The criticisms levelled against our Prime Minister may or may not be valid depending on your political perspective. One thing is for sure, none of it has been constructive. Everyone seems to be able to tell him what he should not do?no one is telling him what it is that he can or should do. Ironically, Dr. Singh?s position is similar to that of his predecessor. ?Vajpayee should not have gone to Lahore?. ?Vajpayee should not have invited Musharraf to Agra?. ?Having invited Musharraf to Agra, Vajpayee should not have let him go without an anti-terrorism commitment?. ?Vajpayee should not have mobilised the army after the attack on parliament?. ?Having mobilised the army, Vajpayee should not have tamely pulled it back?. And now Dr. Singh is faced with the same intractable problems that his predecessor had to deal with and he is bombarded with similar inane drivel.The parallels are uncanny and eerie.
Let?s look at the position of an Indian PM. We live in a failed, failing, dangerous neighbourhood. Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan are hardly the exemplars of stable, successful countries. Pakistan, in particular gives headaches not only to India but to the whole world (I did not say so, a senior official belonging to Pakistan?s great ally for fifty-five years, the US of A has said so!). Pakistanis (and here I include not just rabid religious fanatics, but many Pakistanis with posh Oxbridge accents) claim that they are threatened by India. Why India would want to invade Pakistan and take on the myriad problems of that unhappy land puzzles me no end. And yet, we are told that enough smart Pakistanis (and not-so-smart, but voluble Pakistani TV anchors) seem to believe this. They believe that we want to dismember Pakistan. Repeated statements that a stable and united Pakistan is in India?s interests are rejected out of hand. We don?t even know how to spell the names of different Baluchi, Brahui, Waziri and Masudi tribes. Why would we want to support their demands for freedom, secession or whatever other heady potion that they crave? Not only would we need multiple ambassadors, embassies and policy non-papers, we would actually have to worry about multiple versions of the LET and sundry Mujahideen. Every right-thinking Indian must shudder even thinking of this remote possibility. I am increasingly getting convinced that there is nothing we can do or say that will convince a large number of influential Pakistanis and even larger numbers of their sullen fellow-citizens that we do not threaten them, but wish them well?or at least as well as we can given their childish hostility to us. Beyond a point, it is a waste of our time and energy to try to understand psychotics. Let them utter whatever gibberish they wish to. This is precisely what Dr. Singh did when he told them that they could make reference to Baluchistan if they wish. Go ahead; be my guest. But like Gladstone who felt sorry for Armenians, but who was willing to do no more than pray for them, Manmohan Singh too just might remember Baluchis in his prayers. He is not going to do much more?he has made that quite clear. He has indulged Pakistan as one would a tiresome child. He is therefore quite sensible in letting them write what they want and carrying on with furthering our own agenda irrespective of their concerns.
There is a small but growing segment of Pakistanis who want to conquer India. They see this as a ?re-conquest??a religious pursuit where the other intended victims are Spain, Bulgaria and so on. While it is unlikely that these people will be successful, at least in the foreseeable future, the fact is that in the interim they can create a lot of mischief and trouble. They can send in terrorists; they can instigate silly young men in India to turn to terrorism and so on. Again, there is not much we can do apropos of these nut-cases. We have to improve our security procedures and remain vigilant. And yes, we can stop goading young Indian Moslems into becoming sympathetic with this point of view by clamping down on communal riots, by assuring them physical safety and by repeatedly pointing out to them that they have better prospects and chances for personal fulfilment in India. These are matters internal to us.
Dr Singh is correct in shrugging his shoulders, giving Pakistan the benefit of doubt taking them at face value when they claim that they will come down hard on terrorism. The reference to Reagan?s trusting but verifying dictum is not accidental. In another context, Cromwell had said that faith does not mean that we don?t keep our gunpowder dry.
I once met a Pakistani diplomat who had a fairly sophisticated demeanour. He was completely taken aback when I told him that I had not the slightest sentimental attachment to Sufi music, Urdu ghazals or even the remotest desire to visit Lahore. If their English-speaking elite leadership does not get it, how can the crazy religious fanatics in their midst? The fact of the matter is that there is nothing any Indian PM can do that is right vis-a-vis Pakistan. We cannot go to war because of the restraint imposed by nuclear weaponry. We cannot have peace because they don?t want it. We can talk in Lahore, in Agra, in Sharm-el-Sheikh or anywhere else. But don?t expect any miracles?positive or negative. We must trundle on. It?s so much smarter to focus on our domestic security, economy, education, health care etc. And that is precisely what I hope Dr Singh will continue to do.
The author divides his time between Mumbai, Lonavla and Bangalore