Enough is enough, India must take Pak to task

Point your mobile to: http://m.ibnlive.com

Just how much is too much and for how long can India trust Pakistan? With both global and Indian pressure as well as evidence mounting up against Pakistan, is the country doing enough to curb terror? There have been arrests of some of the key suspects alright but is it enough?

CNN-IBN debated the various options India has to deal with Pakistan in Weekend Edition with Rajdeep Sardesai.

Following are the options that India may want to consider:

Diplomatic option: Mount global pressure and isolate Pakistan in every international forum where its possible. Put on hold the peace process if Pakistan does not respond adequately to India's demands for verifiable action against those behind the attack on Mumbai

Military option: Treat Pak as 'unfriendly state' and take military steps to address its hostility and erode its terror infrastructure Prepare for long-term covert operations to decapitate Pakistan's terror network from the Indian, Afghan and Iranian ends

Economic option: Squeeze Pakistan's funds by making IMF bailout conditional on it taking visible action against terror groups.

Cultural option: Cut off all sporting and cultural ties, at least for now.

To discuss the feasibility of these options was a panel comprising senior Congress leader Salman Khurshid; Former Information Minister of Pakistan, Mushahid Hussain and former diplomat, K C Singh.

These options become pertinent concerns especially in the light of the fact that the the father of Mohammad Ajmal Kasab – the only terrorist captured alive in the Mumbai attacks - has also admitted to the terrorist being his son. This in addition to the other evidence being piled up against Pakistan

But Mushahid Hussain jumped to Pakistan’s defence with a fiery argument. He said Pakistan was a victim of terrorism itself and too pivotal in the war against terror. “If one Pakistani was involved – like the Saudis or the Egyptians were involved in 9/11 – it doesn’t make the government or the state complicit to the crime,” he argued.

However, despite being repeatedly asked if Kasab was a Pakistani, Hussain said “it was possible” but insisting he was a non-state actor.

But where do these non-state actors come from? Surely they do not come on their own. Salman Khurshid was considerate in the beginning of his argument but argued if Pakistan cannot do something about terrorists operating out of their land, it should let India do something about it.

“They must tell us what they intend to do. This has to be more than joint investigation. Let them tell us how long they would take,” he said, eliciting an angry response from Hussain who said Pakistan was willing to offer all cooperation.

The diplomatic option

While Hussain insisted Pakistan was “willing to go the extra mile”, K C Singh said Pakistani reaction has been proof enough of their unwillingness. “India has never said that Pakistani government is involved. It has said these people are Pakistanis. At least that shouldn’t be questioned. People are getting killed here!” he said.

Singh wondered what more evidence would Pakistan want when international media has nailed them, the UN has banned the outfit (Jamaat-ud-Dawa, supposedly a front of Lashkar-e-Toiba) and Kasab’s father has confessed. “The evidence is in public domain,” he said.

Hussain argued India was shying away from talking about the evidence in public and that Pakistan too had given its list of evidences to India. But his argument cut little ice with the panelists who agreed that India gave Pak evidence after evidence after every attack – be it 1993, 7/11 or 26/11.

Another pertinent question is on the stability of Pakistan as a state. Who is in control of Pakistan –the government, the army or the ISI? Hussain said the government and the army in Pakistan were in harmony and there was no unrest.

Khurshid, while appreciating that Pak too has been a victim of terror, indicated it was Pakistan that was to blame for being the fountainhead of terror. “Today there’s enough on table. They haven’t done enough and should give out a clear plan of action,” he said, adding India would do all it can to find a solution in case Pakistan cannot.

Hafeez Saeed is giving interviews to Pak TV channels when he is purportedly under house arrest, Maulana Masood Azhar is said to be arrested but is never tried – just what should make India trust Pak? Should India and Pakistan really join hands and interrogate suspects together?

Hussain strongly vouched for the idea but Khurshid did not. He argued Pakistan’s own cases were pending – they had to call the Scotland Yard to investigate Benazir’s assassination and there was no progress on Marriott bombing front as well.

But Hussain dismissed the argument. “Let’s not get into Pakistan bashing as is the favourite thing with India. Let’s not have this trial by allegation,” he said.

