BALOCHGATE OF MANMOHAN

When Dr Manmohan Singh started his innings in 2004 as Prime Minister he enjoyed tremendous goodwill not without reason. Under PV Narasimha Rao’s tutelage he gave a turn around for the Indian economy making reforms irreversible. Singh’s personal integrity was impeccable and his understanding of Indian and world economy was superb. But, during the fag end of his first term in office, when he was ready to sacrifice his chair for the sake of Indo-US nuclear cooperation, there was criticism in some quarters about his obsession with the US and particularly George Bush. We are yet to realise the tangible benefits of the controversial deal and there are apprehensions about the fuel reprocessing and enrichment, especially when India is not signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Well, Manmohan Singh starts his second term on a highly controversial note which makes everyone, barring a section of the Congressmen, of course, doubt his intellectual honesty and diplomatic skills, though his personal integrity remains intact. He has never been a politician who can lead from the front and mobilise public opinion in favour of his political ideology. Otherwise, he would not have opted the Rajya Sabha route all the time and even after five-year stint as Prime Minister. He has to be dependent on his party chief and he can be in office not with the pleasure of the President of India, but the party President. Politically he is very weak and now he has demonstrated that even in diplomacy he is not quite assertive and easily yields to the other side. We have seen it with Bush and we are seeing it now with Pakistan.

However, Sharm-el-Sheikh has another dimension to his personality. It casts a shadow on his intellectual honesty as well. There is no correlation between his joint statement at the sidelines of Nam summit and what he said on the floor of Indian parliament on July 29. Anybody who understands simple English can say that what he said on the floor of the House was diametrically opposite of what he signed on the dotted lines in Egypt. On one hand Singh says that dialogue process should go on so that there is no role for third party interlocutors. Immediately he says that dialogue is possible only when there is proof of action from the other side to contain terror which is not the spirit of the joint statement. The actual wording in the joint statement is that action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and that these should not be bracketed.

Curiously, what was delinked by our Prime Minister in a joint statement in Sharm-el-Sheikh was linked by his party chief who said “We support the resumption of the dialogue process with Pakistan, but only after it has demonstrated its seriousness to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks to justice and to prevent its territory from being used to launch terror attacks on any part of our country”. Does this support the signatory of the joint statement who wanted the dialogue process to be delinked from terror? But that is what newspapers friendly with the establishment say. They could see the long term strategic vision of the Prime Minister.
But, another signatory of the statement, Gilani has a different interpretation of the statement. He says “delinking means India should not keep the composite dialogue in suspense because of its perception that Pakistan has not taken strong action against terrorists. This is a loaded statement. He is of the view that it is only India’s perception that Pakistan is not taking action against terrorists, whereas Pakistan has been talking action. But our home minister P Chidambaram has a different story. He is so tired of Pakistan whose foreign minister says that Pakistan can’t arrest people merely on hearsay without solid proof which, according to him, is not forthcoming from India. Hafeez Sayeed, the mastermind of 26/11 is a free bird. What did Pakistan do on terror front to warrant resumption of peace talks, unless the United States wants it in its own selfish interest? Even our dull-witted External Affairs minister S M Krishna talks about uncooperative Pakistan. India has been asking Pakistan to hand over 42 fugitives including Dawood Ibrahim, but it has refused to cooperate. There is nothing on the ground that suggests Pak sincerity for us to resume talks.

Even if Manmohan wriggles out of semantics of the joint statement, he cannot wash away the blunder he committed on Balochistan. Look at the different versions on Balochistan which speak volumes about the blunder.

Prime Minister : We have nothing to hide. So, nothing wrong in discussing.
Pranab Mukerjee: It was a unilateral inclusion by Pakistan. We don’t share Pak perception.
Shashi Tharoor: It was not a legal tready, but a diplomatic statement
Chidambaram : Baloch is Pak’s internal problem. What do we have to do with it?
SM Krishna : (He had nothing original to say except to repeat PM) We have nothing to hide.
Sonia Gandhi : DEAFENING SILENCE

If it is a unilateral inclusion by Pakistan why should India be a party to the joint statement? If it is Pak’s internal problem why should it come up for discussion at the summit meeting between the Prime Ministers of two countries? If Pak insisted, India should have pointed out ISI role in the insurgency in North-East. Undoubtedly, it is our Prime Minister’s too much of a gentlemanly approach, if not timid, in diplomatic affairs that helped Pakistan to crow over its success in opening an entirely sordid chapter in Indo-Pak relations.

Ironically, it is the US which has to bail out India on Balochistan even as our Prime Minister was claiming to be not in favour of third party interlocutors. Obama administration’s special envoy on Af-Pak Richard Holbrooke has made it clear that Pak has not provided any evidence to the US on India’s involvement in Balochistan. Why then did we agree to include Balochistan in the joint statement? Peace with Pakistan is possible only on the basis of our experience in the past and not our Prime Minister’s expectations or pious wish to have a friendly neighbour.
“Delinking” of talks has been linked to terror atleast from our side thanks to alert public opinion and Opposition. But Pakistan is bound to convert Balochistan as an albatross on the neck of India.

Former External Affairs minister Yashwant Sinha says that the nation is not safe in the hands of Krishna when it comes to diplomacy or diplomatic wrangles. Is he barking at the wrong tree? Is Manmohan Singh any better? One shudders to think what faux pas he would commit in his next foreign sojourn.