Click to play videoPrime Minister Manmohan Singh on Wednesday defended his government's foreign policy in after a prolonged attack by the Opposition in Parliament. Manmohan said that India had to carry on dialogue with Pakistan and severing talks with Pakistan was not an option.
He also gave out details of the 34-page dossier where Pakistan has agreed to the involvement of terror groups based on its soil in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack and has given details of its investigation including the arrest of those Lashkar-e-Toiba leaders Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi and Zarar Shah.
He also referred to Atal Bihari Vajpayee's efforts to make peace with Pakistan while defending the Indo-Pak joint statement and repeatedly stressed that zero tolerance policy on terror was still on.
He once again stressed no composite dialogue will take place unless Pakistan acted on terror but Pakistan's word must be trusted and the Opposition must allow the government to verify Islamabad's actions.
His answer to the contentious line on Balochistan was, however, far from convincing for the Opposition with Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Lok Sabha MP Yashwant Sinha slamming the government and asking why was there such a difference in interpretation of the statement.
Sinha warned that Balochistan would return to haunt India in the future. Even Janata Dal (United) clamed that there was a divide between the government and the Congress party on the issue and said that India was under pressure from the US during talks with Pakistan at Sharm-el-Sheikh.
Senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley, Associate Editor of
Has Prime Minister successfully explained how terror is delinked from talks with Pakistan?
Prime Minister has said that meaningful talks with Pakistan can only take place when terror infrastructure is dismantled. It seems that the de-bracketing of terror talks from composite dialogue has been successfully answered.
Arun Jaitley claimed that there was no consistency in what the Prime Minister had said in Parliament and added that mere statements could not be the basis of foreign policy.
“I have no problem with what the Prime Minister said in Parliament but the problem is that what the Prime Minister said is completely inconsistent with the joint text which is the written word that the Government of India has signed. International relations are governed by joint text and not by unilateral statements made in your own country. The document says dialogue is the only way forward. It them goes on to say that action against terror cannot be linked to composite dialogue... the two have to be de-bracketed, which means that there is a change of policy. My problem is that you give emphasis to dialogue with terror contrary to the January 6, 2004 document that was dialogue without terror. The present document is dialogue irrespective of terror,” said Jaitley.
“According to me the Prime Minister has made a unilateral statement which is not connected to the document. The statement made today s runs counter to the written commitment of the Government of India. The joint text is loaded against us - be it Balochistan, be it terror,” he said.
Siddharth Varadarajan agreed with Jaitley’s assessment but pointed that that the joint statement served the interests of both India and Pakistan
“Jaitley is right in pointing to inelegant drafting of joint statement. But that inelegant drafting was deliberate because it allowed both India and Pakistan to walk away with interpretations which satisfies their domestic audiences. The Prime Minister has said that Pakistan does not have to wait for the composite dialogue to begin to act against terror. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousf Raza Gilani said last week that whatever Manmohan Singh has said on the floor of the House is what we agreed to at Sharm-el-Sheikh,” said Varadarajan.
So the problem seems to be in drafting and not with the interpretation.
Jaitley once again took potshots at the statement.
“I think a charitable explanation would be incompetence... a realistic interpretation would be that the policy has changed and that they are not bold enough to admit to the country that 'yes we did change the policy',” said Jaitley.
However, Varadarajan claimed that there would be no composite dialogue till Pakistan acted against terror.
“This is not about the language of the statement. The practical consequence is embodied in its very last paragraph where it says that the foreign secretaries will meet and the foreign ministers will meet. It is very clear that there is no resumption of composite dialogue and the Prime Minister has clarified this. Gilani when he was asked in Sharm-el-Sheikh that does this mean that composite dialogue will resume essentially said that he hopes that it does,” he said.
Pakistani political analyst, however, harped on the fact that India and Pakistan had not stopped talking even in the aftermath of the war in Kargil.