The military option

General Shankar Roychoudhary, former chief of staff of Indian armed forces joined the debate to discuss if India should consider military option against Pakistan. He argued in favour of using military option. “We have been grievously wounded in Mumbai and before that there have been 25 blasts since 1993 for which we have extracted no punishment for perpetrators. So if you ask me, yes, going to war is the only option against Pakistan. But we can’t call it a military option. We’ll have to find another name for it,” he said.

PAGE_BREAK

Roychoudhary seemed to be suggesting a covert operation and said Chanakya not Maharbharat should be India’s technique. “In Bangladesh too, similar comditions prevail. The war needn’t be fought by the Army Navy or the Air Force. Like the Pakistanis, the Army, Navy and Air Force must be in support and we must reverse the policy of death by a thousand cuts and inflict it on Jehadis,” he said.

Hussain labeled Roychoudhary’s argument as an untenable rhetoric and said India needed to think of sane option. “India would have gone to war had Pakistan not been a nuclear state,” he said, adding, “Let’s not talk of a mutually-assured destruction”.

K C Singh said the option of a “limited war” was feasible. “Most war is fought on border areas. In any case you cannot use nuclear devices in these areas. Therefore a limited war cannot be ruled out,” he said, adding India had an option of strikes across the LoC.

Khurshid said these were difficult things to be spoken about in public. “Coercive diplomacy has a chance but it requires a lot of support including an implicit military threat as well,” he said. He also went to the extent of saying that if it became necessary for Americans to exercise power to show it post 9/11, India should be no different.

But Hussain said if India’s idea was to exercise coercive diplomacy, it would be unacceptable to the Pakistanis. Roychoudhary, however, kept at his argument and said jehadis must be targeted their way. “The operation in Mumbai took one year to plan, let’s do the same to them,” he said. Essentially, Pakistan appears to be taking comfort in the fact that while their nuclear warhead will keep India’s military out, the American interest in them will stop it from building too much pressure. K C Singh said India should send out a clear signal to the US that it was considering a military option and there was nothing wrong in it.

The cultural option

Snapping parallel diplomacy like cultural and sporting ties with Pakistan is also an option many are proposing. The cricket tour has already been called off and several Indian films have been put on hold for release in Pakistan.

Filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt joined the show to debate the issue. Bhatt was the first Hindi film producer to propose joint productions with Pakistan.

Bhatt offered another perspective to the issue. “If you snap cultural ties, you make the terrorists win. Together we can put pressure on civilian governments to neutralize the terror camps,” he said, adding, “we are not any less patriotic that those war mongers who want the ties snapped”.

But cultural ties have remained for a long time and yet no “pressure” was built up on civilian governments ever to iron out these problems. Where do people-to-people contacts take us? “Media doesn’t cover this but Pakistan’s civil society is as outraged as India’s over these attacks,” he said.

But why does the Pakistani civil society, then, not stand up against jehadis? Hussain thanked Bhatt for his argument and said the Pakistani society was as outraged as Indians. Khurshid too said it was a tough task to be singing and dancing when a group of jehadis are attacking Indian cities. “People are worried and are crying for peace,” he said.

Bhatt expressed hope the Pakistani civil society will come around. “People on both sides of the border have put in six years to get this going. You can’t let terrorists destroy it,” he said.

In fact, Bhatt virtually spoke in favour of Pakistan and said the fight was against terrorism and not against Pakistan.

Final comments: The way ahead

Salman Khurshid: Timeline is important. There cannot be business as usual. We’ve gone a long way. But we shouldn’t throw everything haywire. A great of people-to-people investment is being made and we shouldn’t throw that overboard. But let not Pak think this shall pass and we will continue to talk. That’s not possible.

Mushahid Hussain: The world has changed and there’s no doubt in any Pakistani’s mind that we are sailing in the same boat. We will sink and swim together and our destinies are inextricably intertwined. The enemy is common. In Pak, an overwhelming people are moderate majority. Don’t undermine that majority with war-like threats. Let’s work together.

K C Singh: Keep up coercive diplomacy, enlarge the encirclement and ensure strategic presence in the west of Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto once said - and I believe in it, “In Pak there are two political parties – there’s PPP and there’s military. The others are all creation of the military”.

Mahesh Bhatt: In redemption of Pak lies our redemption. We cannot hurt the other without hurting ourselves. It’s important for Pakistanis to put pressure on government to demonstrate to India that they are outraged and are doing enough. Indian leadership has behaved very responsibly so far.

Click to play video