rajeev in rediff on why the 'peace-talks' are a hopeless distraction

jul 21st, 2010

just as we have been taking fruitlessly to the hans for 28 years, there is no reason to believe anything will come out of the 'peace process' [sic] with pakistan either. 

let's talk, but let's not expect anything of substance to come out of them. simultaneously, let us *do* something useful to protect national interests. 

what happens now is that there is confusion between the talks (only a means to an end) and the end (advancement of national interests). this seems to be an endemic problem in india -- there are only tactics, no strategy.

rediff chose to put this up as a 'slide-show' for unfathomable reasons http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2010/jul/21/slide-show-1-rajeev-srinivasan-on-moving-beyond-the-indo-pak-peace-talks.htm, so here's where the full text can be read more comfortably http://rajeev2007.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/moving-beyond-the-indo-pak-'peace-talks'-as-the-afghan-end-game-nears/

Moving beyond the Indo-Pak 'peace talks', as the Afghan end game nears

 

Rajeev Srinivasan on how apportioning blame for the failure of the talks misses the big picture on the ground – the Great Game is afoot

 

I am always amused at the great expectations that some Indians harbor about India-Pakistan palavers, contrary to sense and prior experience. I suspect nothing will ever come of any Indo-Pak talks, because the dominant Pakistani ethos, indeed the very raison d'etre of that State's existence, is based on being not-India and anti-India.

 

In particular, Pakistan is a State owned by an Army, and the Army would have no reason to exist if peace were, by some miracle, to break out with India. Survival instinct alone, therefore, suggests that the Pakistani Army could not possibly afford peace. After all, the continuous state of covert war sustains a very comfortable living for the generals – a story in the New York Times on July 19^th talked about how parts of Islamabad look like a tidy, affluent Los Angeles suburb.

 

However, I am overwhelmed by déjà vu, because I could repeat verbatim what I wrote in June 2001, in a column titled "Because it's their nature, their custom: Why the Indo-Pak summit is doomed", [http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jun/18rajeev.htm] about the much-ballyhooed 2001 talks with General Musharraf. I offered several analogies, including one with two sets of Polynesian islanders with widely differing visions of what 'peace' might be – absolutely appropriate in the India-Pakistan context.

 

I concluded with the following, and in hindsight I was wrong in assuming that India could drive Pakistan to bankruptcy with an arms race, much as the Americans had done to the Soviets:

 

"It is clear that Pakistan -- or, to be precise, their ruling military establishment -- wants, or needs, war. We can oblige: India can continue to bear the cost of war better than a much smaller, economically stagnant Pakistan which is liable to collapse under its own internal contradictions and runaway religious terrorism."

 

Of course, this was before 9/11, and I did not anticipate then that the Pakistanis would get the Americans (and the Chinese) to underwrite their war against India, and that the Indian government would be so unwilling to or incapable of deterring Pakistan by imposing costs on misadventures. Instead, Pakistan is convinced that India does not have the guts to stand up to them.

 

Pakistanis are justified in believing this: for all practical purposes, the Mumbai attack in 2008, 11/26,  has been forgotten, and this so-called 'peace process' is proceeding from the Indian side as though the humiliation of that frontal attack on India's financial nerve-center never happened. The small matter of 180 Indians being massacred, and India's inept response to the crisis, both broadcast live around the globe, are forgotten.

 

Indeed, the name of the game today in India is finger-pointing: mandarins are running around trying to find a scapegoat to blame for the 'failure' of the talks. They have found a good candidate in Home Secretary G K Pillai, who is now the fall guy for having dared to mention some unmentionables.

 

A news item suggests that the Prime Minister is unhappy with Pillai for having aired David Coleman Headley's confessions about the involvement of the ISI and the LeT in the Mumbai invasion. It seems the Prime Minister would have preferred it if this minor detail were swept under the carpet! What were the talks about, if they were to ignore the Pakistani establishment's culpability in cross-border terrorism?

 

Where do the 'concessions' end? Wasn't it enough that the Government of India quietly handed over 25 Pakistani terrorists – with no reciprocity – as  a 'goodwill gesture' to apparently smooth the way for the talks? And why didn't the ever-vigilant English Language Media utter a word about this rather strange, and servile, way of engaging a foe?

 

There is also a basic flaw about the coverage of the talks – the issue is not whether the talks were successful. The issue is whether there is any progress made in the larger issue of protecting India's national interests. Once again, we are losing the forest for the trees – the talks are tactical, the pursuit of national interests is strategic.

... deleted