Issue of the week November 19, 2006

The question that arises is: will the two countries share information regarding terrorist activities in an honest and frank manner that will ward off mutual suspicion and build confidence.

India and Pakistan have met once again and reported progress. But their meeting this week is no cause for any jubilation. Since the partition of the Indian sub-continent in 1947, the two countries have been meeting on and off to resolve disputes which three large-scale wars and numerous skirmishes have failed to resolve. There appears to be something fundamentally flawed in their approach to negotiations. If the two countries had demonstrated a genuine interest in resolving issues that make one country view the other as an enemy state, South Asia would have certainly been a better place. But mutual suspicion of each other and the advantage one derives by promoting the other as an enemy prompt the two countries to stray from the course of genuine peace. That 59 years of dialogue have not brought peace to the sub continent serves a bad indictment on the policymakers of the two countries. The relations between the two countries are often marked by charges and counter-charges, tit-for-tat responses, a vigorous arms race and attempts at undermining the other. Once, it was believed that as the old generation of leadership that witnessed the horror of partition moved out of the scene and a new generation takes over, the situation will change. But the sad reality is that the new generation inherits the hatred-filled views of the older generation.

It is against this backdrop that the foreign secretaries of the two countries met in New Delhi this week to explore the possibility of working out a joint mechanism to tackle the question of terrorism.

The two sides indeed struck two deals, described by officials of the two sides as landmark agreements. One agreement talks about the setting up of a joint anti-terrorism mechanism and the other seeks to ensure a nuclear-risk-free region.

Under the joint anti-terrorism mechanism, a six-member panel - three from each side-is to be established and information regarding terror activities shared. The talks were the fulfillment of a joint declaration India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf made after they met on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Summit in Havana in September this year.

Months before the summit, the Indian police said they had evidence to prove that Pakistan's spy service, the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), played a major role in this year's Mumbai blasts. Pakistan's response was that it would take action against the culprits if India shared the information it had.

India did give some information but Pakistan said it was not detailed enough to act on. Even Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon did not raise the Mumbai blasts during his talks with his Pakistan counterpart Riaz Mohammed Khan.

On the other hand, Pakistan has accused India of fomenting political unrest in the restive province of Baluchistan and fuelling sectarian clashes in Karachi and other parts of the country. Pakistan also views the increasing cooperation and cordial relations between India and Afghanistan with a suspicious eye.

The question that arises is: will the two countries share information regarding terrorist activities in an honest and frank manner that will ward off mutual suspicion and build confidence.

Given the track record of the relations between the two countries, one cannot be overly optimistic.

"This (the agreement on information sharing) is a purely symbolic move. India is hesitant to get into any arrangement that could compromise its intelligence," said Brahma Chellaney, Professor of Strategic Studies at the Centre for Policy Research. "The fear is that Pakistan would use any information it gets to learn more about how India gathers its intelligence, rather than to prevent another terrorist attack."

In spite of diplomatic skullduggery that has plagued the relations between India and Pakistan, the two countries this week also made some progress on other contentious issues such as the status quo on the Siachen Glaciers, the world's highest battleground, where soliders die more due to hostile weather rather than the enemy bullet.

But there was little agreement on Kashmir, the thorniest issue that stands in the way of permanent peace in South Asia.

The two foreign secretaries also agreed not to wash dirty linen in public.

From a strategic point of view, Pakistan stands to gain more than India. Under pressure from the West, especially the United States, Pakistan has committed more men and machinery to confront al-Qaeda and Taliban elements on the border with Afghanistan. This has made vulnerable its eastern and southern flanks where Pakistan has to maintain full military strength to check any Indian advance. Thus, peace with India will permit Pakistan to concentrate fully on its military operations on the Afghan border.

This week's Indo-Pakistan détente coincides with US Congress approving a civilian nuclear deal with India - news that makes Pakistan envy its giant neighbour. Pakistan's appeal to the United States for a similar deal has been turned down by Washington.
To offset the advantage India has accrued, Pakistan is turning towards China. When Chinese President Hu Jintao visits Pakistan next week, the two countries are expected to enter into a nuclear power cooperation deal. Under this deal, China is expected to build up to six reactors of 600 or more megawatts, at least twice the size of the 300 megawatt reactor China built at Chashma in Pakistan's eastern province of Punjab.

China is also wary about the growing US-India ties. The fact that the United States is grooming India as a check against China in the Asian region is not lost on Beijing.

Hence, China is more than keen to bolster Pakistan as a check against India, although Hu will first visit India before he arrives in Pakistan.