A tale of two fronts

By I.A. Rehman

THE terrorist attack on Mumbai created a two-fold crisis for Pakistan. It provoked India into belligerency and also increased Pakistan’s difficulties in dealing with the terrorist challenge in its northern part. The situation on both fronts is grim.Professional warmongers were able to turn the Indian people’s shock at the nature and scale of the raid on Mumbai into unprecedented hostility towards Pakistan. Their call to arms has so far gone unheeded and they have lost the first round to peace activists who also have appeared on both sides in greater strength than ever.However, the jingoists are unwilling to quit the ring. On both sides arguments are being cobbled together to keep the fires of conflict raging. Their immediate target is to prevent a resumption of the composite dialogue on which hopes of a durable and fruitful peace in South Asia had come to rest. These arguments cannot be put out of the way by routine appeals to one another’s good sense; they can only be overcome through a well-considered strategy to fight the scourge of terrorism.A large number of people in both India and Pakistan will concede that the principles of good neighbourliness and common interests demand that the two states should always be able to talk to each other without any reservations. Yet they find it extremely hard to resume their dialogue and this at a time when the only alternative to negotiations is apocalyptic disaster.The dominant Indian opinion, as far as one could gather from brief exchanges with a cross-section of Delhi civil society, rules out official-level talks with Pakistan on the basis of its interpretation of the Mumbai carnage, its reservations about the change of regime in Pakistan, its expectations of US success in twisting Pakistan’s arm, and its lack of faith in civil society (particularly of Pakistan) initiatives.These assumptions can be better addressed in the reverse order.The Indian elite’s loss of faith in civil society’s capacity to catalyse a positive change shows it has not taken account of the fact that the peace constituency in both India and Pakistan has become much larger than ever. The size and spontaneity of anti-war demonstrations held after Nov 26 were not witnessed during previous confrontations.The signs of despair in warmongers’ ranks, as evident in their moving further and further away from reason, confirm civil society’s accession to strength. Its progress cannot be as quick and dramatic as the state’s adventures simply because it lacks the latter’s capacity to legitimise any abuse of authority. In any case, one is astounded to see civil society denigrated in our subcontinent, home to one of the world’s most outstanding civil society movements — better known as the unarmed people’s struggle for freedom from the greatest imperialist power in history.Some of the hawks who make a living by confounding their audience with their arbitrary analyses argue that India should not talk to Pakistan because that will undermine US efforts to force the latter to behave. This reflects a degree of confidence in the effectiveness of the US anti-terror strategy no independent observer is prepared to endorse. At the moment the US policy is raising more terrorists in Pakistan’s tribal belt than Nato forces can kill. Any increase in the terrorists’ threat to Pakistan’s stability cannot be in India’s interest. Fortunately, saner elements in Delhi are conscious of this and are therefore wary of firing at Pakistan over American shoulders.The Indian observers’ poor opinion of Pakistan’s latest experiment in democratic governance comes out when they are asked to consider the possibility that the perpetrators of the Mumbai outrage wanted to rock the Zardari-led government. Quite a few of them have not been able to get over the end of their romance with Gen Musharraf. Many Pakistanis will agree with their Indian friends that the present dispensation is a pale version of a representative government. However, what the Indian critics choose to ignore is the fact that their jingoist rhetoric is tilting the balance against Pakistan’s civilian authority.The strongest Indian argument against talking formally to Pakistan is that while they do not wish to hold the Pakistan government directly responsible for the Mumbai affair the level of organisation and expertise evident in the operation could not have been possible without the backing or complicity of some privileged groups. Besides, according to them, their claim that the raiders belonged to Pakistan has not been effectively rebutted. Thus, Nov 26 was to India what 9/11 was to the US and the sequential developments could not be any different.It is possible to question this line of argument, particularly the attempt to legitimise the US invasion of Afghanistan. One may only look at the havoc wrought by the Bush team of hawks. They have certainly punished the Afghan people with a vengeance, the innocent Afghans more than the Taliban, but they have also made the quasi-religious militants almost invincible. No US expert, civilian or military, entertains hopes of victory in Afghanistan and attempts have already been made to find a way to share power with the Taliban. Did India want this scenario re-enacted on a broader scale? One may believe the Indians when they reply in the negative.That leaves the question of Pakistan’s meeting Indian demands for “costs” for Mumbai and the surrender of suspects which are said to be essential for defusing the situation.As has been argued by many people, for Islamabad the threat from terrorists is far more serious than India’s ultimatums. Pakistan’s very survival in its present form depends on eliminating the terrorists’ challenge. The Indian pressure for its satisfaction only adds to the urgency of this task. It is obvious that a series of steps will have to be taken to ensure peace along the country’s southern border.To begin with, more teeth need to be put into the hitherto tepid crackdown on organisations known for fomenting militancy. The trial of leaders of cross-border forays should begin expeditiously. Pakistan’s bona fides will be strengthened if these trials are fair and transparent. The possibility of inviting jurists from the region is worth exploring. These measures should help Pakistan regain the international community’s vitally needed confidence and support. It may not be necessary for the prime minister to think of a new law to punish Pakistanis for serious crimes abroad. Section 125 of the Penal Code already provides for life imprisonment for anyone who “wages war against the government of any Asiatic power in alliance or at peace with Pakistan or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war.”Unfortunately, however, the Indian demands have given some political groups in Pakistan one more reason to oppose government moves against the militants. Islamabad is being accused of cowardly yielding to pressure from across the border. They don’t see the militants doing anything wrong in Fata or Swat or anywhere else. Among other things, this means that the southern frontier cannot be secured in peace without achieving peace along the northern border.There the problem is not only the drone raids but the whole US-Nato strategy. So long as this strategy is followed Pakistan will not be out of the danger zone. Thus, instead of quarrelling over a single act of terrorism, Pakistan and India should join hands and seek other regional collaborators’ help in bringing the US and Nato operations under regional or UN control to settle Afghanistan’s future.