Spy vs spy?

If nothing else, India-Pakistan relations can never be dull. No sooner has the surprise Havana deal been concluded than comes the announcement from the Mumbai police that they have found a clear Pakistani hand in the blasts in that city's suburban trains on July 11 this year. India's new foreign secretary said immediately that Pakistan would have to come clean under the joint intelligence mechanism that was announced at Havana. Pakistan has responded predictably. Emboldened by the fact that India has not been able to arrest any Pakistani, its spokeswoman has called it propaganda. She also said that "joint mechanism or not", Pakistan had always wanted India to share the evidence in such cases. She went on to add that nobody would be handed over. That is, would-be and actual terrorists need not worry that Pakistan might cease to become a safe haven. There matters rest for the moment.

Many people have been unhappy with the Havana agreement. Before heading for the non-aligned meeting in the Cuban capital, the Prime Minister raised quite a few eyebrows (and some hackles) when he said that Pakistan was as much a victim of terrorism as India. That position, it seems, was the basis for the joint anti-terror mechanism being agreed on. Critics argue that India has let Pakistan off the hook in return for nothing; and that the joint mechanism is like supping with the devil. Those in favour point to the several positive changes that Pakistan has made in recent years. It has given up demanding all of Kashmir, it has moved away from the stock position that UN resolutions of half a century ago must be implemented, and it has allowed progress on some non-core issues (like opening up people to people contact) so that the countries can begin the long journey to normalcy, even though it has got nothing substantive so far on Kashmir. Also, President Musharraf has been forced to become less intransigent""perhaps because he is under pressure on other fronts. The US is signalling a trust deficit with him, and his summit meeting with Afghanistan's President Karzai in Washington did little to improve relations between the two countries. In other words, there is merit in engaging with Pakistan on as many fronts as possible. The joint mechanism may not achieve everything that India hopes it will, but it might well prevent catastrophic acts of terrorism, such as a nuclear device being set off in India.

The question now is whether the Havana initiative will be allowed to go forward. If nothing much is expected from it, there may be no harm in such contact, which, as a wag said, could be called the Track III initiative. On the other hand, if this joint anti-terror mechanism is the logical outcome of India conceding that Pakistan is also a co-sufferer at the hands of terrorists, it will be asked: how can the ISI run with the hares and hunt with the hounds? Assuming that the Prime Minister is more inclined towards a "Let's try it" approach, he would be well advised to explain to the country""not in a speech in the winter session of Parliament, which is several weeks away but right now""why he thinks this will work. The job of selling new ideas is his also, not that of his aides alone. And he can be quite a good salesman; recall how well he did when selling economic reforms as finance minister, not to mention the impact of his speech in Parliament in the summer on the nuclear deal with the US.