Articles

The movement for Pakistan, as envisaged by its chief promoter Mohammed Ali Jinnah, was not intended to produce a religion dominated theocratic state. No doubt he engaged in communal tactics and successfully executed a spurious doctrine, the two nation theory, to reach his goal of Pakistan, but the founders of the movement had planned for a state basically as a homeland for Muslims which would govern itself following the British traditions of liberalism and secularism.

The nuclear threat in the subcontinent has led to renewed and redoubled efforts to find a solution to the antagonism between India and Pakistan. One is led to believe that if cross border terrorism ceases, a dialogue can be facilitated between the two countries, yielding perhaps a dividend of long-term peace. Are such visionary hopes rooted in reality?

Intimations of mortality of an incumbent regime, especially a civilian government, are nothing new for Pakistan. But doomsday scenarios about the imminent demise of the not just the political system but also the State have never been peddled as furiously and with as much conviction as they are being today, over the internet, on TV channels and in newspaper columns.

Pakistan’s commercial capital, Karachi, is no stranger to politically motivated violence. Since the mid 1980’s, when the MQM erupted on the political firmament of Karachi, political violence had pretty much come to be accepted as an integral part of the city’s life. But in recent years, the violence has acquired the form of an almost institutionalised anarchy, what with political turf battles and ethnic animosities getting entwined with criminal syndicates, sectarian mafias and Islamic terror groups.

The Afghan warlogs made public by the website Wikileaks only reconfirms what has been known for years now – the complicity of the Pakistan army and intelligence agencies in supporting, funding, providing safe havens, and even directing the actions of Islamist terror groups operating in Afghanistan. To this extent there is hardly any novelty in these documents.

Language is the handmaiden of diplomacy as it is through words, spoken or written, through which one's message is conveyed. Effective diplomacy, therefore, demands precision in the use of language, as all its processes such as communicating, negotiating and evolving agreements require the projection of views with complete clarity and unambiguity.

Sir Ernest Satow's classic Guide to Diplomatic Practice puts this truism in the following terms: 'The use of clear and definite language should in all cases be secured, the meaning of which shall not be open to doubt or dispute.'

he major lesson we should draw from the foreign minister-level talks is that Pakistan is not serious about addressing our concerns on terrorism.

This should have been clear to us long ago because we have been talking to Pakistan on terrorism ever since 1997, says Satish Chandra, the former deputy national security advisor and distinguished fellow, Vivekananda International Foundation.

The recently held India-Pakistan foreign minister level talks designed to bridge the trust deficit between the two countries have only served to accentuate it.

It is not clear what External Affairs Minister’s visit to Pakistan in mid-July can realistically achieve in bridging the trust deficit between India and Pakistan. This distrust spans sixty three years. So long as Pakistan persists with its claim on Kashmir, pursues confrontationist policies, rejects substantive steps towards normalization, uses Islam as a rallying force against India and resorts to terrorism to bleed it, the existing trust deficit will endure whatever Pakistani’s diplomatic protestations and India’s hopes.

It is easy to take the position that we must have a dialogue with Pakistan. It can be argued that as Pakistan is a neighbour, and cannot be wished away, we have to talk to it whatever the provocation. Not talking will not make it more disposed to settle existing problems, including that of terrorism. On the contrary, the absence of a dialogue gives those against friendship with India more room for their negative policies.

The next three weeks will be marked by a flurry of India-Pakistan exchanges in Islamabad. These comprise the India-Pakistan foreign secretary-level talks on June 24, Chidambaram’s discussions with his counterpart Rehman Malik on terrorism related issues on the sidelines of the SAARC interior ministers meeting on June 26, and the foreign minister-level talks in mid-July.