Pak-Bharat meet: Will Singh use another "Shivaji dagger during embrace"?

Posted on 12 July 2009. Tags: dialogue, India, Pakistan

The last time Prime Minister Singh met President Zardari, he started the meeting with a very strange sentence. The undiplomatic language displayed hubris, vacuity of ideas, uncivilized behaviour, and a total lack of understanding of the situation in South Asia.

Manmoahan Singh’s Shivaji attack during an embrace.

The white dowager’s brown servant delivered the Brahmin message in the manner it had been scripted. The way Mr. Manmohan Singh greeted Mr. Asif Zardari not only shocked the demure Mr. Zardari, the rudeness has reverberated beyond the Urals, down the Himalayas to the Sea of Karachi. The entire planet knows that Mr. Singh is a seat warmer for the younger Gandhi the real power and the Premier in waiting. Everyone knows that “monkey say monkey do” is the culture of the Rashpati Bhavan where bags of money decide “elections”. The world heard the puppet Prime Minister regurgitate what the Sonia and the Nehru clan had told him to say. Like a juvenile toddler in his terrible two’s Mr. Singh was seen as a spoilt toddler jumping up and down complaining after he has lost his favorite teddy. The temper tantrum impressed no one. Perhaps Mr. Singh has gone senile and forgot where he was. The septugarian Premier was behaving as if he was showing up at a schoolyard brawl after being told by the headmistress to repeat a certain line. It was seen for what it was worth, “Complaint diplomacy” at its worst.

‘I am happy to meet you but my mandate is to announce that the territory of Pakistan must not be used for terrorism,’

MUMBAI (Reuters) – A meeting of the prime ministers of India and Pakistan on the fringes of the Non-Aligned Movement Summit this week could set the stage for a dialogue between the rivals that was stalled after last November’s attack in Mumbai.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani will meet in Sharm-el-Sheikh in Egypt after their foreign secretaries have talked.

While their talks will be focused on Pakistani action with regard to the attacks in Mumbai that killed 175 people, the leaders may leave the door open to resumption of dialogue, especially with Singh back in power for a five-year term. Reuters. Pakistan, India meet may lead to dialogue Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:20pm EDT. Pakistan to put Mumbai attack suspects on trial, 11 Jul 2009By Rina Chandran. (Editing by Jeremy Laurence)

There are fault lines between the Hindu Muslim ecumenical harmony. No where are the fault lines sharper than in the discussion of the protagonists in Battle of Pratapgarh fought on November 30, 1659. The battle was fought between the Mughal forces and the renegades who were against the state. To say the very least the controversial Shivaji is not considered a person of any high reputation by contemporary historians. Secular Indian consider is just a battle between two armies, however the Hinduvata consider is a battle between Muslims and Hindus.

The Mughal forces were of course a huge conglomeration of Sikh, Marhatta, Rajput, Hindu, Muslim, and other forces. In fact one of Aurenzeb’s disowned sons who did not succeed in overthrowing the king was part of the Shivaji army.

Credible historians agree on these facts which are not in dispute.

Facing a huge Mughal Army Shivaji sent a letter saying he was not eager to face Afzal Khan in battle, and he wanted a negotiated settlement.
Facing imminent defeat by the overwhelming Mughal force Shivaji decided to meet Afzal Khan under the guise of diplomatic negotiations.
Afzal Khan, after leaving Bijapur wanted agreed to meet Shivaji in an open ground without arms and under normal diplomatic norms of peace and honesty.
Face to face diplomacy was considered a matter of integrity for the Mughals.
A meeting was arranged between Afzal Khan and Shivaji at the foothills of Fort Pratapgad.
A wanted criminal, Shivaji was was not greeted with a rainfall of arrows and was not attacked by 25 Mughal soldiers. He was accorded safet.
Afzal Khan had a large physical stature leading a battle hardened veteran army. He considered this assignment as a small matter of stamping out a pesky regional chieftain who was physically weak and in to position to fight the mighty Mughal Army.
Shivajiprepared carefully and diligently for this encounter; he secretly armed himself with sharp metal razor weapon called wagh nakh (tiger claw), and chilkhat (armour) prior to the meeting.
Afzal Khan embraced him before the commencement of supposed negotiations
During the embrace Shivaji surreptously attacked AfzalKhan with the “wagh nakh” and “bich’hwa”, spilling his blood and entrails on the ground.

