Shortly after the Mumbai attacks, I asked whether India faced a trial of patience in persuading Pakistan — with help from the United States — to take action against the Islamist militants it blamed for the assault on its financial capital. India’s approach of relying on American diplomacy rather than launching military action led to some soul-searching among Indian analysts when it failed to deliver immediate results. But is it finally beginning to bear fruit?
Former Indian diplomat M K Bhadrakumar writes in the Asia Times that diplomatic efforts over the Mumbai attacks are entering a crucial phase. ”After having secured New Delhi’s assurance that India will not resort to a military strike against Pakistan, Washington is perceptibly stepping up pressure on Islamabad to act on the available evidence regarding the Mumbai attacks.”
Earlier this week, Pakistan admitted that the lone surviving Mumbai gunman, Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, was a Pakistani. The head of Pakistan’s powerful spy agency, the Inter-Services intelligence or ISI, also gave a conciliatory interview to German magazine Der Spiegel. Lieutenant-General Ahmad Shuja Pasha ruled out the possibility of war with India. “We may be crazy in Pakistan, but not completely out of our minds. We know full well that terror is our enemy, not India,” Dawn newspaper quoted him as saying.
Indian newspapers have seen Pakistan’s acceptance of Kasab’s nationality as a step in the right direction, while recognising that further progress will be slow. ”The admission by Pakistan is also an indicator for the establishment that the diplomatic pressure is finally getting some results,” the Economic Times said. “But New Delhi is also aware that it will take a lot of time and effort to push Pakistan to take even small steps.”
So how is that going to play out in the context of a new administration taking over in Washington, a government in Delhi coming to the end of its term and facing elections due by May, and a civilian government in Pakistan still trying to find its feet after years of military rule?.
Bhadrakumar says that “the United States could be on the threshold of a big breakthrough in the geopolitics of the South Asian region” if it succeeds in convincing Pakistan to crack down on Islamist militants while also nudging India and Pakistan to work together to put their relationship on a sounder footing.
But that will require quick work by the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama, which according to the New York Times is likely to include the appointment of Richard Holbrooke as a special envoy for India and Pakistan, and a further trial of patience for the outgoing Congress-led government in Delhi.
Trackback
48 comments so far
Previous | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
I usually only read the comments on the India/Pakistan blogs. But since the US seems to be a central thread in this debate, I will throw in my two cents.
- Posted by PatrickBoth sides of this argument seem to think the US must pick sides, and that is exactly what we are trying not to do. It is true that peace will further our efforts in Afghanistan, but can anyone really say that’s a bad thing? As for the US incursions on Pakistani soil, the ISI will be the first to admit those are lawless regions that even they cannot fully control.
Also, it takes a period of time for peace to sink in. Some people do not like change, even for peace. We see this same effect in the Israel/Palestine conflict. But in India and Pakistan, there is hope for a lasting peace. India is developing as an international power wonderfully, and are showing that maturity by not acting militarily on this issue. I personally believe that while Pakistan’s military may have had some knowledge of this, the civilian gov’t could not/would not be this stupid. Peace and only peace can hold Pakistan together, for time has proven that war has made it impossible for central gov’t to control.
Both sides have nukes. The two countries could really make a mess of SE Asia and the world if things go wrong to fast.
Om,
- Posted by AmanAnup is correct here I think. India’s biggest supplier is Russia and not US. And moreover, US don’t need India as a buyer as much as India need to get its hands on American technology. US sells a lot more to Pakistan than to India. But you’re also correct on saying any administration in US has always followed its interest through out the world (isn’t that what all governments do?) So, Obama’s will be no different. And as it looks right now, America’s interest in the region is only going to concentrate on Afghanistan. I think Washington will pretty much follow the same policy of telling India to restrain and itself keep carrying out attacks on Pakistani soil (According what Obama said during the campaign, he might go a step further and start ground operations in Pakistan.) But one thing is clear Washington would never want India to even have a couple of tropes extra on its borders with Pakistan because that would certainly give their military and ISI an excuse to pull troops away from western borders with Afghanistan.
