DAWN.COM | Columnists | Perception or pressure?
I DO not know what the response was to a question why the UN resolution on the detention of Hafiz Saeed should be honoured when New Delhi had not implemented the UN resolutions on Kashmir.
But I think the comparison was not in order as one resolution is related to an international issue and the other to an individual who was evading being brought to justice.
This did not appear to be the only reason why the case against Saeed was thrown out. The court said that there was not enough evidence against him.
Even if it found the proof provided by New Delhi to be inadequate Islamabad should have done some homework to plug the loopholes.
The court was quite candid in telling the attorney general that it had seen the details of the investigation by India but wanted to know what Pakistan had done. Apparently, it had done very little. What was shown to the judges was not convincing enough. True, there is reportedly going to be an appeal to the Supreme Court. But if the same material is going to be produced before it, the verdict is unlikely to be different.
Pakistan may have a point that India has not given it any clinching evidence. And sending some material in Hindi, Marathi or Tamil does not say much for New Delhis seriousness on the matter. Yet Pakistan was expected to do more. After all, those who attacked Mumbai were from Pakistan where the attacks were plotted.
What was Pakistans own investigation to add to the New Delhis dossier is not known.
In the absence of proof that Pakistan was committed to taking the issue seriously, any dialogue with it would evoke a strong anti-government opinion in India. At the risk of repeating myself, I feel that the Pakistan government and the armed forces have not yet realised how angry the Indians are. Even if New Delhi were to come around, it would not be able to carry the public along with it until Islamabad is seen to be doing something concrete.
With Pakistans action in the war against the terrorists, there was a perceptible change in India towards sympathising with the people across the border in their hour of crisis.
Pressure had begun mounting for the resumption of talks with Islamabad. Saeeds release by the court has pushed India back to square one.
Relations between India and Pakistan, already frozen, have become further so. The Zardari government is not seen as any different from the earlier ones. The impression that is strengthening is that Pakistan changes its tactics under pressure but not its strategy.
It may be a coincidence that the Council on Kashmir Affairs met in Islamabad on the day when Saeed was freed. But Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani did not stray from the speech prepared by the bureaucrats. Delivered after the judgment he could have said something to lessen the impact of the verdict. Was it necessary for him to reiterate that the Pakistan government would continue to give its moral, social and diplomatic support to the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their fight for self-determination?
Indias Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna was far more balanced in his reaction as he did not use harsh words which might have irritated Pakistan. Krishna said that Kashmir was part of the composite dialogue. He could have repeated that Kashmir was an integral part of India, but he did not lest he should spoil even the odd chance for reconciliation.
Those at the helm of affairs in Pakistan appear inept in handling the situation. Understandably, they are under pressure over the activities of the Taliban and the mechanisations of religious parties within the country. Still it looks as if the Zardari government has no clear-cut policy or programme to take Pakistan out of the difficulties it faces.
India has reportedly appealed to America after the verdict. Washington may be at a loss to think what to do next because it had already banned the Lashkar-i-Taiba and its front organisation, Jamaatud Dawa. The visit of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Delhi assumes more importance than before. The first thing Secretary Hillary Clinton has to do is to disabuse ideas that the Obama government is taking sides.
However successful Islamabad may have been in securing Americas largesse, the test is the confidence the Zardari government can build among the people to feel self-reliant and secure. It also has to plan to feed, educate and ameliorate the living conditions of millions in Pakistan.
The advantage of a democratic government is that it can depend on the support of the people. But if they remain unhappy they are bound to look elsewhere and even think of Islamic extremists as their saviours. In fact, this is the strength of the Taliban, not their weapons or the stamina to fight. The PPP is known for its liberalism. The army is engaged in a battle against the Taliban. But the party has also to work on the ground to re-educate people who have been fed on prejudices.
Saeed is going to be a problem because he is perceived as combining in himself the traits of terrorism and bigotry. His support to the Taliban would be lethal. This can tell upon Pakistans integrity and its democratic structure. Nawaz Sharif should not be kept at a distance. He may be a rightist but he has proved time and again that when it comes to fighting for Pakistans entity, he will not and cannot remain neutral. Zardari should seek his cooperation without putting prior conditions.
Maybe, the Charter of Democracy which Nawaz Sharif and the late Benazir Bhutto signed can provide the basis for cooperation. The Charter calls upon the people of Pakistan to join hands to save our motherland from the clutches of military dictatorship and to defend their fundamental, social, political and economic rights and for a democratic, federal, modern and progressive Pakistan as dreamt by the founder of the nation
.
If Pakistan were to realise this, it would find India to be its best friend.
The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.
whatever it takes to float our boat!