Mr. Singh’s statement was akin to the Shivaji embrace and will be remembered as such for a very long time.

“Now that the Congress party-led coalition has come back, Singh is unlikely to feel the need for maintaining the hardline position that he adopted (before the election) on the composite dialogue,” said B. Raman at the South Asia Analysis Group.

“The question is no longer whether it will be resumed, but when and how it will be projected,” he said.

Pakistan has been pushing for the resumption of the five-year-long peace talks broken off by India after the Mumbai attacks, which India blames on Pakistan-based militants.

Peace between the two nuclear-armed rivals had helped boost bilateral trade to over $1 billion, encouraged cross-border bus and train services, and eased visa restrictions for travel.

Fresh from his meetings in Italy with leaders of the G8, Singh, who has said he was willing to meet Pakistan “more than half way” if it cracked down on militants, will be keen to bring home some progress on Pakistan, as well.

“We will do all that is necessary to resolve all outstanding issues that have bedeviled India’s relations with Pakistan,” Singh said en route from Italy after the G8 summit.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s planned visit to India later this month could prompt Singh to make a gesture.

The United States is keenly interested in resumption of talks between the two countries to ease tensions on Pakistan’s eastern border with India, so it can focus on fighting Taliban militants on its western border with Afghanistan.

“Singh would find it difficult to reject suggestions from the U.S. for a political gesture to Islamabad by way of a resumption of the composite dialogue,” Raman said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chODE9wfCWo&feature=player_embedded

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chODE9wfCWo&feature=player_embedded]

EXTRA MILE

The meeting in Sharm-el-Sheikh will be the third high-level bilateral talks since the November attacks: Singh met Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari at a regional summit in Russia last month, and the foreign ministers met recently in Italy.

India has demanded Pakistan bring to book members of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) group that it blames for the Mumbai attack, and that it dismantle the infrastructure that supports groups like the LeT and the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD).

Pakistan is keen to show it is making an effort: on Saturday, the interior minister said they had “gone the extra mile” to complete their investigations into five suspects accused of involvement in the Mumbai attacks.

The suspects, including Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, an LeT commander accused of masterminding the Mumbai attacks, are expected to go on trial this week.

“In the best case scenario, Pakistan has perhaps finally recognized that a policy of fighting some terrorists, while harboring others, is only hurting its own interests,” said Lisa Curtis, a research fellow at Washington’s Heritage Foundation.

But it would be foolhardy to rush into dialogue, she warned.

“Pushing for a resumption of peace talks without concerted action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks could well embolden groups like LeT to up the ante,” she said. Reuters. Pakistan, India meet may lead to dialogue Sat Jul 11, 2009 10:20pm EDT. Pakistan to put Mumbai attack suspects on trial, 11 Jul 2009By Rina Chandran. (Editing by Jeremy Laurence).

The Cadet College bred Mr. Zardari who has spent a decade in prison knew quite well how to respond to the rudeness and cheap shots. He bit his lip and didn’t vocalize what he really wanted to say “Same applies to you m*******” scu*** b***, or “this coming from a sorry exscuse of a puppetwho has stopped our water‘, “don’t try to obfuscate your support for the terrorirsts, just call the dogs off in Swat“, ”if you came out of your Ashram you would see that Paksitan soldiers are fighting your terrorists in Swat” or “we know how you are supplying the BLA“, or “we still remember your Mukti Bahni”, or “you should stick to what you do best ’seat warming‘…or a host of other thoughts which went through his mind, which even we can’t pen down.

Mr. Zardari didin’t do the obvious “eenth ka jawab pathar seh“. He took the Sindhi route. He knew Mr. Singh was playing for the peanut gallery. Mr. Zardari smiled knowingly, and then showed his personal hospitality and stature by waving his hand and showing Mr. Manmohan Singh the way towards the sitting room.

