All countries, with the possible exception of China and Turkey, find it difficult to work on their diplomatic relationship with Pakistan since Pakistan continues to be the world’s factory of extremist Islamist indoctrination and the nursery of jihadi terrorism. The US and India are in a particularly unenviable position in this regard — India on account of Partition and the subsequent history of wars which is admittedly leavened by all too brief interregnums of normality.
Given this background, it is not yet wholly clear if New Delhi would rupture the incipient dialogue process with Islamabad in the wake of the July 27 terrorist attack in Gurdaspur. The process, essentially involving at this stage explorations of the terms of re-engagement, began in the Russian city of Ufa just weeks ago when the PMs of the two countries met during the SCO summit.
They issued a positive joint statement and agreed that their national security advisers should meet soon to possibly prepare the ground for another meeting between them in New York when they both get there for the UN session in September. But, from the outside, the Ufa process seems hard to realise. The Pakistan NSA was forced to re-interpret the Ufa joint declaration in a way that negated the spirit of the meeting. A war of words followed between the two sides and exchange of fire began on the LoC. Behind the scenes efforts were clearly made to recover some lost ground with hints being given that the Pakistani NSA would visit New Delhi, after all, to prepare for the next meeting between the PMs.
And this is when Gurdaspur happened. The infiltration of the terrorists from Pakistan — who used armour-piercing bullets and doubtless had links with the military establishment — could have been a much worse affair if the bombs planted on the railway tracks were activated, and a bus not turned back from its destination in time. In his statement in Parliament, Union home minister Rajnath Singh squarely blamed Pakistan and promised an “effective response”. Pakistan retaliated with a sharply worded response but didn’t close the doors on dialogue.
So, what is India to do? The leadership should come from Modi who could use the floor of Parliament to affirm the inherent value that lies in not disrupting the diplomatic process while paying back violence.