The equation seems pretty complex and anything might happen in days or months to come. But if we have another congress lead government, India would never dare do anything more than “peaceful diplomacy” and follow the big boss’s orders.
Myra,
- Posted by chirkutThere was never any dearth of words from Pakistan. And their words have always followed charade.
Unless some concrete action are taken to stop growth and abetment of terrorism i cann’t say diplomacy has succeeded.
Jerry
- Posted by Anup—but it aspires to be the Modern Caliphate…
Om
- Posted by AnupI think India’s largest Arms procurement is from Russia, America comes a fourth in the list, contrarily, if there is ‘peace’ in the region then why would we spend such a large chunk of our budget on self-defense?
I feel India missed a really opportune moment to teach the Pakistani establishment that if they have to live in the neighborhood, they have to behave. I feel this was the right moment to attack Pakistan since that country, to stay afloat, is begging around for global funds. They could not have a sustained a war campaign without completely destroying their economy. Ever heard Pak army / ISI chief say they dont want war? They want it, they just know they cannot afford it.
On the other side of the coin, Pakistan is already in a civil war, with its army killing its own people in FATA & NWFP. India by staying away, and using diplomacy has ensured that: 1) A lot of the terror mechanism is taken down by the Pakistani army 2) Not incurred war expenses and can divert much needed economic resources to areas of need 3) No inflicted any losses to its armed force personnel
Do not however forget that India is the largest democracy with a population that is simmering for 26/11 revenge. It would not be long before a politician is voted into power and fullfils peoples desire. If Pakistan does not understand diplomatic overtures and mends its ways, a war can be assured in 2009.
(On a seperate note: The concept of strategic depth that Pakistan always wanted, i.e. Afghanistan to be under Pakistani influence, is absolutely neutralized with FATA, NWFP and Baluchistan, all being out of Federal control! The Pakistan under Zardari’s administration is essentially Punjab & Sindh)
- Posted by JerryThe world knows that Pakistan uses non-state-actors to enforce it’s foreign policy. As a result of this policy the US is is directly engaging Pakistan’s foreign policy arm by using drones. Don’t you see how effective it is? Every time a drone is used a major al Qaeda person dies. This all happens on Pakistan soil, do you really think that anyone believes that Pakistan can’t kick al Qaeda out. This policy will work for awhile but in the end Pakistan will be the loser.
- Posted by ChuckAnup,
Any administration in US only looks at its own interest and will not look beyond, history is proof for my statement. on the other hand India can very well make the wind blow in its favour with the new administration only if it plays its cards well..India is more or less the biggest customer for US defense deals in 2008(about 30 billion USD) and continues to make big deals recent one being the 10 billion missile defense shield. You see where am going..India can call off all deals with US if it does not stop making tight rope walks and should make US stop taking both sides. New US administration being sensitive to economic issues can be made to follow and forced to look beyong just US interests in Asia for the benifit or long lasting peace in the region.
- Posted by OmThis should work simply because..whats the point buying all those hi-tech costly weapons if we are not supported to use them for our self-defense ??
We still don’t know for sure if Pak army discussed the Kargil incursion in 1999 with the then PM Nawaj Sahriff BEFORE launching the operation.
- Posted by VictorThe question now is whether General Kayani share the plans for the Mumbai attack BEFORE 26/11 with anyone in the civilian government? Zardari seems not to be involved.
Om
- Posted by Anup–’the ruling congress party is hiding behind the mask of diplomacy and patience…’
— Maybe & maybe not, but it’s better late than haste…& we also do not know which side the wind will blow with the incoming gov. at washington…
Om,
You presented an interesting point. In my view, the US, simply buys its right to bomb Pakistan by giving cash, weapons and an assurance of not declaring Pakistan a terrorist state. I wonder how will the US reward India for managing to continue the charade of diplomacy directed towards Pakistan.