As he was walking to his seat Mr. Zardari must have had empathy for the old man in front of him. Gurmukh Singh and Amrit Kaur would be really disappointed in you Mr. Singh. Seems like you your Oxbridge education has been wasted. Your birthplace in the heartland of hospitality of Gah (Chakwal District), of Pakistani Punjab surely disowns you for good reason. You have no manners. Mr. Zardari’s snicker was worth a thousand pages. He too was warming the seat for a younger prince, but at least, he was doing it for his own flesh and blood, not for a half breed from Italy.

Mr. Zardari for all his faults and weaknesses, has a strength, he stays cool a cucumber. By ignoring the claptrap, Mr. Zardari exposed the shallowness of Mr. Singh’s personality. Mr. Zardari’ mature sagacity overwhelmed the cheap crack that Mr. Singh was told to deliver. On further analyzing the rehearsed, cryptic and terse statement of Mr. Singh, one can see the frustration felt by Bharat who was told by Mr. Obama to withdraw troops from the Pakistani border and shut down the Bharati consulates in Afghanistan or at least pare them down. The world is not buying Delhi’s script on Mumbai, and the entire world has told Delhi that it doesn’t need dozens of Consulates in Afghanistan. Mr. Singh’s “complaint diplomacy” hasn’t worked with China and hasn’t worked with the USA. What makes him think that it will work with Pakistan. His wailing is alike a boy, calling wolf all the time, is now seen in diplomaticd circles as a personal weakness– his hollow public posturing has been a disgusting failure.

Of course the drama and feigned tight lipped smiles were for the cameras, but no one was fooled. it was obvious that the US State Department had brought Mr. Singh to the negotiating table, not kicking and screaming, but certianly with an arm twisted behind his back.

Mr. Zardari did not want to be seen as the spoiler. The world wanted Bharat and Pakistan to be all “lovy dovey”. If this gets the Bharati army out of Kashmir, one can bear the unpleasantness of shaking hands of slimy characters. His attitude was “whatever“. If I have to take a shower afterwards, so be it, but I won’t show my disgust at shaking the hands of Mr. Singh–at least not in public.

Once in the privacy of his own quarters, away from the earshot, Mr. Zardari made it very clear to the Premier that this public posturing needs to be matched with concrete steps on the ground. He reinforced what Mr. Obama had written to Mr. Singh. “Stop the nefarious activities being carried out by the Bharati Consulates in Afghanistan”.

The Pakistani reporters all over the world are in total shock at the attitude of the Bharati (aka Indian) Premier. In the interests of diplomacy, the Pakistani team didn’t pay Mr. Singh in kind. Pakistan seeks peace with India as an equal partner, not as a reward for good behaviour

“Foreign Minister denied that Singh’s tough words set the meeting off on a negative front, according to Reuters, saying ‘I would look at it differently, I think it is a positive development the fact that the two leaders are meeting for the first time, on the sidelines of the SCO summit, since the tragic Mumbai incident. I think it is a positive development.’Dawn/Agencies/AFP

The rudeness meant for public consumption was indeed a reaction to the strong pressure placed on Delhi for the resumption of the fruitless talks. This is Lucknow and obviously Mr. Singh doesn’t have pre-requisites to be treated like a gentleman. No one understand why the Pakistani attitude was defensive and apologetic. Appeasement doesn’t get peace. Kowtowing doesn’t end war. Mr. Mahmud Qureshi has to take some pills to grow a backbone or the Pakistanis will find someone who has grit and steel.

The foreign minister went on to tell APP that the two sides had agreed to talks between the foreign secretaries of the two countries, saying ‘In the meeting, Pakistan would apprise India about the steps it took against terrorism and would also discuss to address the Indian concerns in this regard.’

Peace is always in the mutual interest of parties tied up in conflict. One party does not do the other party any favors. It is the height of arrogance to convey the impression that peace talks are a reward for good behavior of one party. By portraying Pakistan as the guilty party, Delhi sabotages any prospect for peace. If the Americans and the Russians can smoke the peace pipe, so can the Indians and the Pakistanis–however it has to be done on the basis of dignity and mutual respect, not diktat and dictation.

It is obvious the US pressure has forced Delhi to withdraw its occupation forces from Kashmir. Delhi is chagrined that it had to comply to American “requests”, and it is now dramatizing this defeat by issuing strange undiplomatic statements.

