Hafiz Saeed has no place in any peace process
It is immaterial whether Mr Ved Pratap Vaidik met Hafiz Saeed as a self-appointed envoy of the Government of India or as part of a Track II diplomatic initiative that may have included former Union Ministers or other high-profile interlocutors. The freelance journalist's professional credentials or his close connections to yoga guru Baba Ramdev are also of no consequence. What is of import here is that Mr Vaidik thought it fit to talk with the man who has masterminded terror attacks on India and Indian assets abroad (including the 2008 Mumbai carnage and, more recently, the attack on the Indian consulate in Herat, Afghanistan), and proudly wears on his hands the blood of hundreds of innocent Indians. There is no place for diplomacy with terrorists; there can be no justification for talking peace with those who spout the ideology of violence. Mr Vaidik claims that during his hour-long meeting with Hafiz Saeed earlier this month, he sought to hard-sell Prime Minister Narendra Modi who has been perceived by some as a hawkish leader. He has also taken credit for breaking the ice with Hafiz Saeed and said that the terrorist requested him for an invite to India. It is laughable that he had tried to ‘reform’ Hafiz Saeed on his views about India and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Perhaps, Mr Vaidik believes that by allaying Hafiz Saeed's fears, by inspiring a change of heart and turning the jihadist away from violence, he can bring about peace. This is nonsense. Neither is Hafiz Saeed a legitimate Pakistani peace-broker whose views about the Prime Minister of India are of consequence nor is he a rebel leader who can be brought into the mainstream. Hafiz Saeed is a mass murderer, and the only path open for him is the one that leads to the hangman's noose. If Mr Vaidik believes there is scope for reconciliation, he should keep the thought to himself.
There is an institutionalised peace process (no matter how tired and tattered) between the democratically elected Governments of India and Pakistan that aims to address the concerns of both countries. Similarly, there have also been many Track II initiatives over the years involving scholars, policy analysts, journalists and retired public servants that have sought to resolve the plethora of issues, from trade to terrorism, that plague bilateral relations. Here too, no such enterprise can legitimately include the head of a globally designated terror organisation. Incidentally, only a few weeks ago, Hafiz Saeed's Jamaat-ud-Dawa'ah, which has been masquerading as a charity firm — in fact, it was Pakistan's largest relief organisation with fund-raising and recruitment networks across the world — was blacklisted by the US after it was labelled as a front organisation for the ISI's most favoured and dependable anti-India proxy outfit, the lashkar-e-Tayyeba.
In his defence, Mr Vaidik has claimed that as an independent journalist, he has the right to meet and interview whomever he wishes. But he certainly has no right to so shamefully capitulate, which he appeared to do, before Hafiz Saeed. And, nothing explains why he did not reportedly inform the Government of India about his meetings with the country’s most wanted man, either before or after his trip to Pakistan.