Sharm el-Sheikh shock

The India-Pakistan joint statement finalised between the two prime ministers at the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh has evoked strong criticism in the Indian media and political circles.

Effectively, the document seeks to revive Indo-Pak diplomatic interaction within the framework of the “composite dialogue” that was suspended in the wake of the Mumbai attacks. The criticism is on the terms of dialogue. First, contrary to our forcefully stated position after Mumbai, the statement categorically avers that the composite dialogue shall go forward and not be “bracketed” with any action on terrorism. Second, the clumsy reference to Balochistan with the Pakistan prime minister vaguely suggesting that his government has “some information” relating to “threats”. The subtext is that the threats are from India.

Government spokesmen have robustly defended the statement and clarified that the position on the primacy given to terrorism has not been compromised and that composite dialogue will go forward only when India is satisfied about progress made by Pakistan in addressing India’s legitimate concerns on terrorist activity from Pakistan.

We could take this explanation at face value: no lasting damage has been done to India’s position since, given the storm the statement has created, it is unlikely that we will see Indo-Pak delegations meeting until there is tangible movement on the Mumbai issue and terror in general. In fact, prime minister Manmohan Singh re-affirmed this point in his Parliamentary statement on July 29.

With regard to Balochistan, Singh’s clarification has been less elaborate, merely suggesting that India’s policy on Balochistan is an “open book” and India is not concerned about scrutiny of its role in that province. But the reference to Balochistan, I believe, has done lasting damage to India and clever semantics will not correct the situation. A quick look at the background helps.

After the failure of conventional war in 1971, Pakistan launched its “proxy war” on India 10 years later on the platform of Khalistan. At least 40,000 Indians were killed in Khalistan-related violence, which ended only in the 1990s. However, well before that, from 1989 onwards, Pakistan’s proxy war had already shifted to Kashmir.

Later, this expanded to include terrorist acts against vulnerable and sensitive targets across India. This proxy war against India, its national fabric and secular values, culminated with the Mumbai attacks. In 28 years at least 100,000 Indians have been killed in Pakistan’s proxy war on India, including about 20,000 security personnel.

During this period, whenever Indian officials abroad criticised Pakistan, a few Pakistanis in seminar halls invariably mentioned Indian activity in Balochistan. Pakistan’s desire to obtain a kind of moral equivalence with India in regard to exported violence and terror was integral to its campaign against India, particularly in the UK and USA. 

However, we were always able to contemptuously ridicule these Pakistani insinuations, first, because no convincing evidence could ever be provided by Pakistan and,secondly, because there could never be any parity between extensive and well-documented Pak-sponsored terror against India and vague references to what India may or may not have done in Balochistan.

Now we have conceded the moral equivalence that Pakistan has been seeking for 30 years. At the local level, a longstanding dispute relating to Balochi grievances based on their neglect, abuse and exploitation will now be rejected with the plea that Baloch insurgency has been fomented by Pakistan’s arch-enemy. Also, a local issue has been internationalised and placed on par with Kashmir.

Balochistan will now have pride of place in Pakistan’s diplomatic armoury, to be trotted out whenever Indian criticisms of Pak-support to terrorism have to be blunted.

This is thus a betrayal not only of thousands of Indians who have been killed in Pak-sponsored terror but also of the numerous officials who fought for India when western governments were actively hostile to us and western human rights bodies took particular joy in castigating India while making no criticisms whatsoever of Pakistan’s proxy war and jihad. It is also a betrayal of legitimate Balochi aspirations.

Foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon, who is the principal foreign policy adviser to the Government, has to be held culpable, for it was his duty to convey the horrendous consequences of the Balochistan reference to the prime minister. Sadly, in our system such betrayals are rarely punished. 

The writer is a political commentator presently residing abroad