Mumbai terrorist attacks: Suspects not known, but Delhi is certain peace talks with Pakistan will continue

New Delhi

14 July 2011

The latest serial blasts in Mumbai may or may not be the handiwork of Pakistani elements inimical to rapprochement with India, but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has made it categorical that peace talks with Pakistan will not be disrupted irrespective of its perpetrators or their motivations.

On the morning after the terror strike, he deployed two of his senior Cabinet colleagues, P Chidambaram and SM Krishna, to reassure an international audience, worried about the consequences of a downturn in India-Pakistan bilateral ties in the wake of another terrorist attack in Mumbai after 26/11, that he will stay the course on Pakistan.

Mr Krishna said that the blasts will have no impact on the talks with his Pakistan counterpart this month. Mr Chidambaram, in turn, said in Mumbai that while all hostile groups are suspects, he would not want to point a finger at any particular group just yet.

Their statements would have calmed fears somewhat, given the sentiment in a section of the international community that peace between Pakistan and India was a global imperative.

The degree of anxiety generated by the attacks could be gauged from a flurry of condolences from world leaders such as Asif Ali Zardari and Yousaf Raza Gilani of Pakistan, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of the US, Dmitry Medvedev of Russia, Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Stephen Harper of Canada, William Hague ofBritain, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd of Australia, the foreign ministries of Israel and Japan, and organisations such as the United Nations and the European Union.

However, domestic opinion was divided, with some Indians wondering whether relations with Pakistan had matured to the extent that one could begin to think in terms of moving away from presumption of guilt of elements hostile to the peace process. Also, some attempts to blame the Indian Mujahideen for the attacks were seen as a ruse to insulate New Delhi from criticism of its Pakistan policy.

At the same time, the government sought to defend itself by maintaining that there was nothing to be gained from fingerpointing, and, that its stand was in keeping with the spirit of Thimphu and Sharm-el-Sheikh.

Prime Minister Singh and his Pakistan counterpart, Yousaf Raza Gilani, had agreed in Thimphu in April 2010 that dialogue was the way forward. Since then, the foreign ministers and foreign secretaries of the two countries have met on several occasions.

At Sharm-el-Sheikh in July 2009, Singh and Gilani had agreed that action on terrorism should not be linked to the dialogue and the two should not be bracketed.

Further, it was pointed out that foreign secretary Nirupama Rao had recently said in aninterview to an Indian television channel that Pakistan's attitude towards tackling terrorism had "altered", and that its talk of tackling non-state elements was a "concrete development."

B Raman, a former official with the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India's external intelligence agency, noted that Pakistan "post-Abbottabad" was not the same as Pakistan pre-Abbottabad. There was an intense introspection regarding Pakistan's relations with the US, and,according to him, India has been a conceptual beneficiary of this introspection.

In an article he wrote before the latest Mumbai attacks, Mr Raman said:"The [language] is changing for the better, though one is not certain how long this would last. One could now sense a feeling of confidence in the Pakistani political leadership that less negative statements about India might have greater public support than in the past."

New Delhi's assertion, that talks with Pakistan will continue, could not have come a moment too soon for Mani Shankar Aiyar of the Congress party. Aiyar, a former diplomat and a former Union minister, may still not find a place in Prime Minister Singh's council of ministers but he has never tired of endorsing Mr Singh's hopes of ensuring that the peace talks with Pakistan become "uninterrupted and uninterruptible."

'26/11 was the low point of my stay in India'

The battle against terrorism will require concerted international action of all likeminded countries as it is a battle that we cannot afford to lose, says MARK SOFER, Israel's outgoing ambassador in New Delhi, as he prepares to leave India soon after spending four years here. In an interview to RAMESH RAMACHANDRAN, he talks of how the “dynamic“ relationship between the two countries “is now going places“. Excerpts:

Q: How would you describe the Israel-India relations today, and what are some of the high and low points of your tenure?

A: It is a relationship in motion, which started before I came of course, but clearly, it has an enormous dynamic of its own. If you look at the basic facts and figures, the bilateral civilian trade has reached $5 billion. We are working on a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Next year will be the 20th anniversary of the establishment of India-Israel relations, and, hopefully around that time we will be able to conclude the (FTA) negotiations. Some experts estimate that bilateral civilian trade will triple in the next three or four years, so we are talking $15 billion worth of civilian trade. And the trade is finely balanced in terms of imports and exports, and it will include such things as investment, services, and goods. In agriculture, a centre of excellence is already up and running in Karnal, Haryana; a second centre will open in Sirsa, also in Haryana; and a third probably will be in Nagpur in Maharashtra. We are also looking at Tamil Nadu. I mean — the sky is the limit. And, now we are embarking on a new negotiation process for an MoU (memorandum of understanding) in dairy farming, etc.

So, basically, in every field of human endeavour, this relationship is in a dynamic mode. It didn’t start with me and it won’t end with me; I am just in the middle of it. So this is a relationship that is going places. One of the real high points in my four years here has been the opening of the agricultural centre in Haryana. A vast population of India is dependent on farming. At the end of the day, embassies and countries interact to better the lives of their peoples, and if we can cooperate on the main issue which faces the Indian economy and social world, which is agriculture of course, this gives me the greatest pleasure. There is nothing more inspiring or heart-warming than seeing farmers from far and wide coming to look at Israeli technologies and incorporating them into their own smallholdings. We all like to deal with geostrategic issues, but, sometimes, it is these things, the nitty-gritty, that make a term of duty the beauty that it is.