Myra,
With the change of administration in Washington, Pakistan, most likely, will get away with its heinous crime. Diplomacy and joint investigations can only work with nations, which are responsible and sincere; not with Pakistan. The govt in Pakistan cannot reign in terrorist assets directed towards India, unless India takes some covert action against them, when deemed fit.
- Posted by NikhilHopefully, the diplomacy will expose and embarass the Pakistani government to the point where they will have to make changes in the way they do business over there.
If the diplomacy does not work. It is time for the USA to do a regime change in Islamabad. You do that, I guarantee you there will be no more terrorism. The US should decapitate the Pak government if there is one more terrorist attack on India. India should then send 500,000 troops to Afghanistan to help UnTalibanize Afghanistan and the USA should do its job to unTalibanize and set up a new government in Pakistan, friendly to all its neighbours.
- Posted by Global WatcherI totally understand the dynamics of Pakistan’s weak civilian government and powerful military. True that all is needed by the Pakistani military and ISI to come back to power is a war, or may be a small battle, with India. They will be quick to cash in on the anti-Indian nationalistic sentiments of Pakistani population. So, the last thing the world wants is military and ISI coming back to power in Pakistan.
- Posted by AmanKeeping all these equations in mind and knowing that America itself can carry drone attacks on Pakistani soil and preach India to resolve through peaceful diplomacy, but at the end of it what message is India sending across the border- You can keep carrying proxy war tactics against us and bleed India cheaply, whenever and wherever you want, and all we will do is put diplomatic pressure on your good for nothing civilian government??
I think its time to do a little more than “peaceful diplomacy”. May be a good start will be to call back Indian envoy from Pakistan and stop all trade and economic deals with Pakistan.
Myra,All parties are playing their cards for the new admin. putting up at washington, which very unamerican-like had spilled the beans before turn, this will not reach to any logical conclusion before end of March, that is a big if, or any mishandling may mess it up more…
- Posted by anupWe are in the third generation now, post independence. If there is one person ever in India who believes that Pakistan will be even an iota truthful or it would ever act on terrorist, I bet there will be no war.
But I guarantee not a single person in India believes Pakistan’s integrity and whether their words will match actions.
I guess there will be a catastrophic war in the near future that may push India backwards by 25 years but Pakistan will cease to exist.
There is no peace in India or in rest of the world as long as Pakistan carries on this baggage of terror.
- Posted by GauthamLets think again..is India using diplomacy to make pakistan act ?? or Is US using diplomacy to contain India from a military affensive on pakistan ?? I think the later one is correct. if americans had thought diplomacy would work and they can trust pakistanis by their word..why would they conduct ground raid and drone attacks on pakistan ??
- Posted by Omit is utter foolishness for anybody to think diplomacy/talks/negotiations would work with a terrorist state.
As much as i hate to say..i admit the ruling congress party is hiding behind the mask of diplomacy and patience to hide their lack of political will.
- Posted by unknown indianso much pressure and so much patience just to make them admit that kasab is a pakistani. that too in a fumbled up way. where as their media already ran an interview of kasab’s father weeks ago.
anyway, i am still all in for peaceful diplomacy but if it doesn’t lead any conclusive end of terrorism (which it may) i am all for surgical strike.
it will not end terrorism but just to show that there is no impunity.
It is unlikely to get something out of Pakistan by diplomatic means, if anybody thinks that American diplomatic pressure works or working,
Why do Americans have to do drone attacks on pakistan ?
- Posted by Vivekif Pakistan can hang on for 1 month more, this story will be totally dead in the media by February. Since the Pakistani govt/state is innocent, that should not be too hard.
- Posted by Bangash KhanIf you wait by the river long enough, the bodies of your enemies will float by. - Sun Tsu
- Posted by belligerent