“There are two things. One, in the last decade Pakistan and India's experience has been that dialogue is really the tool that helps us deal with most of the problems. Even terrorism is being dealt with this tool called dialogue. Your Prime Minister has made it clear that we are not going to abandon dialogue. On the other hand Pakistan-India relations cannot basically move towards any fruitful cooperation unless and until unless security related issue which is of terrorism is addressed whether we are talking about Kashmir, Mumbai or Balochistan. Within weeks of Kargil, Brajesh Mishra and Pakistan's senior Foreign Ministry official Tariq Fatmi met in Geneva, which means BJP too recognises that dialogue is crucial when there is a problem,” said Naseem.
Manmohan Singh said that when Vajpayee took peace initiatives the Congress then in Opposition supported the government. But now the foreign policy consensus seems to be breaking down.
“In principle dialogue is really the way forward. Engagement with Pakistan would be necessary but you have to decide at what level the engagement would go on. But the question is will this dialogue go on with the condition that Pakistan will bring down terror and not allow its territory to be used or irrespective of the Pakistani attitude the dialogue will go on. We want a dialogue without terror. The document that Manmohan Singh and Gilani have signed does not reflect the foreign policy consensus in India,” claimed Jaitley.
Will Balochistan haunt Manmohan Singh in dealing with Pakistan?
Varadarajan pooh-poohed the idea saying nothing of that sort will happen.
“It is much ado about nothing. The absence of Blaochistan before the joint statement did not prevent Gilani in raising it vociferously in Sharm-el-Sheikh. Tomorrow if Pakistan has evidence they will raise it and we will discuss it. If you are involved and foolish enough to leave evidence then it will be raised. If you are not involved and there is no evidence why worry about any discussion,” said the veteran journalist.
Jaitley was sceptical and said that Balochistan would be a sore point for India.
“That is too simplistic an explanation. The reference to Balochistan is not for nothing. Words are not put into joint text, which do not carry any meaning or purpose. When Prime Minister said Pakistan is also a victim of terror he brought Pakistan at parity with India. At Sharm-el-Shiekh the Prime Minister went as a victim of terror and came back virtually saying that India is the perpetrator of terror as far as Balochistan is concerned,” said Jaitley.
Has Manmohan Singh carried forward Vajpayee's legacy?
Singh said during the debate in Parliament that if "sworn enemies like Iran and US can think of starting to talk why not Pakistan and India". He also said that "it is time to trust Pakistan and that's what Vajpayee did and I am following that legacy".
Jaitley was once again quick to punch holes in the argument.
“There is not much of difference except one point. It is good to follow Vajpayee legacy and to work towards dialogue with Pakistan. But must you delink dialogue with terror? Must we have dialogue with terror or must we have dialogue without terror? To accept in writing that we can have dialogue with terror is not Vajpayee legacy,” said the erudite lawyer.
Varadarajan pointed out that Vajpayee has agreed to resume talks on mere verbal assurances by Pakistani leadership that its territory won’t be used for launching attacks against India.
”Let us set aside Sharm-el-Shekih and take the bull by the horn. At Islamabad on January 6, 2004 prime minister Vajpayee agreed to resumption of dialogue on nothing other that promise from president Prevez Musharraf that his territory would not be used for terrorist attacks against India. Musharraf said that his action against dialogue would be based on a sustained and productive dialogue. He was linking the two. This statement is an improvement on that. Secondly why do we forget that Pakistan has gone the farthest than it has ever gone in acknowledging that its territory has been used by terrorists. This is a major concession. Whether they follow through and successfully prosecute the big fish remains to be seen. But it would be churlish on our part not to recognise that and not to build a policy based on that reality,” he said.
Has the scepticism reduced after PM's statement in Parliament?
“Something has become clear. I don't think that anyone contradicts the vision that he has spelt out. There is consensus that we want friendship with our neighbour. Differences arise over tactics. The Prime Minister took a big leap from Russia to Egypt and changed his tactics. When he was asked by Yashwant Sinha why he did it he said the dossier came. The dossier came two days before the Prime Minister went and after the US had brought a lot of pressure on Pakistan to register cases against those whose names had figured during interrogation into Mumbai attacks. Things like Balochistan complicated it and Prime Minister has been at pains to explain it,” said former diplomat KC Singh.
“There is strategic confusion in his approach. He said we must engage Pakistan but there is no option but to engage Pakistan. Both NDA (Kargil and Parliament attack) and UPA (Mumbai attack) have been duped by Pakistan and now for the Prime minister to say that since you (NDA) did it so we are doing it means the we haven't learned from the past,” added Singh.
