PM meets Obama, airs fears over Pakistan’s refusal to punish the 26/11 accused
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met US President Barack Obama on the eve of the nuclear security summit in Washington on Sunday to air India’s apprehensions over Pakistan’s refusal to take action against those accused in the November 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, its determination to take the lead regional role in Afghanistan as well as Washington’s promised enhanced security assistance to Islamabad, but the complexity of the evolving situation in the Afghanistan-Pakistan (Af-Pak) region clearly prevented Obama from concretely addressing any of Delhi’s concerns.
Government sources on the phone line from Washington said the Prime Minister, in his 50-minute meeting with Obama, spoke with “considerable candour” about the above-named issues, as well as the need for Indian investigators to get access to David Coleman Headley, the suspect in the Mumbai terror attacks.
But despite the positive spin to the Obama-Singh meeting sought to be imparted by Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao in her briefing, the divergence between the two countries over Pakistan’s role in anti-India jihad, as well as its place in the Af-Pak region seemed increasingly clear.
Official sources put down the differences to Obama’s overwhelming need to maintain cordial ties with Islamabad, especially the Pakistan army, even as it realised that the army and its intelligence wing, the ISI, were playing a “double game” with the Taliban.
In her opening remarks to the press, Rao said in the PM’s meeting with Obama, “the activities of the Lashkar-e-Toiba and persons like Hafiz Saeed and Ilyas Kashmiri were also mentioned, as also the fact that unfortunately there was no will on the part of the government of Pakistan to punish those responsible” for the Mumbai terror attacks.
Rao, in fact, bluntly drew a line under the bilateral relationship, pointing out that cooperation on these fronts, between India and the US, “could make the difference”.
In fact, Pakistani media reports indirectly vindicated Rao’s remarks when they confirmed that Obama, in his meeting with Pakistan PM Yousuf Raza Gilani, did not name the LeT terrorists and their involvement in anti-India jihad.
The foreign secretary pointed out that Obama, in his reply to the PM, said “India had the goodwill and understanding of the United States in this regard (that is, on the LeT, Hafiz Saeed and Ilyas Kashmiri)….On India-Pakistan relations, President Obama said the US favoured the reduction of tensions between the two countries”.
Rao’s comments about Obama, especially on the need for India and Pakistan to get along, are, in fact, a hugely telling commentary on the Obama-Singh conversation. They are also in consonance with reports in the US media that Obama wants Delhi to assuage Pakistan’s insecurities so that Islamabad can play a more effective role in the war against terror on the Af-Pak frontier.
The Wall Street Journal, in a story last week, said that Obama issued a secret directive in December which “concluded that India must make resolving its tensions with Pakistan a priority for progress to be made on US goals in the region”.
In fact, Obama spent a large part of his Sunday meeting both Prime Minister Singh as well as Pakistan PM Gilani. The White House report on the Gilani-Obama meeting said the US President opened that conversation “by noting that he is very fond of Pakistan, having visited the country during college”.
In fact, Obama also condoled the twin bombings in Peshawar last week, on the US consulate as well as on a rally of the Pakistani Awami National Party, in which 46 people died, according to the White House statement. However, in the readout on the Singh-Obama meeting there was no mention of Obama’s grief over the Naxal massacre in Chhattisgarh last week in which 76 CRPF jawans were killed.
Rao, however, emphasised that the US President was “very appreciative” of the “sacrifices and contributions” India had made in Afghanistan and reiterated that the Obama administration was working the system on how best to provide access to David Headley.
However, the US side also held on to their own bottom line: Pakistani requests to the Americans to tell India to shut its consulates in Jalalabad and Kandahar in southern Afghanistan, have been turned down by the Obama administration.
But as India mounts pressure on the Headley issue with the US, the increasing divergence at home between the ministries of external affairs and home affairs on procedural questions of access are becoming clear. Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) sources expressed some concern that Home Minister P Chidambaram was openly talking about the various pros and cons around Headley, leading to a possible narrowing down of alternatives in questioning him.
The MEA sources pointed out that the US was in fact working “very closely” with India on access to Headley and had told New Delhi that it would be a good idea to also directly get in touch with Headley’s lawyer. “The very sensitive nature of the issue requires India to speak softly on this issue,” the sources said on condition of anonymity, implying that the home ministry could tone down its daily commentaries on the matter.
The government sources reiterated that Washington was deeply divided over US political and military strategy in the Af-Pak region, with Hilary Clinton’s State Department much more inclined to believe that Islamabad was playing a double game but the Pentagon much more willing to give the Pakistan army-led war on terror a much longer rope.
Pakistan has been pressing the US over the last few months to tell India to shut down its southern consulates, like it did in 2002, but the US, far more familiar with Pakistani army contacts with the Taliban, has refused to do so.
Naresh Chandra, a former ambassador to the US, told Business Standard that “India would have to lie low for some time,” as it was apparent that the US was far more dependent on the Pakistan army to fight the war against terror.
