STATEMENT OF SHAME

You don’t need seasoned strategic analysts or diplomats to dissect the joint statement of our Prime Minister and his Pakistani counterpart and say that that our Prime Minister has bungled and bungled very badly at the Nam summit in Egypt. UPA chairperson Sonia Gandhi may not have said in so many words, but her direction to her party spokespersons and leaders not to comment on the Indo-Pak joint statement and the End-use Monitoring Arrangement with the US, says it all. It is a tacit admission of a bizarre mess up. Our Prime Minister may tie his blue turban alright, but in Sharm-el-Sheikh he tied himself up in knots. Obviously, smelling the growing dissent within the party and apprehensive of such a dissent rubbishing the image of her chosen man for the top post as most incompetent to deal with bilateral issues , she cracked the whip to silence her partymen. Congress being one-woman party whose writ alone prevails with no scope for differing view point, spokespersons of the party fell on line and were merely repeating that they stood by whatever clarification given by the Prime Minister on the floor of the House.

If Indian Prime Minister’s clarification on the floor of Parliament is to be the gospel, why should there be a joint statement hammered out after hours of debate and discussion. Is the joint statement not to be taken for what it reads? We may talk about clarification of the PM. But Pakistan may not and will stick to the letter and spirit of the joint statement. After all, it is a statement signed by two sovereign states.

According to news reports both the Prime Ministers spent more than three hours discussing the bilateral issues and if what was produced after such a marathon effort was such a crap, why then did we agree for such a high-level meet. We had a big contingent of our External Affairs Minister, who is uninspiring, our Foreign Secretary, our National Security Advisor. Is this the kind of statement all these worthies could produce? Shockingly, our Foreign Secretary admits that the joint statement was badly drafted. What does it imply? The statement was heavily loaded against the interests of India. Foreign Secretary now says that India would not start the process of composite dialogue with Pakistan unless there is progress on its actions against terrorism. If this is not an after-thought, what and who prevented him from incorporating this in the joint statement. On the contrary, the joint statement is loud and clear. It says “Action should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed”. Atleast, the Foreign Secretary, if not the Minister, should own responsibility for such a stupid drafting which bartered the interests of the nation.

Hardly a month ago our Prime Minister was accused of diplomatic gaffe in Russia when he told President Zardari in the presence of media that he had come with a mandate to ask him to end terror activities on Pakistani soil for any meaningful talks to follow. That meeting itself ended in a fiasco. There were reports from across the border that slighted Zardari did not want to have any more meeting with India and hence Yousaf Raza Gilani was the signatory to the joint statement.

The two issues in the joint statement worrying India are the delinking of terrorism from composite dialogue and mention of Balochistan. The only issue that has been troubling India since 1947 is the hostility that Pakistan displayed towards India from its first attempt to grab Kashmir with the help of tribal intruders. This was followed by three wars and every time it is India which yielded to its neighbour. Subsequently, with Pakistan emerging as the hub of Jihadi terrorism, India became the victim of cross border terrorism with 26/11 mayhem in Mumbai becoming the flash point. Even after 8 months of the tragedy and inspite of mounting evidence of Pak involvement, the country stonewalled all our efforts to apprehend the handlers of 26/11 attack. At one stage, Pakistan disowned Ajmal Kazab, the lone surviving terrorist who was caught on the act. Pak’s non-cooperative mindset can be discerned from the fact that it refuses to hand over Dawoom Ibrahim inspite of repeated demands from India. How can you trust such a nation and agree to delink terror from composite dialogue?

If terrorism has to be delinked from the talks, what is there to talk? Composite dialogue, like composite culture, is a myth. May be we will talk about fashion, music, Hindi films, cultural exchanges or may be our neo-liberals may lead a delegation for people-to-people interaction and come out with reports of tneir nostalgia as most of them have their roots in West Punjab and Sind. Or, they may have candle light vigils on Wagah border on the eve of Pak Independence Day. For this, should we have to delink terror talks from the rest?

After Sharm-el-Sheikh fiasco, a clear picture is emerging. Whatever noise UPA government made after 26/11 about tough action, the impending elections and public outcry were the prompters. Public outcry, as ever, was short-lived and it was quite evident in the election results in Mumbai constituencies. Another election is five years away. Now, we can afford to act under US pressure. That seems to be the attitude of the UPA government.

However, this does not explain the need for Balochistan finding a mention in the joint statement. Our Prime Minister says that we have nothing to hide and all our actions are transparent. So, he was not unduly worried about the mention of Balochistan. Is he so naive? Or is he trying to cover up his bungling? ISI chief who refused to come to India for talks after 26/11 has now expressed his keen desire to visit India for talks. Obviously he wants to share with India what he thinks is the evidence of Indian involvement in Balochistan and thus would like to attract international attention and to ensure level playing field on terrorism. Pakistan claims that it has already given a dossier to India containing proof of India’s involvement in “subversive activities” in Balochistan. Whether it is true or not, Pak’s purpose has been served. In future, if India talks about Pak-supported terrorism in Kashmir, Pak will point its finger at Balochistan. This is the net result of our Prime Minister’s diplomacy in Egypt.