Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /nfs/c03/h07/mnt/56080/domains/filtercoffee.nationalinterest.in/html/wp-content/themes/canvas/functions/admin-hooks.php on line 160
Tag Archives | peace

The day after Mumbai

India needs to arrest the narrative, break the cycle.

Familiar tragedy befell the city of Mumbai last night — three coordinated bomb blasts killed 21 innocent civilians and injured over 100.  My colleague over at Pragmatic Euphony puts across some important questions that deserve answers.  At the time of writing this blogpost, no one is yet to claim responsibility.  And while there were indications that some lessons had been learned by the government since the 26/11 attacks, the two terror incidents can hardly be equated.  The attacks of 7/13 have an unfortunately familiar signature to previous attacks in India — Bombay, 1992; Delhi, 2005; Mumbai 2006; Jaipur, 2008 and Guwahati, 2008.

Had this been a fidayeen attack or a commando-style assault resulting in a hostage situation (like 26/11), we’re not sure what the government’s response might have been. What we do know from previous incidents is that the nature of the attacks in Mumbai align with the modus operendi of two groups — the underworld, and local, but Pakistan-affiliated groups such as the Indian Mujahideen (IM).

India’s track record in bringing to book those responsible for terror attacks on its soil is troubling.  In The Hindu, Praveen Swami points out that despite multi-million dollar investments, India’s investigation into terror attacks since 26/11 have proven inconclusive.  Indeed, despite home minister P. Chidambaram’s claims that our counter-terrorism capabilities have been significantly enhanced since 26/11, we appear unable to even identify where persons on our so-called list of “most wanted” currently live.

It should be troubling to the state and to its citizens that on every occasion where innocent civilians are murdered in India, the narrative of preserving India-Pakistan peace is resurrected from slumber in the Western media. This is a narrative that India needs to arrest.  Like the need for India to talk to Pakistan ranks considerably higher than the value of the lives of innocent men, women and children who have died.  Let there be no “knee-jerk” reaction, they say.  But there’s already been a knee-jerk reaction. And several.

But beyond merely identifying those responsible for the heinous attacks on India, what is the government’s capability to deliver justice to victims?  What is to dissuade those hostile to India from carrying out further attacks in other large metropolitan cities?  If these attacks end up being traced to Pakistan, like 26/11 was, will justice ever be served?

This blog has repeatedly articulated the need for capacity to challenge terror infrastructure where it stood.  If the attack is traced to Pakistan, India has two options — pursuing the matter through political channels, which invariably leads to a cul-de-sac, or military, which appears infeasible given sufficient plausible deniability and international pressure. Now, India certainly has options available that don’t involve either the political or military to put it across to the perpetrators that their actions will not go unpunished.  The question is if India has the political will to deliver justice to victims of terror, by whatever means necessary.

Both within India and outside, those that have conspired against the state continue to act with impunity.  Until  the government can demonstrate that it can act decisively against those that wage war against it, this unfortunate cycle will continue.

India needs no new ideas.  The thinking that needs to be done has already been done.  No new whitepapers are needed.  This country needs doers.

 

Read full story · Comments { 45 }

Talkistan ka matlab kya?

The politics of talking to our neighbor.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has invited Pakistan’s prime minister Gilani and president Zardari to attend the cricket World Cup semi-final match between India and Pakistan in Mohali.  Mr. Gilani has accepted the invitation while we’re waiting to hear from Mr. Zardari.  In the past, cricket diplomacy has been afforded to the likes of Gen. Zia-ul-haq and Gen. Musharraf.  This time around, the extension of invitations will result in two tickets being granted gratis to  individuals who neither craft nor implement Pakistan’s foreign policy, instead of our own VVIPs, who are accustomed to not paying for anything anyway.

They say there is momentum towards a resumption of talks between India and Pakistan.  Mr. Singh and Mr. Gilani met on the sidelines of the NAM summits in Bhutan and (infamously) at Sharm el-Sheikh.  Talks between India and Pakistan have also taken place in Lahore and New Delhi in the recent past.  Times of India’s diplomatic editor, Indrani Bagchi informs in her column that New Delhi was also keen to open channels of communication with the Pakistan army and its ISI (recall that DG-ISI Lt. Gen. Pasha had a tete-a-tete with India’s envoy to Pakistan Sharat Sabharwal at an iftaar dinner in 2009).

Not talking to someone is more a momentary tactic and less a strategy. If the Government of India has decided to seriously engage not just the civilian administration in Pakistan, but also its military overlords in talks, then fine, but what is the end game?  In India, our leaders have repeatedly articulated that they are “not willing to give up on Pakistan.”  As if not giving up on Pakistan is a virtue!

