Ignoring the bit about terrorism ‘emanating from India’s neighbourhood’, Pakistan should find nothing vexatious about the statement.

Shorn of diplomatese, it repeats the two countries’ known positions on a wide variety of issues, and pledges cooperation on matters ranging from terrorism and non-proliferation to defence, transfer of technology and trade.

What needs to be noted, however, is President Obama’s appreciation of India’s role in Afghanistan’s reconstruction. This simplistic view of a complex situation ignores the fact that nowhere in the world is the zero-sum game more in evidence than in the Indo-Pakistan relationship.

President Dawood Khan of Afghanistan wanted to make his future by taking over Pakistani territory with the help of India. Delhi supported him. Afghan government recently made a brief announcement that the dead bodies of former president Dawood Khan, who overthrew the kingdom in a bloodless coup and took over as the first president of Afghanistan thus turning it into a republic in 17 July 1973 – 27 April 1978 (Dawood Khan was a cousin of father of the nation ex-king Zahir Shah who ruled Afghanistan for fourty years). He was brutally murdered in the presidential palace and then burried in an unknown mass graveyard by the communist regime that overthrew him in a bloody coup in 1979 with the direct involvement of USSR

Forget India’s tacit support to President Dawood’s grandiose extraterritorial ambitions in the 1970s. Even today Indian intelligence agencies based in Afghanistan are believed to be helping insurgents in Balochistan.

In fact, Pakistan alleges, even in Fata. On Monday, a day before the White House talks, Mr Singh told the Council of Foreign Relations that India was willing to enter into negotiations with Pakistan on all issues, including Kashmir, provided — and he went on to give three conditions without which talks with Islamabad were not possible.

These were ‘a break with the past, abjure terrorism and come to the table with good faith and sincerity.’ These terms are a continuation of India’s post-Mumbai policy to dodge talks with Pakistan, because none of the conditions attached by Mr Singh can be proved demonstrably to have been met.

Mr Singh had also repeated this ‘offer’ during a visit to occupied Kashmir. All reasonable elements in Pakistan roundly condemned the Mumbai attacks as an act of madness.

But it is difficult to understand how India’s continued refusal to talk helps its security. The precarious situation in Afghanistan needs the cooperation of all sides to defeat terrorism and give peace to a country ravaged by war for three decades.

Pakistan has a vital role to play in the shaping of a more peaceful Afghanistan. This was recognised by the Bush and Blair governments, and more recently by several Obama administration officials, including Special Representative Richard Holbrooke and Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake.

Pakistan’s effort to crush the rebellion in Swat and the current operations in South Waziristan illustrate a change in its policy towards militancy.

Islamabad shouldn’t be distracted from this course. Regretfully, even a big and powerful India appears to think only its security concerns are legitimate.

And it is a manifestation of this belief that inhibits New Delhi’s ability to play a role in Afghanistan which can be viewed as positive by all stakeholders. A simplistic view, Friday, 27 Nov, 2009. // //