[DAWN] "IN the recent history of relations between India and Pakistain, it has seemed an immutable law: that any apparent political breakthrough will be followed by a terrorist atrocity in India blamed on agents of the Pakistain state." Further, "to call off the dialogue gives the Death Eaters what they want".This is what The Economist said a week after the terrorist attack on the air force base in Pathankot. There was a terrorist attack in Gurdaspur on 27 July last. It is all very reminiscent of the train blasts in Mumbai in July 2006 and the terrorist attacks in Mumbai on Nov 26, 2008.
The one common feature in all these outrages in the decade from 2006 to 2016 is that they were perpetrated in the phase when détente in the relations between India and Pakistain seemed promising.
There is, however, a marked difference between the reaction to the Pathankot incident and the one to the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The consensus is in favour of proceeding with that process while seeking redress for the wrongs; by making an end to terrorism the first item on the agenda of the talks.The most significant comment came from the moderate All Parties Hurriyat Conference headed by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq. "As we have seen in the past, whenever there is a serious effort made by India and Pakistain to resolve issues, incidents like this have taken place with the aim to derail the dialogue process. The elements who seek to vitiate the atmosphere and derail the dialogue process are working against the interest of the people of South Asia."
It urged the prime ministers "to carry forward and work together to try and rid the region of conflict and violence".
There are fundamental differences between the reactions to Pathankot and Mumbai. One is India's trust in Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif
... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf...
This explains India's Home Minister Rajnath Singh's statement on Jan 12: "The Pak government has said it will take effective action. I think we should wait."
He referred to press reports of the government of Pakistain executing the arrest of some persons suspected of complicity in the Jan 2 attack and to the high-level team it had set up to look into the evidence given by the Indian government.
He pointedly said, "Since they have given an assurance to the Indian government, we don't have any reason to doubt them. We should wait for some time. There is no reason to distrust them as of now."
But this also raises expectations in India. If results are not forthcoming -- as in the Mumbai case -- the trust will be transformed into bitter disappointment. Diplomacy must work its way despite acts of terrorism.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi told his host at Lahore, on Dec 25: "Ab yahan aana jaana laga rahega" (Now there will be visits). Those who attacked the Pathankot air force base must be renewing their sordid resolve as doggedly.
Is it not time that a durable, effective mechanism against terrorism was devised, simultaneously with action against the culprits in Pakistain, for the countries to set in motion whenever the holy warriors launch an attack? Former prime minister Manmohan Singh and president
Pervez PervMusharraf
... former dictator of Pakistain, who was less dictatorial and corrupt than any Pak civilian government to date ...
had devised one at Havana in 2006 but it got nowhere for political reasons.
In 2008, the two countries came fairly close to evolving one on an ad hoc basis. Had it succeeded, it would have laid the basis for a permanent accord. Reportedly, when the two prime ministers spoke on the phone soon after the attacks, Manmohan Singh invited the director general of the ISI. This was agreed to but then the ISI objected.
The crucial question is the degree of cooperation in the investigation. SenÂding the intelligence chief was too much to expect of any state. Very soon after the announcement, it was clarified that someone of lower rank would go; the director general following him, if need be.