Indo-Pak Joint Statement: India puts faith in Pakistan’s sincerity
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Gilani and Indian Prime Minster Manmohan Singh signed a joint statement on July 16, 2009 at Sharm el-Sheikh inEgypt on the margins of theNAM summit. In India the statement has been seen as a softening of India’s stand towards Pakistan. In Pakistan it has been seen as a “victory” for Pakistani diplomacy.
The statement de-links terrorism from the composite dialogue process. It says “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.” This implies that the composite dialogue will continue uninterrupted even if there is an attack in future by a Pakistan-based terrorist group. In the past, India has used suspension of composite dialogue as a way of exerting pressure on Pakistan. Pakistan can now rest assured that in future the dialogue process will not be interrupted. This restricts India’s freedom of action if another Mumbai-type attack were to occur.
Joint Statement Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh and the Prime Minister of Pakistan Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani
For the first time in India-Pakistan talks, the statement includes a reference to Balochistan. This was totally unexpected and can be described as an achievement for Pakistani diplomacy. It says, “Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas.” What does this cryptic sentence mean? Pakistan has been saying that India is meddling in Balochistan and even in FATA (“other areas”). So, the reference to “certain information” almost certainly means India’s interference in Balochistan. Balochistan has now become a bilateral issue. This is unprecedented. In future India will have to deal with Pakistani accusations about meddling in Pakistan’s internal affairs.
In coming days India should certainly expect to see a wave of articles and ‘studies’ on the supposed Indian interference in Balochistan. The Baloch nationalist movement is likely to be tarred and discredited because of its alleged ‘links’ with Indian agencies. Mr. Gilani has lost no time in accusing India of interference in Balochistan. At a press conference in Islamabad after the joint statement, he accused India of interference in Balochistan even as he praised Prime Minster Manmohan Singh for his statesmanship. Pakistani newspapers have showered praises on Mr. Gilani for having highlighted the Balochistan issue.
There is no reference to the January 2004 statement where it was explicitly stated that Pakistan will not allow its territory to be used for terrorist activities. This was a point used by the Indian side to pressure Pakistan to take action against terror groups based on its territory. The present statement describes both sides as victims of terrorism. The difference hitherto was that Pakistan was a victim of homegrown terrorism while India was a victim of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. With Balochistan having been included in the statement, Pakistan has succeeded in putting the nature of victimhood as being the same in both cases.
The two sides have agreed that dialogue is the only way forward and that they will cooperate to eliminate poverty and promote regional cooperation. India seems to be ruling out other options about which there was so much debate in the country after the Mumbai attacks. The next time a terror attack occurs, the two sides will likely enter into a dialogue to resolve the issue!
According to the statement, “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.” What does this mean? There is an assurance from the Pakistani side, which the Indian side has accepted at its face value. Only time will tell whether Prime Minister Gilani will be able to hold on to his assurance and the Indian trust in Pakistan is justified. Past experience, however, does not give cause for much optimism.
What about Kashmir? There is no direct mention of the K-word. But it has been agreed that the two side will discuss the “entire gamut of outstanding issues”. This is being seen in Pakistan as a reference to Kashmir.
Indo-Pakistan relations have been on a roller coaster for some time now. After the attack on the Indian parliament, tensions rose. After Operation Parakram, India extended the “hand of friendship.” This led to the composite dialogue process, which was halted after the Mumbai attack. The two sides are once again back to dialogue and talking.
With this joint statement, bilateral ties seem to be moving out of the shadow of Mumbai terror attacks even though India has not gained the satisfaction it needs on the issue from Pakistan. The threat of terrorism from Pakistani soil has not receded. The Pakistani civilian government can show a remarkable diplomatic achievement. The statement has made Mr. Gilani a hero. Some weeks ago President Zardari was being castigated by India in Yakaterinberg. At Sharm el-Sheikh, Pakistan has managed to get Balochistan included in the agenda besides de-linking terrorism from the composite dialogue process. Pakistan seems to have been let off the hook. In the wake of the joint statement, bilateral tensions will ease…until the next attack.