Lest we forget, there is the more immediate matter of Pakistan prosecuting its citizens involved in the heinous terrorist attacks against India on 26/11.  It has been 2 ½ years since 200 innocent Indian citizens were killed in a state-sponsored project executed by the Lashkar-e-Taiba and members of Pakistan’s military-jihadi complex.  Not only has LeT’s leader gone unpunished, he is also being invited to give speeches at that venerable bastion of justice, the Lahore High Court!

To be sure, the pursuit of  peace between India and Pakistan (or indeed between any two nations) is always desirable.  However, in India we are victims of our own unattainable quest for morality in international relations above all else.  Our leadership has always taken pride in suggesting that if Pakistan takes minor, but tangible steps in addressing our concerns, that we would be “willing to go more than half the distance” in resolving our disputes with our neighbor.  But why?

In the anarchic world of international relations, abstract terms such as morality have no place.  States promote their national interests by exercising their relative power, both in times of war and peace. If it is in India’s interests to talk to Pakistan, then negotiations must be dictated from positions of relative power.  Magnanimity has no place in international relations.  As the greater power, India must expect settlements to be more favorable to its interests, not the other way around.  To quote India’s former intelligence chief and senior fellow at Takshashila, Vikram Sood, “magnanimity is a function of victory; otherwise it is appeasement.”

Prime Minister Singh is right in pursuing talks with Pakistan, but he would be wrong to believe that India’s growth and prosperity were contingent on making peace with that country. If India and Pakistan can, by some remote possibility, reconcile their differences and live in peace with one another, then fine.  If they can’t, that should also be okay for us as well.  Prime Minister Singh will always be favorably remembered in India’s history books for loosening the shackles of our License Raj.  He should remain invested in bringing 400 million of our citizens out of poverty.  India’s growth and development cannot be held hostage to anyone’s grand visions of orchestrating peace with countries that seek nothing but our dismemberment.

 

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Peace process, redux

What will Manmohan Singh’s legacy be?

In the U.S., the President spends his second term contemplating his legacy and how history and America will remember  him.  In India, it appears that our Prime Minister, who may or may not bow out before the next general elections, wants to leave behind a legacy of peace between India and Pakistan.

It is a noble vision, and one that has preoccupied many a past Indian Prime Minister. But it is also unsustainable given that Pakistan’s Military Jihadi Complex (MJC) remains structurally adversarial towards India.  This is a reality that India has had to live with for over sixty years, which no amount of cricket, Bollywood, mangoes or poetry has been able to obscure.

Even as Nirupama Rao prepares to travel to Pakistan next week as a precursor to S.M. Krishna’s July trip, there are several indications that Pakistan’s MJC plans to step up attacks in India.  Prior to the Pune attacks, the JuD held public rallies (اردو) in Lahore and Muzzafarabad, which were attended by the whos-who of the jihadi umbrella, including Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul, Syed Salahuddin and Abdul Rehman Makki.  JuD held another public rally on June 14 in Lahore, where Indian, Israeli and American flags were uniquely treated to a “chappal ki pooja.”

At the rally, Hafiz Saeed accused Israel of trying to convert Pakistan into a “barren land by constructing dams on its rivers.”  What is or isn’t part of madaaris curriculum may be debatable, but it should be pretty apparent now that  elementary geography doesn’t feature in any meaningful way. The absurdity of Hafiz Saeed’s accusation however, illustrates how symptomatic Kashmir was (and the “issue” of water now is) to the root cause of Pakistan’s unwillingness to live in peace with India.

And Matt Waldman’s report ( PDF) , while doing a decent job in highlighting the ISI’s relationship with terror groups, is found wanting in its policy recommendation, at least where India is concerned.  Mr. Waldman falls for the same tired argument of a “regional peace process,” and U.S. involvement in resolving Kashmir.  As The Filter Coffee has blogged before, the argument is fallacious.

The UPA’s vision for peace with Pakistan can last only as long as the lull before the next terror attack in India.  Pakistan’s unwillingness to abjure terror combined with the fact that civilian government neither crafts nor implements foreign policy in Pakistan essentially means that nothing has changed.  When will the Indian government realize that merely talking to Pakistan can’t be a  tenable solution for peace in the subcontinent?  If the UPA hopes to secure India, then its efforts are best directed towards strengthening the country’s internal security, while ensuring a capacity to challenge terror infrastructure where it stands.

You cannot seek peace with an entity when that entity’s idea of peace involves your dismemberment.  Instead of suffering grandiose visions of Indo-Pakistan peace, Mr. Manmohan Singh would do well to focus on leaving behind an India that is capable of defending itself at home and deterring the designs of those plotting to hurt India from abroad.  Indeed, it will be a legacy worthy of a man who, as a Cabinet Minister, laid the foundation for India’s meteoric economic rise.

http://chellaney.spaces.live.com/Blog/cns!4913C7C8A2EA4A30!1057.entry
Read full story · Comments { 1 }