** Wants policy of supporting Musharraf reviewed, more attention towards Nawaz than Benazir
- One ‘punitive step’ could be increasing engagement in Afghanistan and CARs*
*By Iftikhar Gilani
*NEW DELHI: After declaring a tough stance against Pakistan in the wake of the Mumbai serial blasts, the Indian establishment is now in a dilemma over what “punitive steps” to take against Pakistan.
Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh has made the job more complex after his return from the G-8 meeting. Although Dr Singh has said that there is a need to reflect on relations with Pakistan, he has made it amply clear to his officials that he does not want permanent hostility, a source told Daily Times on Wednesday. Therefore, while a repeat of Operation Parakaram in 2001, when India deployed thousands of troops along the LoC and western border, is being ruled out, Indian officials are considering a series of diplomatic and political responses to convey an anti-terrorism message “with full force and full determination”, the source added.
The source said the first step being deliberated is to review the policy of supporting President General Pervez Musharraf, who was seen as the best bet for peace by a sizable section within the government. Security advisers are now asking the government to pay attention towards the exiled political leadership of Pakistan, the source said, adding that the advisers are betting more on PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif than the vocal pro-India leader Benazir Bhutto.
The source said the most important “punitive step” India could take against Pakistan is increasing engagement in Afghanistan and Central Asian countries. India is thinking not only of increasing its military strength to neutralise Pakistan’s strategic depth in the region, but also increasing financial assistance and indulge in other social activities in countries surrounding Pakistan. A move is also being made to increase the staff strength at the Indian consulate in Jalalabad, the source added. Islamabad has accused the consulate in Jalalabad of “subversive activities” in Balochistan and “undue” interference in the political affairs of the Northern Areas. The source said that this step would force Pakistan to retain and increase its military presence along the 2,500-kilometre Afghan border. He added that Indian officials believed that Pakistan had earlier decided to withdraw troops from the border to press them into action in Balochistan.
While it is clear that there will be no immediate official engagement with Pakistan, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) believes that the government should continue talks with Kashmiri political parties and whichever Kashmiri militant organisations willing to talk. Ruling out any reduction in troops or counter-terrorism measures, officials are planning a three-pronged formula.
“Target militants with full force, take legal action against over ground workers (OGWs) who provide shelter and incite people to take out processions in favour of militants, and finally, address the ideology of radicalisation,” said a senior official. India is also encouraged at the world’s response, particularly the G-8 statement on the Mumbai blasts. “We would have taken a different stand if the world had treated Mumbai any different from London or Madrid,” officials said. They believe that world leaders have shown their readiness after the blasts to undertake all necessary measures to bring to justice the perpetrators, organisers and sponsors of terrorism.
Sources said that India hoped to build a campaign so that the world takes up the Dr AQ Khan issue besides sending stern reminders for restoration of democracy in Pakistan. Analysts in Srinagar, however, believe that the attacks have provided an excuse for India to delay negotiations on Kashmir. Kashmir’s ace political analyst and writer Tahir Mohuddin says that only a strained atmosphere could have provided India an excuse to withdraw from negotiations. Others believe that militancy increased after New Delhi rejected Musharraf’s proposals on Kashmir.
Pakistan, which was earlier relying on the Hurriyat and other pro-freedom groups, now has vocal supporters in two important pro-India political parties — the National Conference and the Peopless’ Democratic Party (PDP) — besides other smaller groups in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. These parties maintain that Musharraff’s proposals should have been considered. Most of these pro-India leaders had even warned that India’s refusal is inviting the revival of militancy.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006\07\20\story_20-7-2006_pg1_1
