This was a week the Indian chatterati were animated by spectacles taking place in foreign lands. The week began with the happy images of the first ever Indian armed forces contingent taking part on the Bastille Day parade in Paris, and the week ended in an uproar when the government of Dr Manmohan Singh was found remiss in advocating a dialogue with Pakistan.
The point of contention was the formulation that two governments of India and Pakistan agreed upon, which meant irrespective of terrorist violence perpetrated particularly on India by groups located in the other country, the dialogue between the two countries would continue to find lasting peace. The two prime ministers of neighboring countries had met in the faraway territory of Egypt, on the sidelines of the Non Aligned Movement summit held at Sharm-El-Sheikh.
A deluge of protest was unleashed in India when the news about the supposed Indian "concession" to Pakistan arrived. Newspaper headlines screamed "sell-out," "giving in," and "peace gamble." The Indian Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh had to make a statement in Parliament seeking to allay apprehensions. But the opposition was unmoved. The main opposition party in Parliament, the Bharatiya Janata Party staged a 'walk out' in response.
The capital New Delhi was abuzz with assorted analysts holding forth that the joint statement agreed upon by both India and Pakistan and made public was fraught with compromises: promises for deep engagement even in the face of continuing terrorism; acceptance of responsibility for troubles in Pakistan's North West; sharing of 'real time intelligence' with Islamabad in case of a terrorist attack.
Fresh with the memories of the televised terrorist attack in Mumbai on 26 November last, many of the experts felt that talking with Pakistan on the face of threats of new terrorist operations was a form of rewarding the 'collusion' of the Pakistan establishment with terrorist outfits. They also held that the acknowledgment of secessionist troubles in Balochistan province of India's western neighbor for the first time was an acceptance of 'complicity' in fomenting that trouble. And they were afraid that if India shares 'real time intelligence' with the cross border 'enemy,' the exercise would compromise India's intelligence assets.
The ruling mood within the country was so negative that some even attributed motives to Dr Singh's search for peace. They opined that he wanted to leave a lasting legacy at the end of his career in public life of the country -- a legacy that could win him the Nobel Peace Prize. That would in turn establish him in the pantheon of major leaders of India, if not the world.
The cynical assessments aside, none of these people acknowledged the well established fact that peace needs investment. Lasting peace needs larger commitments. And Dr Singh has done just that. He has essentially given the Pakistan leadership a benefit of doubt. That is evident from one of his statements to the Indian media at the end of his meeting with Pakistan Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani. He had told at a tense press conference, "I am not accusing the present Pakistani government of involvement (with terrorists) but as far as past history is concerned I did say that there were elements that were involved."
But such is the legacy of mistrust between the two countries that even a benefit of doubt to a particular regime across the border, seems like capitulation. And a conciliatory negotiation strategy appears to be a 'sell-out.'
This is a product of circumstances and diabolical actors who have acted upon those circumstances. For generations Pakistan's political and military leaders have sought to demonize India and create a bogey by which they could hoodwink their own people and enjoy a free run on the resources of the country. Since the emergence of Punjab militancy. Indian leaders too found it easy to blame the Inter Services Intelligence of Pakistan for all the challenges to the country's internal security and get by.
These efforts have now materialized into a poisoned chalice by which the two people of the same social crucible, same racial stock and same histories have become viciously divided by mutual hatred.
Now, when Pakistan's leaders say that the real threat to their country does not emanate from India but from within -- the rampaging Islamist insurgency-- the people will take time to internalize the new rhetoric. For Indians this could mean a new tactic adopted by the leadership of Pakistan to circumvent the immediate global pressures and return to its old ways at an opportune time. For the people of Pakistan, this could well mean the perpetuation of a securocracy (a rule by those of the security forces and their fellow travelers) by another name. Now India has been downgraded from the list of threats, but the menace of a new threat is a clear and present danger. At the end, those who foster this mutual suspicion live on to rule.