by elements across the border without which they cannot act with such devastating effect.”

Singh was more categorical in his accusation when he told reporters while heading for the Group of Eight summit in Russia that “there has to be a firm commitment that Pakistani territory is not used to support terrorist acts directed against our country.” Congress spokesman Abhishek Singhvi went a step further when he expressed his regret that the Mumbai terrorist attacks have compelled India to take a backward step as far as the peace process was concerned. He said that “it is very difficult for the nation, which faces a mayhem due to terrorism, to continue the CBMs and peace talks.”

The blame game continues unabatedly with each side accusing the other of playing foul. If India accused Pakistan of not honouring its commitment which it made in January 2004 of not allowing its territory to be used for any subversive activity against India, Pakistan while strongly condemning Mumbai bomb blasts, refuted allegations made by New Delhi. Islamabad asked India not to derail the peace process by suspending the foreign secretary-level talks. It also offered to help India in its efforts to track down those responsible for terrorism.

The fragility of Indo-Pak peace process is now a proven fact because despite claims made by the two sides of their commitment to normalise relations, the Mumbai blasts, as stated by Indian Foreign Secretary Shayam Saran, have put a “question mark” on peace initiatives with Pakistan. Allegations made by certain Indian officials and politicians against Pakistan of not doing enough to stem what they call “cross-border terrorism” also contradicts their earlier position. New Delhi had some time ago confirmed a marked reduction in cross-border infiltration and reduction in terrorist acts in the Indian controlled Kashmir.

The initial response of Manmohan Singh to the Mumbai mayhem was quite prudent in which he called for calm and restraint instead of targeting Pakistan. Moreover, in country reports on terrorism published by the US Department of State’s Office for Counter-Terrorism, acknowledged Pakistan’s role in war against terror and mentioned President General Pervez Musharraf’s statement after the London bombings in which he declared Jihad against extremism. The report appreciated Musharraf’s announcement of a crackdown on banned organizations and hate material and expulsion of foreign students from the seminaries.

It seems the hardline elements in the Indian establishment have prevailed over Prime Minister Singh and convinced him of Pakistan’s involvement in the Mumbai blasts and hence the need for immediate freezing of the peace process. Although, the Communist Party of India (CPI) and the Communist Party of India (Marxist), which are extending outside support to the Singh government, are against suspending talks with Pakistan.

They also felt themselves helpless when New Delhi decided against sending a two-member Indian delegation consisting of members of parliament from ruling Congress Party and Communist Party of India (Marxist) to participate in a Commonwealth meeting in Islamabad. The question is, what will be the next Indian step as far as relations with Pakistan are concerned? One may recall that the BJP government of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had reacted to the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament by suspending air, road and train links with Pakistan; downgrading its diplomatic relations with Islamabad and deploying more than half a million forces along its western borders? The Indo-Pak standoff continued throughout 2002 and it was only in the later part of 2003 that relations between the two neighbours began to normalise.

The current composite dialogue between India and Pakistan, which began after Musharraf-Vajpayee talks held in the backdrop of 12th Saarc summit in Islamabad in January 2004, had led to a marked improvement in their relations. Not only diplomatic, travel and trade relations were resumed, the ceasefire along the line of control and the international border of the two countries also remained in force. Various confidence-building measures like Srinagar-Muzaffarabad and Poonch-Rawalakot bus service opening of several crossing points along the line of control were taken to ease tension and promote interaction among the people of the region.

Some Indian politicians, while reacting to the Mumbai blasts, have suggested that their government should adopt a policy of hot pursuit in order to dismantle the so-called terrorist infrastructure across the border. Other options asking for a hardline stance against Pakistan are also being considered by New Delhi. But, unlike December 2001, when the political atmosphere in India was heavily charged against Pakistan and the BJP was in power, this time it may be difficult for the hawkish elements in New Delhi to completely freeze relations with Pakistan. Perhaps, what is possible in a given situation is a temporary halt of the negotiation process followed by back channel talks to diffuse the tension and resume the peace process.

A two-pronged strategy based on political wisdom, instead of rhetorics and emotions, needs to be pursued by India and Pakistan in order to deal with the issue of terrorism. First, they should not get bogged down in the vicious cycle of blame game and propaganda against each other. Since the two countries have a history of missed opportunities for peace, it is time they avoid having communication gap.

The writer teaches at the department of international relations, University of Karachi.

E-mail:amoonis@hotmail.com

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)