Nawaz Sharif likes to be seen as a man of peace. But the recent attack in which five Indian soldiers were killed on the Line of Control and the latest terror threat from across the border send out a different message. Rajiv Dogra, former ambassador and India's last Consul General to Karachi, speaks with Veenu Sandhu about whether India should trust the Pakistani prime minister and the damage which defence minister A K Antony's statement on the LoC deaths has done
What do you make of the defence minister's statement that the ambush on the Line of Control, in which five Indian soldiers were killed, was carried out by "terrorists along with persons dressed in Pakistani army uniforms"?
Any statement made by a defence minister is read carefully and analysed in detail by people within and outside the country. This is specially so in an accident-prone relationship like that between Pakistan and India. In this case (the first statement by the defence minister), we scored a self-goal.
The international community is also listening to this message. What we have done is put an element of doubt in their minds about whether Pakistan was actively involved in this incident or whether this act was committed by non-state actors.
As for Pakistan, it is obviously delighted that it has gotten away with murder again. Pakistan has been in denial from 1947, right through the Kargil war and 26/11. With such a message coming out of India, Pakistan cannot ask for a better PR victory.
In response to the attack, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has said that it is imperative to restore ceasefire on the Kashmir border and that he is looking forward to his scheduled meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New York next month. Your thoughts.
If you read his statement carefully, it becomes clear that Nawaz Sharif's message to the world is that "I am above all this. I am a man of peace." Another aspect of his statement is to apportion the blame for ceasefire violations equally between India and Pakistan. Then he goes on to say that he is ready to do everything to restore peace. Obviously, it is cleverly drafted statement; short, crisp and pitched perfectly to grab attention in this Twitter generation. Pakistan emerges as much a victim here.
Sharif is obviously looking forward to a meeting in New York with the United Nations as a backdrop. It should suit him perfectly.
Sharif is being viewed as a comparatively moderate leader from Pakistan. But can India trust him?
Sharif likes to call himself 'Sher-e-Punjab'. After the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, he wasn't averse to being referred to as 'Fateh Kabul'. Yet, he manages to convey the impression that he is a man of peace; a 'dove' really. So there is a chameleon-like tinge to his personality.
Perhaps, that's why his own army chief doesn't feel comfortable about him. This much becomes clear from the cables given out by Wikileaks. In a round of meetings with the then US ambassador Anne Patterson in March 2009, Kayani made it evident that he did not want Sharif in power. "Regardless of how much he disliked Zardari, he distrusted Sharif even more," the cable said.
Since Sharif came to power for the third time, infiltration has increased, the incidents of terror have not reduced and two major incidents of ambushing our soldiers have taken place. One happened only a few weeks ago when eight soldiers were killed in J&K. There are also indications that the Sharif government wishes to internationalise the Kashmir issue. If India still wants to trust Sharif, then that's a different issue.
In this environment of mistrust, should India be talking to Pakistan?
We have diplomatic relations. So we are talking all the time. Even the two director generals of military operations talk. Official-level talks should also be held. But for each round of talks, we should have a game plan, a set of objectives that we should achieve. That's how the Pakistanis operate.
If your question refers to the summit-level talks, well, we should consider them if we are confident that they would lead to a step forward, and not just to a propaganda victory for one side. Incidentally, there have been over a dozen meetings between our PM and his Pakistani counterpart since 26/11.
What do you make of the defence minister's statement that the ambush on the Line of Control, in which five Indian soldiers were killed, was carried out by "terrorists along with persons dressed in Pakistani army uniforms"?
Any statement made by a defence minister is read carefully and analysed in detail by people within and outside the country. This is specially so in an accident-prone relationship like that between Pakistan and India. In this case (the first statement by the defence minister), we scored a self-goal.
More From This Section
The people of India were confused as to how our authorities were able to identify that the perpetrators were terrorists in Pakistan army uniforms. And how did they decide that those dressed as civilians weren't, in fact, Pakistan army men? Is it not possible that all of them were actually army men who were dressed differently? So, this hurry to give a good character certificate to Pakistan army was perplexing.
The international community is also listening to this message. What we have done is put an element of doubt in their minds about whether Pakistan was actively involved in this incident or whether this act was committed by non-state actors.
As for Pakistan, it is obviously delighted that it has gotten away with murder again. Pakistan has been in denial from 1947, right through the Kargil war and 26/11. With such a message coming out of India, Pakistan cannot ask for a better PR victory.
In response to the attack, Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has said that it is imperative to restore ceasefire on the Kashmir border and that he is looking forward to his scheduled meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New York next month. Your thoughts.
If you read his statement carefully, it becomes clear that Nawaz Sharif's message to the world is that "I am above all this. I am a man of peace." Another aspect of his statement is to apportion the blame for ceasefire violations equally between India and Pakistan. Then he goes on to say that he is ready to do everything to restore peace. Obviously, it is cleverly drafted statement; short, crisp and pitched perfectly to grab attention in this Twitter generation. Pakistan emerges as much a victim here.
Sharif is obviously looking forward to a meeting in New York with the United Nations as a backdrop. It should suit him perfectly.
Sharif is being viewed as a comparatively moderate leader from Pakistan. But can India trust him?
Sharif likes to call himself 'Sher-e-Punjab'. After the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, he wasn't averse to being referred to as 'Fateh Kabul'. Yet, he manages to convey the impression that he is a man of peace; a 'dove' really. So there is a chameleon-like tinge to his personality.
Perhaps, that's why his own army chief doesn't feel comfortable about him. This much becomes clear from the cables given out by Wikileaks. In a round of meetings with the then US ambassador Anne Patterson in March 2009, Kayani made it evident that he did not want Sharif in power. "Regardless of how much he disliked Zardari, he distrusted Sharif even more," the cable said.
Since Sharif came to power for the third time, infiltration has increased, the incidents of terror have not reduced and two major incidents of ambushing our soldiers have taken place. One happened only a few weeks ago when eight soldiers were killed in J&K. There are also indications that the Sharif government wishes to internationalise the Kashmir issue. If India still wants to trust Sharif, then that's a different issue.
In this environment of mistrust, should India be talking to Pakistan?
We have diplomatic relations. So we are talking all the time. Even the two director generals of military operations talk. Official-level talks should also be held. But for each round of talks, we should have a game plan, a set of objectives that we should achieve. That's how the Pakistanis operate.
If your question refers to the summit-level talks, well, we should consider them if we are confident that they would lead to a step forward, and not just to a propaganda victory for one side. Incidentally, there have been over a dozen meetings between our PM and his Pakistani counterpart since 26/11.