Former senior diplomats close to the foreign policy establishment here say that back-channel negotiations on Kashmir — the contested border territory that is the central dispute between the two nations — are set to begin again, something the United States has quietly urged.

Such behind-the-scenes talks came close to reaching a blueprint of an agreement on the decades’ old dispute while Gen. Pervez Musharraf was Pakistan’s president... New York Times

Even the New York Times, known for its Anti-Pakistan stance acknowledged, though begrudgingly admitted the failure of the Bharati “Complaint diplomacy”. Of course one could never expect an unbiased article from Sengupta but it does have kernels worth mentioning.

“Quarrels with Pakistan limits perceptions of India outside,” said Salman Haidar, a retired Indian diplomat and a former foreign secretary, the highest civil service post in the diplomatic service. “It makes India look stuck. It’s not floating.”Lydia Polgren, Somini Sengupta, Published: June 16, 2009. Hint of a Thaw for India and Pakistan

Mr. Singh has failed in all his efforts to isolate Pakistan. Instead of isolation, the US actually tripled its aid to Pakistan. The entire Bharati establishment was in high gear trying to portray Pakistan as a fountain of terror. The world rallied around Pakistan with arms and money to overcome the TTP. Sonia and gang wanted an embargo on Islamabad, China, Iran, the US and now even Russia is sending arms and equipment to the Pakistan army. The abject failure of diplomacy got Pranab Mukherjee fired. Now, Mr. Singh will be going soon too. This cartoon caricature defines Mr. Singh very concisely.

Still others are wary that it will make India look as though it is bending to American pressure…

William Burns last week nudged New Delhi by resurrecting Kashmir in his public remarks, saying that the wishes of the Kashmiri people should be taken into account in any settlement. This has long been United States policy, but any hint of interference by outside parties in what India sees as an internal affair tends to raise hackles here.

Shamshad Ahmad, a former top Pakistani diplomat said that the meeting “breaks some ice,” adding that “this is only happening because of Washington’s pressure.”

Despite India’s growing ties with the United States, there is no agreement in India about the Obama Administration’s engagement with Pakistan. Some fear that while the United States is keen to defeat the Taliban on Pakistan’s western border, it may not be ready to do enough to staunch Lashkar-e-Taiba and similar Pakistan-based groups that specialize in anti-Indian attacks. Lydia Polgren, Somini Sengupta, Published: June 16, 2009. Hint of a Thaw for India and Pakistan

If Bharat wants peace with Pakistan, it has to dismantle the infrastructure of the RSS and the BJP and gag the Islamphobes that it nurtures within its borders. If Bharat wants peace it has to stop sabotaging Pakistan at all international forums, and begin supporting common and Pakistani causes. Jointly fighting for the Basmati patent, and IRRI copyright would help the atmosphere of friendship.

Pakistan wants all issues back on the table, including UN resolutions passed in 1948 giving Kashmiris the right to a plebiscite, which had been set aside by former President Pervez Musharraf in an effort to secure a peace deal with India. “Musharraf went beyond his mandate. How can he set aside the UN?” said Hasan. “He went rather overboard in offering that to India. The Indians should have grabbed it, but they didn’t.” Daily Times

The Bharti and Pakistan leaders were meeting on the sidelines of the G-8 summit. New Delhi which had tried to put on hold the so called five-year-old peace process. The so called peace process has ben long on talk and short on resutls, with Bharat using one excuse or the other not to resolve Kashmir, or withdraw its forces from Kargil, Sicahin, and Sir Creek. One of the excuses used was that Pakistan must act against against the Lashkar-i-Taiba militants which Bharat holds responsible for the Mumbai attacks. Pakistan has been asking for proff of these allegations which has not been provided.

The US has been instrumental in nudging Mr. Singh and his puppeteers in Delhi. Hillary Clinton will be visiting the area soon to consecrate the “composite dialogue” and a settlement of Sir Creek, Siahin, Water and Kashmir.

US pressure has already begun paying dividends and a significant change in the Indian mood vis-à-vis ties with Pakistan is noticeable. Recent statements by Indian leadership including those by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, President Pratibha Patil and Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna are indicative of a shift in the Indian position.