If you ask me, it has been the most wonderful four years of my life working with the Indian government and people on not just issues related to West Asia but related to the welfare of people, such as water, alternative energy, agriculture, technology and industry. I think that there is no doubt in my mind that the low point of my stay here was the Mumbai attacks; of that there is no doubt. Our prayers are with the families of those Indians that were killed, but the Jewish people also were specifically targeted in that atrocity.

Q: How will the killing of Osama bin Laden affect the war on terrorism in general, and the situation in West Asia in particular?

A: The world is a better place now that Osama bin Laden is no longer with us. But does it mean the end of terrorism? Of course it does not. Other such fanatics will come out of the woodwork, they are already coming out of the woodwork, already planning new attacks. The way to tackle it is concerted unified international action of all like-minded countries. This is a battle that we cannot afford to lose.

Q: US President Barack Obama’s speeches on the West Asia peace process have not gone down well with the Israeli government. How do you see the Israel-Palestine peace process going forward?

A: This relationship is rock-solid. There is no rift. There are differences of opinion, which are natural; there are differences of opinion between friends and even inside a family. That is a normal process; so one should be careful not to over-dramatise it. If someone is trying to find fissures (between the United States and Israel), it will be very hard to find them, but that is not to suggest that we agree on everything. But, yes, we are at a crossroads. We do believe strongly in Israel that we urgently need to get back to the negotiating table. There is no point in putting preconditions down because if we all start doing that, then we are predetermining the outcome of the negotiations before they actually have taken off in any seriousness. So we really have a great deal of difficulty in understanding in all honesty why all of a sudden the Palestinian Authority has placed this condition or that condition. Second, this agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas is something that places us backwards. Hamas, in a way, is West Asia’s Al Qaeda. It is an extremist organisation dedicated to the eradication of the State of Israel and is anti-Semitic by its own charter and it has not moved one iota from the demands of the international community that it accept Israel’s existence, that it accept previous agreements reached between Israelis and Palestinians, and stop massacring people. I must stress that these are not conditions placed by Israel; these are placed by the Quartet, by the international community, on Hamas, and they have not met them. We do see in Mahmoud Abbas a serious and pragmatic partner, we do see in the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) an institution with which we can achieve peace, but we do not at this stage at all (visualise) the Hamas entering into that arena.

Q: How does Israel view the Palestinians’ move to seek a vote in the United Nations recognising Palestine as a sovereign country?

A: We, of course, disagree with it entirely. We don’t have dozens of countries that will support us. A former foreign minister of Israel, Abba Eban, has said that if Israel were to propose in the UN that the world was round, the UN will vote that it was flat. Anything [that is done] in the UN is a priori geared against Israel. We believe the way for the establishment of a Palestinian state should be through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, that is the way to move forward. Actually we are not that far apart: we both agree on a two-state solution. But, of course, the devil is in the details. A lot of discussion is necessary, and it is not going to be easy, but scoring points is not going to move forward any type of peace process in West Asia.

Q: How do you see the emergence of representative governments following the popular uprisings in Israel’s neighbourhood?

A: I think a moving away from authoritarian leadership towards democracy is almost automatically positive. It cannot be negative when people are able to find an expression of their views and freedoms that were denied to them. This has to be positive and I think there will be positive spinoffs as well.

Q: The US and the European Union have imposed further sanctions on Iran. How would you describe the current thinking in Israel on Iran?

A: There is a difference between the people of Iran and the regime, and one must make this distinction. It is so tragic that they have at the helm a leadership of hate, a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel, denying the Holocaust, striving for nuclear arms in order to carry out the destruction of the world’s only Jewish country. Why should we sit idly by when this is happening? And we won’t. The Jewish people have suffered throughout history at attempts to annihilate. Our supposed annihilators have always been annihilated. We will never lose in this struggle against those who would do us ill. When we say never again after the Holocaust, we mean never again. And when (Iran talks about) killing and murdering Israelis, it is something that we cannot of course take, and watch idly as it does this.

No Geronimo-like operation for India

New Delhi

4 May 2011

India has sought to put a lid on the debate about whether it can or should copy American-style surgical strikes or Israeli targeted assassinations to eliminate targets inside Pakistan by saying that it is an idea whose time may never come.

An official source says India would not want to emulate the US or Israel because one, India is not US, and two, India's relations with Pakistan are historically and qualitatively different from Washington's ties with Islamabad.

The source pointed out that India is conscious of the fact that while Pakistan may be a "foreign" country in the strict sense of the word, it was a "part of us", and it behoves India to take a sober and reasoned view of the relationship.

"It is easy to be hawkish on Pakistan but the story won't end [with the] capture of one or two [individuals]," the source said, before going on to emphasise that dismantling of the infrastructure of terrorism will require a change in Pakistan's mindset.

Further, the source noted, "[The] idea is not to bring Pakistan to its knees[.] It is not an exercise [in] retribution, [to] humiliate [Pakistan.]"

The remarks come at a time when some Indians, analysts and retired military officers included, are wondering why their country must not emulate the Americans and liquidate some of the most wanted fugitives from Indian law.

The chiefs of the Indian army and air force, too, have commented saying that the Indian armed forces were competent to carry out an Abbottabad-like operation, and that India was capable of taking out the 26/11 perpetrators inside Pakistan.

The source said that it was "logical to deduce" that many of the terrorists wanted in India for acts of terrorism were inside Pakistan, and acknowledged the "frustration" of many Indians at not seeing them brought to justice.

While India has "drawn a blank" insofar as the terrorists hiding in Pakistan were concerned, it has had some success in getting 16 or 17 persons deported from Dubai, it was pointed out.