Damaging the peace process

The POST, Sun, Jul,20, 2008.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

It is not surprising for most Pakistanis to read or hear about Indian allegation that Pakistan was involved in the bombing of Indian embassy in Kabul recently. In fact what was somewhat surprising was the time the Indian agencies took in putting the blame on Pakistan. The past is studded with examples when the Indians lost no time in blurting out accusations against Pakistan for almost all adverse incidents only to realize later that these were undertaken by their own citizens.

Two different interpretations of who were involved in the tragic incident of Indian embassy were published in Pakistani newspapers. While the Americans indicated quite categorically that Pakistan was not at all involved in the attack, the Indians media accused Pakistan but the Indian official refrained from making such accusation initially. However on last Sunday the Indian Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan accused Pakistan in response to a question by a TV channel.

Not only the National Security Advisor stated that India has ‘a fair amount of intelligence’ (on the involvement of Pakistan) but also categorically stressed that Pakistan’s intelligence agency ISI was involved. In the same breath he suggested that ISI needs to be destroyed. He even suggested retaliation and stated, ‘I think we need to pay back in the same coin’.

Two questions deserve to be analyzed at this stage. Why Indian accusation was little delayed whereas past history is filled with prompted accusations? Second, how would such unsubstantiated accusations impact on the ongoing peace process between India and Pakistan. Within the next few days the fifth round of he Indo-Pak peace process is likely to begin. Most observers consider this round is going to be crucial as the newly elected Pakistani government’s representatives would be participating in the process this time.

Most neutral observers appear to be somewhat unanimous in asserting that there exist combinations of factors that may have caused the delay in Indian accusations. First, it has been Indian practice to immediately put blame on Pakistan as not only because the hardcore Hindus would quickly accept but many Indians easily fall pray to Indian media’s propaganda barrage. Besides, in the past the Indian authorities discovered that most of such incidents were undertaken by the indigenous groups and not by the outsiders.

The over projected attacks on Indian parliament and Mumbai blasts are perhaps good examples of quick reaction and eventual discovery of the truth. The Indian courts awarded sentences to perpetrators of attack on Indian parliament to its own citizens. It needs to be reminded here that initial Indian reaction was to put the blame on Pakistan based groups and accused Pakistan’s effort to eliminate Indian leadership.

Similarly many bomb blasts including the Mumbai train blasts were initially attributed to Pakistani efforts only to discover later that those were undertaken by the angered section of their own society. Despite the existence of joint investigation of the burning of Samjhota Express in which many Pakistanis were burnt to death, so far nothing tangible has seen the light of the day.

Undoubtedly putting the blame on a known adversary not only buys time but also elicits sympathies and condemnation from India’s friends. It is a known fact that most friends of India would express sympathies not because they are assessing the situation objectively but how best it could serve their national interests with regard to India. The Afghan president’s recent outburst reflects not only his faithful compliance to outsider influential elements in Kabul but also the level of his helplessness in which he finds himself.

The practice of putting blame on others also enables to cover one’s own inabilities and weaknesses. While the Indians have mastered this approach over the troubled land of Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) when they regularly pushed the notion of cross border terrorism, the Afghan regime is also currently and religiously following their tutor’s practices. Despite having recognized the fact that India was over projecting the notion of cross border terrorism, many important countries opted to accept the Indian version of the events in IOK not because they believed in it but their national interests dictated such a policy pursuit.

The second question whether or not such an approach could have an adverse impact on the ongoing peace process is perhaps equally significant if not more important. Asked by the TV channels whether such acts would impede peace process, the National Security Advisor dismissed the question by stressing that ISI has never been part of the peace process. He said that the improvement in India-Pakistan relations is sought through a comprehensive dialogue mechanism and anti-terrorism was just one piece of this mechanism.

Compared to the Indian National Security Advisor’s interpretation, the Pakistanis seem much more perturbed over the Indian allegations of Pakistani involvement in attack on Indian embassy in Kabul. They believe that allegations without any tangible evidence tend to not only take a heavy toll of overall atmosphere that has been secured during the last four years concerted efforts but could also radically impact upon the next round of composite dialogue.

The foreign ministers of the two countries are schedule to meet on 21st July with the objectives of starting the fifth round of India-Pakistan composite dialogue. Many observers are expecting that this round may yield some tangible results. Already disappointment especially among the Pakistanis is on the increase as they feel that so far no real progress has been witnessed in disputed areas such as Sir Creek, Siachin, Wullar Lake and Kashmir.

Since the joint survey has already taken place over Sir Creek and many observers are already optimistically predicting that an agreement may be worked in this round over this particular dispute but an irresponsible and a ludicrous statement like the one that has been issued by the Indian National Security Advisor could not only vitiate the atmosphere but could also damage the peace process. It is not too far fetched to assume that once again the spanner has been thrown by an important Indian official to delay the process like the one thrown by the Indian army when Siachin dispute was about to be resolved.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy research Institute.