New Delhi
The latest serial blasts in Mumbai may or may not be the handiwork of Pakistani elements inimical to rapprochement with India, but Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has made it categorical that peace talks with Pakistan will not be disrupted irrespective of its perpetrators or their motivations.
On the morning after the terror strike, he deployed two of his senior Cabinet colleagues, P Chidambaram and SM Krishna, to reassure an international audience, worried about the consequences of a downturn in India-Pakistan bilateral ties in the wake of another terrorist attack in Mumbai after 26/11, that he will stay the course on Pakistan.
Mr Krishna said that the blasts will have no impact on the talks with his Pakistan counterpart this month. Mr Chidambaram, in turn, said in Mumbai that while all hostile groups are suspects, he would not want to point a finger at any particular group just yet.
Their statements would have calmed fears somewhat, given the sentiment in a section of the international community that peace between Pakistan and India was a global imperative.
The degree of anxiety generated by the attacks could be gauged from a flurry of condolences from world leaders such as Asif Ali Zardari and Yousaf Raza Gilani of Pakistan, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of the US, Dmitry Medvedev of Russia, Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Stephen Harper of Canada, William Hague of Britain, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd of Australia, the foreign ministries of Israel and Japan, and organisations such as the United Nations and the European Union.
However, domestic opinion was divided, with some Indians wondering whether relations with Pakistan had matured to the extent that one could begin to think in terms of moving away from presumption of guilt of elements hostile to the peace process. Also, some attempts to blame the Indian Mujahideen for the attacks were seen as a ruse to insulate New Delhi from criticism of its Pakistan policy.
At the same time, the government sought to defend itself by maintaining that there was nothing to be gained from fingerpointing, and, that its stand was in keeping with the spirit of Thimphu and Sharm-el-Sheikh.
14 July 2011
On the morning after the terror strike, he deployed two of his senior Cabinet colleagues, P Chidambaram and SM Krishna, to reassure an international audience, worried about the consequences of a downturn in India-Pakistan bilateral ties in the wake of another terrorist attack in Mumbai after 26/11, that he will stay the course on Pakistan.
Mr Krishna said that the blasts will have no impact on the talks with his Pakistan counterpart this month. Mr Chidambaram, in turn, said in Mumbai that while all hostile groups are suspects, he would not want to point a finger at any particular group just yet.
Their statements would have calmed fears somewhat, given the sentiment in a section of the international community that peace between Pakistan and India was a global imperative.
The degree of anxiety generated by the attacks could be gauged from a flurry of condolences from world leaders such as Asif Ali Zardari and Yousaf Raza Gilani of Pakistan, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton of the US, Dmitry Medvedev of Russia, Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Stephen Harper of Canada, William Hague of Britain, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd of Australia, the foreign ministries of Israel and Japan, and organisations such as the United Nations and the European Union.
However, domestic opinion was divided, with some Indians wondering whether relations with Pakistan had matured to the extent that one could begin to think in terms of moving away from presumption of guilt of elements hostile to the peace process. Also, some attempts to blame the Indian Mujahideen for the attacks were seen as a ruse to insulate New Delhi from criticism of its Pakistan policy.
At the same time, the government sought to defend itself by maintaining that there was nothing to be gained from fingerpointing, and, that its stand was in keeping with the spirit of Thimphu and Sharm-el-Sheikh.
Prime Minister Singh and his Pakistan counterpart, Yousaf Raza Gilani, had agreed in Thimphu in April 2010 that dialogue was the way forward. Since then, the foreign ministers and foreign secretaries of the two countries have met on several occasions.
At Sharm-el-Sheikh in July 2009, Singh and Gilani had agreed that action on terrorism should not be linked to the dialogue and the two should not be bracketed.
Further, it was pointed out that foreign secretary Nirupama Rao had recently said in an interview to an Indian television channel that Pakistan's attitude towards tackling terrorism had "altered", and that its talk of tackling non-state elements was a "concrete development."
B Raman, a former official with the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), India's external intelligence agency, noted that Pakistan "post-Abbottabad" was not the same as Pakistan pre-Abbottabad. There was an intense introspection regarding Pakistan's relations with the US, and, according to him, India has been a conceptual beneficiary of this introspection.
In an article he wrote before the latest Mumbai attacks, Mr Raman said: "The [language] is changing for the better, though one is not certain how long this would last. One could now sense a feeling of confidence in the Pakistani political leadership that less negative statements about India might have greater public support than in the past."
New Delhi's assertion, that talks with Pakistan will continue, could not have come a moment too soon for Mani Shankar Aiyar of the Congress party. Aiyar, a former diplomat and a former Union minister, may still not find a place in Prime Minister Singh's council of ministers but he has never tired of endorsing Mr Singh's hopes of ensuring that the peace talks with Pakistan become "uninterrupted and uninterruptible."
