Banquo's ghost .... Indo-Pak joint statement at Sharm El Shaikh

The last week has been quite of an ordeal for the Manmohan Singh government. It all started in the context of the joint statement issued on the 16th of June by the prime ministers of India and Pakistan on the sidelines of the NAM summit at Sharm El Shaikh, Egypt. It has come under sharp criticism mainly from the opposition as well as from different sections of the media and civil society and rightly so. Because the situation is SERIOUS and deserves a threadbare analysis .The Indian political class has largely shown a commendable degree of consensus whenever it comes to foreign policy. But one can see a deviation from this tradition since the Indo US nuclear deal came into the picture where the left opposed the deal tooth and nail and ultimately walked out of the government.

The most noteworthy point in the joint statement has been the inclusion of a reference to Balochistan where Pakistan alleges India of indulgence in 'subversive activities' in its Balochistan province. It is noteworthy because Balochistan has never figured out (or been allowed to) in any of the joint official statements so far. The government is relentlessly considering all measures at its disposal to downplay the gravity of the situation, but the fact that a himalayan blunder has been committed is incontrovertible. In the press conference that immediately followed the joint statement prime minister Singh on being asked a question about Balochistan mentioned that India had nothing to hide and that we are an "open book". Different interpretations are being drawn out of this statement coming out from no less than the prime minister himself. This has far reaching diplomatic implications for India and is likely to haunt us for years to come like Banquo's Ghost mainly because of the following reasons.

1. India accuses Pakistan of patronizing terrorism in Kashmir. So whenever Kashmir comes in the limelight India has a moral high ground. But prime minister Singh's apparent softness on the issue of Balochistan is tantamount to conceding the legitimacy of the apprehensions expressed by Pakistan in Balochistan. So its quite evident that we have lost this leverage that we claimed to have enjoyed so far.
2. In the joint statement the two leaders accept that both India and Pakistan are affected by terrorism. This is one of the cards often played by Pakistan to play the victim (and diminish its role of an aggressor). But there is a fundamental distinction between the kind of terrorism both the countries face. While Pakistan faces the frankenstein created at the behest of its own establishment to further its strategic interests, India is a victim of terrorism sponsored overtly and covertly from Pakistani soil. So definitely a parallel cannot be drawn between the two. If the Indian side was not able to interpret the underlying connotations of this acceptance it is nothing but political and bureaucratic incompetence on its part.
3. The last nail in the coffin is perhaps when the joint statement further mentions "Both Prime Ministers recognized 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". In other words the composite dialogue will not be held hostage to the action taken on 26/11 as promised by Pakistan. This is equivalent to saying that the dialogue will go on even if the Pakistanis find it convenient not to take any action against the perpetrators of 26/11 attacks on Mumbai. This is at conflict with India's firm stand of not continuing the composite dialogue process until tangible results come from the other side of the border.
   

Although damage control will not be an easy task especially when so much has been declared on record. The only takeaway is that India now needs to be more firm and unequivocal in its policy towards its western neighbour because any ambiguity is likely to be exploited by the other side. Any sort of dilly-dallying at the moment might lead to irreversible consequences detrimental to our national interest. One important thing that our legislators should keep in mind is that such diplomatic mistakes are inherited by successive governments thereby denying them the luxury to disown something commited by their predecessors when it comes to foreign policy. So rather than crying over spilt milk ( it does not mean that the government should not be held accountable ) the need of the hour is to work collectively and undo the damage.