There are suggestions in the media that India has given in under US pressure. It is difficult to confirm or deny such speculations although many analysts are seeing the statement in the context of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s ongoing visit to India. Whether or not the US hand was behind the statement, Washington has reasons to smile at the ‘maturity’ shown by both sides.
In a statement to Parliament, the Indian Prime Minister denied that India has given into Pakistan. On July 17, 2009, he gave a clarification on his talks with Prime Minister Gilani. This is what he said:
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.
Prime Minister Gilani assured me that Pakistan will do everything in its power to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice. He also told me that there is consensus in Pakistan against the activities of these terrorist groups, that strong action is being taken and that this is in Pakistan’s own interest.
Prime Minster Manmohan Singh made his position clear on the question of dialogue with Pakstan and delinking terrorism from other issues. He said:
As the Joint Statement says, action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process, and therefore cannot await other developments. It was agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats.
Whether, when and in what form we broaden the dialogue with Pakistan will depend on future developments. For the present, we have agreed that the Foreign Secretaries will meet as often as necessary and report to the two Foreign Ministers who will meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.
As I have said before in this House, India seeks cooperative relations with Pakistan, and engagement is the only way forward to realize the vision of a stable and prosperous South Asia living in peace and amity. We are willing to go more than half way provided Pakistan creates the conditions for a meaningful dialogue. I hope that there is forward movement in the coming months.
The PM has assured Parliament that the starting point of any meaningful dialogue is the fulfilment by Pakistan of its commitment not to allow its territory for terrorist activities against India. Thus, India is signalling to Pakistan that its actions are under scrutiny. Pakistan should not assume that the dialogue would begin automatically. Yet, the two foreign secretaries will meet to discuss the modalities of the dialogue. India appears to be maintaining a studied ambiguity on the subject. Taking all things into account, it appears that it is a matter of time before the dialogue is resumed and Mumbai becomes history just as the attack on Parliament did.
The Prime Minister’s statement in Parliament did not touch upon the inclusion of Balochistan in the statement. But the Minister of State for External affairs said in a television programme that India’s hands are clean and therefore it will not shy away from the issue. He chose to downplay the issue.
Whatever may be one’s reading of the joint statement, it needs to be said that India has made a major move and given the Pakistani civilian government a new chance to improve bilateral relations. It has put its faith in Pakistan and in the dialogue process even though there is considerable trust deficit between the two countries. It has provided relief to Pakistan at a time when it is engaged in a major fight against the Taliban. The statement encompasses “out of the box” thinking, particularly in regard to the inclusion of Balochistan in the statement.
India has also assured Pakistan that it is in favour of a stable democratic Pakistan. That is a categorical, explicit, policy statement. India will not destabilise Pakistan. It is also an answer to those at home who have been arguing for India responding to Pakistani interference in a tit-for-tat fashion. Thus, Pakistan need not fear India.
Only time will tell whether the gamble taken by India in trusting Pakistan will pay off. Are the two sides reading the joint statement in the same way? In the meanwhile, the Pakistanis can take some satisfaction in having wriggled out of the pressure they were under after the Mumbai attacks.
Where will Indo-Pakistan relations go from here? India has shown sincerity. Much will now depend upon the sincerity of Pakistan. Relations could improve if Pakistan actually takes action against India specific terrorist groups based on its soil. Otherwise, it will be business as usual.
India will get shabashi internationally. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will be praised for his statesmanship. Even though the main opposition party has criticized the statement as a sell out, the left parties have welcomed it. The media reaction has also been mixed. Some newspaper editorials have praised the statement. It shows that there is a constituency in India which pins hope on dialogue and wants forward movement in Indo-Pakistan relations despite terrorist attacks.
The joint statement shows that India is in a difficult situation. Pakistan deters India’s conventional military edge with nuclear weapons. It also deters India in several other ways. While it bleeds India with a thousand cuts, India has not found a credible answer to that policy either. Instead, India has chosen to cooperate with Pakistan on terrorism rather than confront it.
