Resumption of talks key to promoting peace

I found a big difference between the perceptions in India and Pakistan on the anniversary of 26/11, the terror attack on Mumbai. India reconstructed the 60-hour tragedy and vowed not to "tolerate" any such act in the future. Pakistan said that it had expressed its horror adequately in the past and that by dwelling on it India was avoiding a composite dialogue. And there was a string of familiar accusations and counter-accusations. Sometimes I think that only a miracle can bring them close.

The reactions underline their mistrust in each other. The two countries are stuck at partition. They have more or less the same bent of mind which they had when the British left in August 1947.

Alienation

The present stalemate only emphasises that the crust of alienation has not been broken in any way despite the passage of time. Even today, Pakistan remains the number one enemy in India as is the latter in Pakistan. And the governments on both sides go out of their way to hurt each other in international forums.

Had we kept at least travel and trade separate from our disputes, which were easy to tackle till the late ‘80s, we might have retained some contact to build upon now. If nothing else, it would not have allowed the situation to deteriorate to the extent it has.

In any case, Pakistan although belatedly, has initiated the process to prepare the ground for talks. India had laid down two conditions: First, bringing the culprits of Mumbai carnage to justice, and two, dismantling the structure of terrorists in Pakistan. Islamabad has filed cases against seven suspects in custody, including Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi, reportedly the mastermind, for having committed "international murder."

It would have been better if Hafiz Saeed had been in custody. He is the face of Laskhar-e-Toiba and Jamaat-ud-Dawa. For India, what Pakistan does to him is the litmus test of its efforts to combat terrorism. This is also clear from President Barack Obama's curt letter to President Asif Zardari not to use Lashkar to pursue the state's policy goals. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh must have given a list of places attacked by the Lashkar. They included the Parliament House and Akshardham Temple in Gujarat. The arrest of David Headley and Tahawwur Rana in the US shows the Lashkar hand behind all these attacks because the two were reportedly in touch with it.

Unfortunately, Pakistan has taken one year to register cases against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack. But then Pakistan can also blame India for the slow court proceedings against Ajmal Kasab, the only terrorist caught alive. The delay may create suspicion in the mind of Pakistan which is already unhappy over the information about the Mumbai attack given in driblets.

India's second condition is that Pakistan should dismantle the infrastructure of terrorists. I am confident that an assurance by Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani can allay New Delhi's fears.

Unequivocal statement

It may look needless to Islamabad, but Indian opinion would feel assured if it were to say categorically that the terrorists would not be allowed to operate from Pakistani soil against India.

The ISI has "allowed" the seven persons involved in the Mumbai attack to be brought to book. There may be a realisation that terrorism against India would be too heavy a price to pay. The Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act, assuring $7.5 billion to Islamabad for the next five years is like a Damocles sword hanging over its head. Washington is keeping a tab on what is going out in cash or kind and how it is being utilised.

The resumption of talks will also benefit New Delhi. It will send a message to the Taliban and other jihadis that the relationship between the two countries is on the mend. Were the two to combat terrorists jointly, it would be good for both. Pakistan is India's first line of defence. Such statements like a limited war against Pakistan made by chief of army staff Deepak Kapoor are irresponsible and provocative. They only injure India's credibility.

Pakistan is in the midst of a war for its survival. However, its people too need to sort themselves out. They have created a culture of what might be called "subjective history." Former foreign minister Sartaj Aziz has said in his latest book, Between Dreams and Realities, "…events are seen through coloured glasses, conclusions are rooted in pre-conceived notions and heroes and villains are identified within this biased framework…"

A survey conducted by Nielson Research Company has said only 1 in 10 has confidence in the government. Most see themselves as Muslim first and Pakistani second. The rise of Islamisation may have its fallout in India, particularly when the Taliban are saying that India is their next target.

Prime Minister Singh has reiterated that people-to-people contact should deepen. It is a welcome statement. But how can this be possible when it is almost impossible for a Pakistani to get a visa? At least, the prime minister can unilaterally lift all restrictions on the sale of Pakistani newspapers in India.

Kuldip Nayar is a former Indian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and a former Rajya Sabha member.