Who's more to blame?

Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif has repeatedly asked India to resume talks which had got snapped following the terrorists’ attack on Mumbai in November 2008.

His brother, chief minister of Pakistan’s Punjab, Shahbaz Sharif, has echoed the same sentiments during his visit to India’s Punjab a few days ago. His advice to both the countries was to engage in a dialogue to settle their issues since war is no longer an option.

India’s external affairs minister Salman Khurshid, too, has said that he was not against the dialogues. But he has predicated his statement with a proviso that there should be an environment for the talks to be fruitful. He has probably in mind the contentious issues which continue to sour relations between the two. One irritant is the attack on Mumbai. The manner in which Pakistan has gone about in not punishing the perpetrators shows that it is merely going over the exercise. The suit in the law court is still at the initial stage even after five years. Numerous judges hearing the case have been either transferred or probably asked to go on leave.

I wish Pakistan’s just retired chief justice, Mohammad Iftikhar Chaudhari, who did a brilliant job in upholding his country’s constitution in letter and spirit had taken up the matter suo motu before leaving office a few days ago. Many lawyers may mock at the suggestion, but punishment to the 26/11 terrorists is a pre-requisite to normal ties between the two countries.

Hafeez Sayeed, who India suspects to be the mastermind behind the plan to attack Mumbai and has been let off by the Pakistan court for lack of evidence, is urging a jihad against India. It may sound ridiculous but many on this side believe that he has a hand in shaping Pakistan’s policy against India.

Despite these negative factors, the common man in India has warmth towards Pakistan. Visitors returning from Pakistan endlessly talk about the hospitality and affection they had experienced. Similar is the talk of love and generosity by the Pakistanis visiting India. Therefore, the blame is on the politicians and bureaucrats for not burying the hatchet. They seem to have developed a vested interest in keeping the two countries distant. I find the same faces of politicians and bureaucrats, even after their retirement, are engaged in Track II dialogue.

One Pakistani bureaucrat with a similar thinking briefed the press the other day on prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s warning that Kashmir could trigger a fourth war between India and Pakistan. Sharif’s office issued a contradiction soon enough. But the damage had already been done. Manmohan Singh, otherwise a mature politician, too reacted in an irresponsible manner. He said that “Pakistan could not win a war against India during his lifetime.” I suspect his reaction was meant to show ‘strength’ in view of forthcoming parliamentary elections.

Wrong propaganda

A wrong propaganda is sought to be made in Pakistan that the Indian media indulges in bashing it. This is not true. However, I wish there were more stories about Pakistan in the Indian media. But then the governments in both the countries are to blame. They have given visas only to one news agency and one newspaper. There is one television channel which adopts a war-like posture. But India has some 300 channels report Pakistan as they do about other countries.

Where do we go from here? The two countries can join hands in fighting against the terrorists. Nawaz Sharif has made a specific proposal that the two countries should institutionalise a mechanism of meetings between their national security advisors to discuss terrorism. At last, the two countries have fixed the meeting of Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two countries to ensure the sanctity of Line of Control (LoC) on the Jammu and Kashmir border.

This is a development in the right direction.Still what is important at this juncture is how to inspire the two countries to trust each other. Nawaz Sharif has rightly said that the real reason for estrangement is the ‘trust deficit’ between the two countries. Many in Pakistan believe that the core problem is Kashmir. This is only a symptom, not the disease. Even if we manage to solve the Kashmir problem, some other problem would crop up if there is no trust in each other.

The two nations are rightly conscious of the destruction the nuclear weapons, which they possess, can cause. Hence they should solve their differences peacefully. This policy came to be adopted for the first time at Tashkent after the 1965 war between the two countries. India’s then prime minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, was insistent on adopting peaceful methods in sorting out their problems. The then Pakistan’s martial law administrator, General Mohammad Ayub, said that the requirement was met by referring it to the UN Charter. The draft joint statement carried the same words. Shastri made Ayub write “without resorting to arms.”

Islamabad has stated that the responsibility of honouring the LoC lies with the two governments. The reported reaction by New Delhi is that the LoC is a military matter, not a political issue. Had this response come from Pakistan, where the army has a major say, it would have been understandable. But how can a democratic India say that the armies on the two sides could decide it?

The LoC was firmed up at Shimla in a meeting between prime ministers Indira Gandhi and Zuflikar Ali Bhutto. The army commanders only demarcated on the ground the lines indicated in the agreement between the political masters. New Delhi should ponder over its stance once again so that the two countries move forward to normalise relations. This is the what the situation demands.