India-Pakistan relations after Mumbai bombings

It was feared that someone might try to ruin the recent trend of improving relations by striking again in Mumbai.

Editorial July 16, 2011

Three bomb blasts took place in Mumbai on July 13, killing 21, but so far the India-Pakistan equation has not derailed. The recent trend of improving relations was positive for a change, and so it was feared that someone might try to ruin it by striking again in Mumbai. (We know that the last Mumbai attack was carried out to bring the two states to ‘border alert’, with the possibility of war.) This time, the post-attack symptoms are different. There was no media war as in 2008 — definitely not the finest hour of TV channels on both sides. The Indian official reaction was restrained and ‘suspected parties’ were not seen as coming from Pakistan. In India, once you locate the terrorists on Indian soil, the next thought is that RSJ/WIP/BJP extremism in Gujarat and elsewhere in India has finally caused many Indian muslims to redicalise.

Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram, anything but soft-spoken in the post-Mumbai period of 2008, has this time refused to bite the bait such as the one thrown by a New York Times story that the Pakistani military establishment was keeping in reserve an army of trained Kashmiri militants numbering 14,000 to be unleashed on India at a future date. His reaction was that it was “highly exaggerated”. Furthermore, one will have to say that he has been statesman-like in ignoring some of the assessments made by RAW that are even more lurid.

From the Pakistani side, an interesting ‘first’ was achieved this month when Prime Minister Gilani went to Mingora, Swat, together with army chief General Kayani, and pledged that his government would seek normalisation of relations with India. Everyone knows what was meant when the Indian prime minister said he hoped that Pakistan had forgotten about Kashmir. But Mr Gilani was undaunted. Before the Mingora overture, the chief of the ISPR had already signalled in his statement that the army would not mind if Pakistan pursued cooperation and trade with India, clearly hinting that the ‘conditionality’ of Kashmir was no longer so important.

The Mingora statement has been well-received in India. Mr Gilani said: “Pakistan views India as its most important neighbour and desires a sustained, substantive and result-oriented process of dialogue to resolve all outstanding issues, including the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir. We sincerely hope that the ongoing process of comprehensive engagement will be fruitful. However, India will have to play a more positive and accommodating role and respond to Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns”. Although, on the face of it, he yielded no new ground that would offend the serried ranks of anti-India lobbies in Pakistan, India has decided to glean positive meanings out of it.

The Indian position has been that it doesn’t want a seriously destabilised Pakistan on its western border. Pakistan has never recognised this, focusing instead on India’s acquisition of new weapon systems which it then assumes would be used offensively against Pakistan. Yet the fact is that the state that builds a ‘separating wall’ doesn’t want its neighbour undone, it wants to secure itself against the consequences of a disturbed population across the border, the kind Pakistan has had to suffer after the scattering of the Afghan population across the Durand Line. Additionally, the Manmohan doctrine — if one can call it that — holds that a pacified Pakistan next door is essential to India’s rise in the region as an economic power.

In Pakistan, economists have read the signals right but textbook nationalists have not. To fight the elements threatening its internal security, Pakistan needs to unplug from its hostile posture towards India, giving rise to ridiculous US-India-Israel conspiracy theories. It has to change its posture towards Afghanistan too, relying on a regional consensus after discussions with Iran and India by the end of the year. The Mumbai bombings will be investigated in the fullness of time and one should wish that no unsavoury revelations are made of the 2008 variety. This time, the peace process should win against the drums of war.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 17th, 2011.


A Hindustani | 11 years ago | Reply

I being ordinary citizen of india, can tell one thing. Time is running out for pakistan to make peace with india. I have been following the media and opinion of ordinary indian citizen. With each bomb attach and each passing year ordinary public opinion is getting harder and harder towards pakistan. Moreover PM like Manmohan Singh are not elected everytime. In the prevailing environment of distrust towards pakistan which is growing day by day, for any furture indian PM it will be very difficult to reach at any possible solution iwth pak. Pak common man is being thrown into this mess by people who were suppose to make their lives better. And the irony is, ordinary pakistani is still have no idea where they are being taken. Proxy wars have retuned to haunt ordinary pakistani only. May God give some wisdom to the rulers of pakistan.

harkol | 11 years ago | Reply


Think about it - Have you ever considered its moral righteousness has given you anything but the ruin?

Think about it - Has India launched even one war on Pakistan that wasn't initiated by Pakistan?

Think about it - Can you make the whole world follow your beliefs, and make enemies of all the rest who don't share your beliefs?

Think about it - Can religion be the foundation of a nation, when faith in religion is not rational, but just personal? Can nations be governed without rationality? Nations which have made best progress have done it only after they confined religion to personal domain (eg. US, China, Japan).

Think about it - If Shirk is an offense then would you also consider good number of Chinese your enemies?

Think about it - Is it a good idea to read only biased history, by some propagandist? If you read it you'll realize

Hyderabad was never a Muslim majority area. The Independence and division of British India was negotiated on the condition that only Monarchs of border states (like Kashmir) had the option to join either Pakistan or India. Hyderabad/Junagadh weren't border states. Kashmir king chose to join India.
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Most Read