When diplomats say something, it is just as important to listen to what is left out. After Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Saarc leaders, foreign secretary Sujatha Singh read out a statement. It described what Mr Modi had said to various leaders he was meeting for the first time. To Bhutan’s leader he said India and Bhutan had “long-standing historical and cultural linkages”. To the leader of Mauritius, that there was a “special and unique relationship between India and Mauritius”, and that the two nations shared “history, common ancestry and kinship”.
Mr Modi said Nepal was a country “with whom Indian shared history, geography and ancient civilisational ties”. With Bangladesh he said India had “shared struggle, history, culture and language”. When Ms Singh read out the statement on Pakistan, there was no such reaching out or softening and no acknowledgement of shared cultural ties. Her statement began: “In his meeting with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, PM underlined our concerns relating to terrorism. It was conveyed that Pakistan must abide by its commitment to prevent its territory or territory under its control from being used for terrorism against India.”
To his credit, Mr Modi added that the two countries “could move immediately towards full trade normalisation on the basis of the September 2012 roadmap”. However, the threat of terror attacks disrupting ties was sounded out to Mr Sharif. India’s governments have long claimed that Pakistan has stoked violence in India, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir. The fact is however that militant violence, particularly of the Islamist sort, has all but ended in India.
Terrorist violence in Kashmir peaked in 2001, when 4,507 people were killed, including 1,067 civilians and 590 security forces personnel. Following the attack on India’s Parliament, President Pervez Musharraf committed to shutting down cross-border militant activity, and in early 2002 he banned four groups, including Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Since then violence in Kashmir has dropped down to its lowest since militancy began in 1990. In that year, 1,177 people were killed, including 862 civilians and 132 security forces personnel. The number of those killed rose every year and by 1996 (when Benazir Bhutto was in office for the second time) it stood at over 2,900. After Mr Musharraf took over, violence escalated and fatalities crossed 3,200 in the year 2000.
After the peak of 2001 and Mr Musharraf’s pledge, deaths have dropped every year. Data from former Punjab policeman K.P.S. Gill’s think tank shows that fatalities in J&K fell from 3,022 in 2002, to 2,542 (2003), to 1,810 (2004), to 1,739 (2005), to 1,116 (2006), to 777 (2007) to 541 (2008), to 375 (2009), to 375 (2010), to 183 (2011), to 117 (2012), to 181 (2013) and 59 this year of whom 37 were militants.
If we are to accept that Pakistan was responsible for producing most of this, we must also conclude that Pakistani effort is reducing it. The fact is that India has not properly recognised this effort from Pakistan, particularly under Mr Musharraf. Outside Kashmir there is very little Islamist violence in India. 2014 has so far seen only one death. In Pakistan, violence continues at high levels and 2013 saw 5,379 deaths and this year’s tally so far is 1,718.
Mr Modi also pressed Mr Sharif on the trial of the accused in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, and most observers will conclude that it is not going well. But Pakistan can also rightfully claim that India has been lax in prosecuting those who bombed the Samjhauta Express in 2007, killing over 60 people, mainly Pakistanis. The investigations, which seemed to be zeroing on a group linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, are going nowhere, to say nothing of the trial.
India should press with its outreach to Pakistan on trade and other fronts on the assumption that it is delivering on terrorism to the best of its ability. Certainly the results would show that clearly. The US pullout of Afghanistan and a looming Taliban takeover of the south of that country could change the situation in Pakistan and perhaps also in India. It is to the advantage of both nations that they quickly move ahead on normalising relations before that happens.
Aakar Patel is a writer and columnist
