A worrying topic of discussion gleaned from a slew at a western diplomat’s reception last week concerned security for the Commonwealth Games to be staged in Delhi in November 2010. The proposed Commonwealth Foreign Ministers’ Meeting and the Ministerial Meeting on Terrorism to be held on the margins of the UN General Assembly session on Thursday underscored the urgency of it.

His colleagues from the post-colonial club will closely question Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna over a range of security-related aspects of the Games, for which construction work is under way at a feverish pace in Delhi. Recent memory about security for sporting events is not flattering. Acts of terrorism with roots in Pakistan have shaken sports bodies in India and Pakistan alike. A few teams from Commonwealth countries were forced to stay away from India. Also Indian cricketers played abroad because enough security was not available to them. The Lahore attack on Sri Lankan cricketers and its fallout on the sporting calendar of Pakistan are all too well known.

Now unconfirmed Indian reports are quoting the Israelis as warning of more attacks in the near future by religious extremists from Pakistan, with or without logistical support from their Indian partners. Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, (the key spokesperson in Agra) is to hold a mandated but what also looks like a grudging meeting with her Pakistani counterpart in New York some time this week. She made pre-departure remarks to the effect that the peace process would not move if Pakistan did not address India’s concerns with terrorism from its soil.

There is only one way to address the problem – shared intelligence. India and Pakistan will have to cooperate in very new ways to confront the very new challenges they face together. Israelis and others have come to be mistakenly regarded as veritable super sleuths in South Asia because India and Pakistan will not share vital information with each other, which they will readily provide to anyone else.

The Sharm al Shaikh agreement of July 16 between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan tried to address precisely this mistrust. ‘Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real-time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats,’ their joint statement said. I can’t detect a single devious intent in this. There should be no doubt that real-time intelligence will be vital to host the Games with any degree of assurance for security, not for the participants alone but for the visitors.

It is the flip side of this vital step we have to worry about. Seldom are happy tidings for peace seen as equally good news for the intelligence communities of any two hostile powers. They stand to lose most from any sensible people-friendly rapprochement. Similarly upset would be their quislings in the media.

Barring a few notable exceptions, it was the media on both sides that played less than a constructive role following the terror assault on Mumbai. If the Indian TV channels had their way – going by what some of their leading star analysts said – India should be under military rule in cahoots with big corporate houses, led by Ratan Tata. This was the sum and substance of TV discussions in the wake of the Mumbai terror. Parliament would be suspended indefinitely and the dogs of war would be let loose not only on Pakistan, but also more viciously against dissenters at home.

It is axiomatic that the media’s prowess can shore up democracy but less discussed is the reality that it can also turn reasonably agreeable countries into a Murdochian nightmare. It was none other than rightwing media, not without the standard underhand support from their intelligence minders that went to town over totally fabricated news of Chinese incursions into Indian territory. It took a loud public reprimand from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and a flat denial of the reports by the Indian army chief to stall Rupert Murdoch’s protégés from wreaking havoc.

The Sharm al Shaikh meeting was a milestone in recent efforts by the two countries to tame their intelligence beasts. The issue of Balochistan could never have been included in their joint statement otherwise. However, rather than preparing their units to carry out the wishes of the political leadership, the intelligence-media duo in both countries has been seeking to queer the pitch for the people’s representatives. The entire debate in parliament and in the media has skirted the crucial paragraphs of Sharm al Shaikh. They focussed on the emotional appeal of Balochistan and Kashmir instead. The facts were to the contrary.

‘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.’ What could be more transparent an undertaking against terrorism?

Then the statement added: ‘Prime Minister 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. He said that Pakistan has provided an updated status dossier on the investigations of the Mumbai attacks and had sought additional information/evidence. Prime Minister Singh said that the dossier is being reviewed.’ There is a problem with this paragraph.

It shows a palpable lack of transparency on both sides. We don’t know what clinching evidence there is to nail Hafiz Saeed in the Mumbai attack. At an ideological level people like Hafiz Saeed should be incarcerated without a second thought for spewing hatred against different communities, including some sects of Muslims as well. But it seems to me that linking Hafiz Saeed to Mumbai is rooted in deep intelligence gathered by sources – human and technical – and the Indian side may be reluctant to share it with Pakistan.

This quandary is not unusual. In his insightful book published way before the Mumbai attack – Open Secrets, India’s Intelligence Unveiled – former joint director of India’s Intelligence Bureau (IB) Maloy Krishna Dhar has indicated where could be going wrong. ‘A counter-intelligence case is different from a criminal case,’ Dhar wrote. ‘It examines the probable threads of connectivity and establishes a pattern to prove that certain external forces have tried to penetrate the secrets of the nation. Prosecution under Official Secrets Act is different in nature from prosecution under penal laws.’

It is a worthwhile conjecture that the nature of evidence against Hafiz Saeed in the Mumbai attack is good enough to get him convicted as in an open and shut case but how do we place that evidence before a Pakistani judge! In other words all the facts generated from the investigations cannot be revealed to the public, much less to the ISI, a rival intelligence agency. Such deep-rooted mistrust has to be addressed to counter the serious challenge to our security. In the absence of a transparent effort to catch the culprits after 9/11, the American intelligence community and their conniving political patrons created the Guantanamo Bay. Is that the way forward for South Asia?

It seems to me that not all is lost on the India-Pakistan front. We have reason to take heart from a small under-published news report last week, which says that India has agreed to share partial intelligence on the November 26 attack with Pakistan. This could be the beginning of a qualitatively new relationship between the two countries. I remember a former envoy to Islamabad known for his hawkish views on Pakistan scoffing at the idea of sharing real-time intelligence with the ISI.

His argument was that such intelligence sharing would be misused by Pakistan. ‘If we tell them about a boat landing in Gujarat, they would then shift the venue to Goa or Kerala,’ he had protested. That risk is there. On the other hand, as the prime minister of India is used to saying so often, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Former Pakistani national security advisor Mahmood Ali Durrani had suggested during his recent trip to India that the intelligence chiefs of the two countries should start meeting. I too believe there is no other way. This is what common sense dictates and this is what the Commonwealth foreign ministers might wish to hear from India in New York. The two spy chiefs could begin right away by outwitting each other in a harmless way, by becoming the first to dispatch Eid greetings. There will be no losers in this contest. That’s what common sense dictates.

jawednaqvi@gmail.com