Diplomats say there is a growing realization in Delhi as to how long it could sustain the policy of not talking to Islamabad particularly in the backdrop of the fact that the desired objectives of the talks’ suspension have not achieved their objectives and were rather hurting India’s own regional interests.

Besides, diplomats believe that India is cognizant of growing US pressure for the resumption of the peace process, and wants strained relations to start returning to normalcy soon, because it would not like the normalization to be perceived as a Washington driven initiative. Dawn

There is much in common between India and Pakistan, but there is much that separates the countries. Mere cultural affinity and anathema to religion cannot wish the differences away. Bharat must recognize that Pakistanis do not see Delhi as the perfect model to emulate on anything. Therefore Delhi must stop wishing for a Pakistan in its own image. There are many routes to success, and Pakistanis admire the Chinese a lot more than they admire Indians. The Pakistani world is asking. Why meet in Egypt if the Bharatis have forgotten their manners.

The statements emanating out of Delhi seem to suggest that Bharat (aka India) will begin talks about peace with Pakistan if this, that, or the other happens. This is the typical Bharati arrogance that keeps both countries embroiled in perpetual enmity. India, come what may, cannot dictate its terms to Islamabad. If Bharat wants peace in the Subcontinent, it has to change its attitude towards all her neighbors–Nepal, Lanka, Bhutan, Sikkim, China, Bangladesh and Pakistan. While the other states may accept some bullying from Delhi, China and Pakistan will not. In the light of the Nuclear factor, Delhi cannot out stare Islamabad.

Speaking yesterday, Zardari reiterated the need for better communication and cooperation within the region, saying ‘I think what is missing in this war … is that the neighbours haven’t been involved, the region has not been involved’.Agencies/AFP/Dawn

Delhi has to tone down its rhetoric on terror. Islamabad and the world knows who is behind the TTP in Swat. If Delhi wants peace with Pakistan, it has to pull back in Afghanistan and Swat. It has to make major territorial concessions in Kashmir and the border areas. Once the border disputes have been resolved, the sky is the limit in cooperation with Pakistan. Sir Creek and Siachin have to solved and resolved quickly. Once Kashmir is resolved in accordance with the UN resolutions and the wishes of the Kashmiri people, the Pakistan government will find to problem in helping Bharat gain trans-national travel through Pakistan. However this has to be on a mutual basis which would allow Pakistani truck to reach Lanka, Nepal and Bangladesh. Bharat must live up to the letter and the spirit of the Indus Water treaty and begin treating Pakistanis are friends rather than enemies. A positive development was the supportive statments by the Russian president.

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev reiterated this at a meeting with Zardari, saying that ‘we are ready for cooperation with Pakistan in all aspects of the fight against terrorism,’ urging better economic ties with the country viewed in Moscow as a US ally. ‘We think it is important that the situation in the region becomes calmer and healthier,’ he added. ‘I this will help … to preserve Pakistan as a single and strong state.’

It is not Delhi’s god given right to rule Kabul. Nor does Bharat extend from Kabul to the Raj Kalhani in the East. Bharati religions preach the eternal history of Bharat beyond its borders. If Bharat is a secular country then this transnational dreams of a greater Bharat must be brought back to reality. Every time Adhvani and Modi open their mouths, peace is sent back a decade.. Mr. Singh had earlier kept up his mantra on terror.

‘The spectre of terrorism, extremist ideologies and illicit drug trafficking haunts our region. Terrorist crimes committed today are transnational in nature,’ Singh said in the text of the speech, which was given to reporters. He added that ‘it is imperative that we genuinely cooperate with one another and on a global scale to resolutely defeat international terrorism.’

There are many types of peace. It is obvious that India has neither the capacity nor the wherewithal to impose peace of the sort that exists between the Native Americans and the US government. India is not Israel and Pakistan is not the Gaza strip. If Israel with all its might could not force an unequal peace on unequal partners (Syria, Palestinians and Lebanon) it is also very obvious that Delhi cannot impose peace on Pakistan the same way. Bharat could not break up Lanka and make it Kowtow to Bharat. It cannot force Pakistan. It has to woo Pakistanis if she wants peace on her Western borders.