Pakistan’s response so far to the Pathankot attack has been different from and more forthcoming than the ones of denial over terror incidents of the past. However, it is too early to judge the change as real or sustainable
The ongoing narrative over India-Pakistan relations has pushed people, including experts, into two camps: The optimist and the pessimist. The first finds a ‘perceptible change’ in the ‘positive manner’ Islamabad has responded to the Pathankot attack; the second reads the same response as ‘delusionary’ and ‘ambiguous’. The first argues that given the cavalier manner in which Pakistan conducted itself over earlier terror attacks on India, its decision to at least seriously examine the evidence India has provided on the Pathankot incident (through a probe that Pakistan’s intelligence agency is conducting) must be welcomed. The second contends that Pakistan had given similar promises earlier of looking into Indian evidence, and failed to honour them.
There is then a tussle between hope and resignation. The coming days will determine which is the winner. Meanwhile, it will be useful to be neither an optimist nor a pessimist. On Pakistan, it’s best to be a realist and let responses be shaped by developments on the ground. This is not the first time that India has been hit by Pakistan-based terror. This is not the first time that New Delhi has responded forcefully (though only in words). This is also not the first time that Pakistan has expressed outrage and condolence over an attack. This is not the first time that it has promised action based on ‘actionable evidence’. If it fails to act now, it will not be the first time that it has gone back on its word. If it acts suitably, it will be a pleasant surprise for both optimists and pessimists. For now, the only firm indicators we have are Islamabad’s past inactions, whether on Dawood Ibrahim or Zaki-ur-Rehman lakhvi or Syed Salahuddin or Hafiz Saeed.
It is true that there has been an unprecedented level of interaction between representatives of the two Governments since the foiled attack on the Pathankot Air Force base. The National Security Advisors have been interacting over the telephone regularly, sharing information (Mr Ajit Doval on the mounting proof of a Pakistani connection and retired lieutenant General Nasser Khan Janjua on the steps the Pakistani Government is taking to address the material). There are as many people from both sides of the border eager to see that dialogue doesn’t take place as there are those wanting it to happen. Call them hawks and doves, they are perfectly sensible men and women in normal situations who turn into blood-curdling activists, especially inside television studios, when it comes to India-Pakistan relations. Some of them, short of going at each other’s throat, plunge into a state of virtual war. Of course, there are also the terror groups and their handlers who are neither hawks nor doves; they’re simply murderers of humanity and must be dealt with as such by any responsible regime anywhere in the world.
Mr Narendra Modi is not the first Prime Minister of India to feel the heat of dealing with Pakistan, and dealing with the hope that things will turn out for the better. Mr Manmohan Singh and earlier Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee went through similar phases. Mr Vajpayee suffered from the hyphenation of his lahore bus journey initiative with the Kargil intrusion; Mr Manmohan Singh’s hand of friendship was met with the 26/11 Mumbai attack. Going back further, Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to Pakistan and his warm and much-hyped interaction with his counterpart Benazir Bhutto did nothing to bring about a change of heart in the politico-military leadership there.
While many theories have been offered for the repeated failure on Pakistan’s part to take a new road, including the duplicity of the nation’s democratically elected leaders (it has had only a fistful since coming into existence), the decision to tread a fresh path has never rested with the civilian regime. The Army has always been in control, dictating terms to Islamabad and deposing elected regimes when they did not fall in line. Who would know this better than incumbent Prime Minister Nawaz SharifIJ
Already, the question is being asked: If he persists with pursuing an aggressive bid to make peace with New Delhi, how long will it be before the Army (under General Raheel Sharif or anyone else) takes control and shows him the doorIJ
It is being argued that the days of Army takeover are finished in Pakistan. The country has had more than five years of uninterrupted democratic rule by a legitimately elected Government; the opposition parties are firmly united against any further misadventure by the Army; and international opinion will simply not allow an Army coup to happen in Islamabad. The fact is that the Army in Pakistan is never too far away from direct power; combined political power can turn out to be a mirage (as we have seen in the past, with some leaders even hailing the Army as a saviour) once the men in barracks begin to prowl the corridors of the National Assembly; and world opinion is fickle and eventually as malleable as melted steel in the furnace of geo-politics.
Moreover, Pakistan is a master at manipulating international pressure, even when pressure comes from the only superpower, the US. Two recent examples of this should suffice: The first is that General Pervez Musharraf made a big show of aligning with America’s ‘war on terror’ in the wake of 9/11 once President George W Bush bluntly said that those not with the US would be deemed against it, but continued to double-cross the US. The second is that, while Islamabad fell in line and withdrew its troops to the status quo level during the Kargil war after the US told it in no uncertain terms that it would be censured if it did not behave, it has continued to wage wars by other means against India.
It is of course theoretically possible for a strong leader in Islamabad to stake his position and gamble for the greater good of the region and his country — to build a trustworthy relationship with India and invite Rawalpindi’s ire. Theoretically, Mr Sharif has done the right things so far (visiting New Delhi for Mr Modi’s oath-taking ceremony; interacting with Mr Modi in Ufa and in Paris during the climate change meet with rare personal bonhomie; and finally extending a warm welcome to the Indian Prime Minister during the latter’s audacious visit to lahore, taking many people across the border on both sides by surprise). But students of science will tell you of the big difference between talk and action. You pass the litmus test when you go through it, and not just read about it or know about it. The Pakistani Prime Minister’s litmus test lies in getting his Army to reform its position on India.