The Prime Minister seems to be putting the Balochistan issue on the backburner. When asked if Balochistan issue is big enough for Pakistan to derail the peace process, its Ambassador to the UN Abdullah Hussain Haroon replied, “When a neighbour is showing an intention to work together as we have through the Mumbai dossier and many other things, I believe that it would be good for both of us to talk together about problems. If the Government of Pakistan sees Balochistan as a problem as raise it with India... it is not a bad thing. I don't think it should derail any process. I think it is a good thing and you could ask Pakistan to discuss many other things.”
But there seems to be no quid pro quo from Pakistan and it has said that it won't proceed against Lashkar front Jamaat-ud Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed.
“We should talk to each other without worrying about quid pro quo at every stage. As far as Hafiz Saeed is concerned, we have gone the distance and I don't think we need to prove anything by doing something radical about it. The truth is we have moved into Swat, gone on expedition into Waziristan which is a very difficult situation,” claimed Haroon.
But according to India Saeed is important because of 26/11. India has alleged that he is the mastermind of 26/11 and Home Minister P Chidambaram has said that enough evidence has been provided to Islamabad about Hafiz Saeed's involvement in 26/11 and yet Pakistan has been insisting that there is no evidence against him.
Manmohan Singh has said trust and verify Pakistan. India has been trusting Pakistan but the verification process is not working. In absence of that how are the two countries going to restore a pre-26/11 situation?
“The point if very relevant. I did not dismiss Hafiz Saeed any way. I said let us not make this a quid pro quo forcing an issue. If you have provided dossier on the issue, Pakistan will react positively. We should not keep this as an issue,” Haroon said.
Singh cautioned against falling into Pakistani trap once against and reminded that it had failed to keep its previous promises.
“The Indian problem is that we have to put it in context of experiences of last 10 years where promises have been made by presidents, by military dictators and then they could not deliver on these promises. You get the impression that the terror mechanism is kept alive to be used as a pistol held to your head while you negotiate. Pakistan beings you through this mechanism towards a settlement they want. I mean Kashmir settlement on their terms. No country of India's size can submit to this kind of blackmail,” said Singh.
He went on to add, “Haroon is in the UN and same argument can be given to the US against Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda may have done 9/11 but what is the proof against bin Laden? He is heading an organisation that has committed that act. If Pakistan is conceding that senior operators of LeT have been apprehended and are responsible then Hafiz Saeed is in the clinker. He is aiding and abetting it,” he said.
Pakistan has given a dossier but beyond that is it going to address India's concern on terrorism?
Haroon claimed that Pakistan has been acting against terror.
“We are not protecting Hafiz Saeed. Pakistan government will react to the dossier and we should not prejudge it. But we must keep talking to each other and issues must be resolved,” he said.
Pakistan has admitted that Hafiz Saeed heads an organisation that is behind 26/11. So is it not enough to go ahead and prosecute him?
“Hafiz Saeed is under investigation. Other people have been arrested and are thought to be more important than even Hafiz Saeed. So can say that Swat and Waziristan is not enough but I say that they are the quantum leap forward. Quite a large number of terrorist camps have been shut down. We are proceeding in all directions. Both India and Pakistan are doing a good job and let us get on the peace track,” said the Pakistani Ambassador.
But Singh remained sceptical of Pakistan’s actions and words and also advised the Prime Minister to be more careful in dealing with Islamabad.
“Between engagement and war there are many options which Prime Minister did not spell out. He quoted Reagan (former US president Ronald Reagan). I would like to go back to Reagan. Reagan said trust but verify was successful with Soviet Union but he was emotional when he dealt with Iran and was sucked into the Iran-Contra scandal. Prime Minister may be following Reagan down the wrong path. I don't know which path of Reagan he is following. But if he trusts and verifies he may have shaken the nation's faith in him and he will now have to function much more openly. He must take Parliament and perhaps his own party into confidence,” he concluded.
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Pinterest)
More on IBNLive Right Now
TOP NEWS
MOST SHARED
PHOTOGALLERY
