The US is stuck in the groove of saying Pakistan must ‘do more' to eliminate terrorist havens from its soil. It has to do more to civilise the Pakistan Army. On its part, India must ‘do more' on enhancing deterrence
Following 20 months of a zero-yield coercive policy on the resumption of India-Pakistan official dialogue, the Government has adopted a stance of flexible response: While keeping the door open on conversations, subtly shifting its position on re-engagement. Though talks and terror will not go together, talks on terror will go on, facilitated by the two strands of the transformed Composite Bilateral Dialogue. National Security Advisors will engage on terror and Foreign Secretaries on all other subjects including Kashmir. The dialogue process can arguably blossom once outcomes on Mumbai and Pathankot, unlikely though, are to India’s satisfaction. The satisfaction thresholds have deliberately been kept vague though action against militant groups operating from Pakistan soil in general and specifically against the mastermind of 26/11, Zaki-ur-Rehman lakhvi of lashkar-e-Tayyeba and the architect of Pathankot, Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Maulana Masood Azhar, is key. Islamabad must honour its commitment made by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (and others before him) to US President Barack Obama last year that Pakistan will not allow terrorists to use its soil for attacks against another country. Former military ruler General Pervez Musharraf last week admitted on an Indian TV channel that the ISI trains Jaish-e-Mohammed and lashkar-e-Tayyeba.
Recently, Afghanistan Chief Executive Officer Abdullah Abdullah, addressing a counter-terrorism conference in Jaipur, noted that “regional powers” (read Pakistan) indulged in proxy war and made distinctions between god and bad terrorists. At the same conference, NSA Ajit Doval said that when states feel they can outsource instruments of coercion to some non-state actors for political objectives, it is most counterproductive. He added philosophically, “There must be adequate deterrence against states that support terrorism.” Despite his repeated calls to forge instruments of deterrence, New Delhi has failed to coin a strategy to deter Pakistan.
The deposition and disclosures last week of David Coleman Headley to an Indian court erases the line between state and non-state actors in Pakistan and establishes the integral linkages between them. Headley’s testimony nails Pakistan’s lies and denials to warrant making of new dossiers of the state’s culpability. Pakistan shines as a rogue state. But for the unflinching support of the US and China, ISI’s military chiefs would be in the dock for crimes against humanity. Among the 166 killed and 309 wounded in Mumbai were nationals of six countries who would happily mount a collective assault at the International Court of Justice, Hague, on Pakistan’s persistent perfidy. For Masood Azhar’s involvement in the hijacking of IC 814, for which Red Corner notices are pending against him, the attack on Parliament and Pathankot, New Delhi is trying once more to get him on the banned terrorists’ list at the UNSC 1267 Sanctions Committee. The last time this was attempted in 2005, China successfully vetoed it.
Meanwhile, the National Investigation Agency is preparing fresh dossiers on Pathankot. Already, it has given Islamabad the six phone numbers the terrorists dialled in Pakistan from the air base. The embalmed bodies of the four terrorists are to be handed over to Pakistan at an appropriate time. New Delhi expects Islamabad to cooperate under provisions of UNSCR 1373 and the Saarc convention on counter-terrorism. Though Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s initial response to Pathankot was positive and not one of usual denial, he has been forced by the Army to backtrack. Pakistan has not found any evidence against Masood Azhar after briefly detaining him and sealing Jaish offices. According to another report, Azhar has gone missing and is not in Pakistan. It looks Pathankot may plod the Mumbai way.
A Pakistani parliamentary panel on foreign affairs led by a PMl(N) legislator has asked the Government to desist from encouraging support to militant Kashmiri groups in order to dispel international concerns that Pakistan was abetting terrorism in Kashmir. Mr Sharif told a joint session of Occupied Kashmir Assembly this month at Muzaffarabad on Kashmir Solidarity Day that “solution to all outstanding issues with India including Kashmir lay in dialogue, which we hope to start soon”. But JuD/lashkar chief Hafiz Saeed warned of more Pathankot style attack, praising UJC chief Syed Salahuddin for the Pathankot attack. The Saeed rants fly in the face of Pakistan creating an appropriate ambience for the resumption of dialogue.
The US seems defensive when it comes to acting against its long-standing strategic ally, Pakistan. Its Afghanistan policy is hostage to the diktat of the Pakistan Army chief, Gen Raheel Sharif. Washington cannot honourably extricate itself from Afghanistan without the assistance of the deep state. So it has toyed in the past with awarding a civil nuclear deal, given billions of dollars of aid. Also, overruling the Congress, President Obama has decided to sell eight state of the art F16 Block 52 (2C and 6D models) and allied hi-tech kits ostensibly for precision counter-terrorism operations. This is a poor joke as F16s end up enhancing Pakistan’s conventional capability against India. US Senators have consistently objected to Pakistan’s duplicitous behaviour in using the banned Haqqani network to destabilising Afghanistan including killing its soldiers. More on principle than any likely shift in power balance, India lodged a protest with the US on the sale, though it need not have as it enjoys a marked conventional military superiority against Pakistan, including in the air. Pakistani author and diplomat Husain Haqqani has warned that the F16s would end up being used against India.
Given the hurdles of Mumbai and Pathankot, and the periodic attacks by Pakistani spoilers, an India-Pakistan resumed dialogue is an uphill effort. New Delhi should get used to Islamabad’s ranting that it is a victim of terrorism. Till the skewed civil military power balance in Pakistan is corrected, India-Pakistan relations will continue to be destabilised by proxies unless the Pakistan Army is confronted with its second Stone Age moment, a la Richard Armitage, post 9/11. The choice given then to Pakistan was: ‘Either you are with us, or against us.’ A repeat of this threat is possible only if the Pakistan Army does something stupid like resumption of clandestine nuclear arms trade.
While being prepared for re-engagement, India should work with the UN and the international community to publicise Islamabad’s notoriety in aiding and abetting terrorism. The most powerful country in the world is stuck in the groove of saying Pakistan must ‘do more’ to eliminate terrorist havens from its soil. The US has to do more to civilise the Pakistan Army, and India must ‘do more’ on deterrence.