Follow Israel146;s example? No!

Israel continues to be a blind spot for some sections of the Hindu and Muslim communities alike. Some Hindus like Israel for all the wrong reasons. And some Muslims dislike Israel for all the wrong reasons. The former admire Israel for the 8216;8216;no-nonsense8217;8217; manner in which it deals with Palestinians and its hostile Muslim neighbours in defence of its national interests. The latter abhor Israel because, like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they think that the very presence of the 8216;8216;Zionist8217;8217; nation on 8216;8216;Islamic land8217;8217; is unacceptable and hence it must be either wiped off the face of the earth or relocated somewhere in North America or Europe.

Frankly, I am appalled both by how Israel deals with Palestinians and others in its neighbourhood, and equally by how its neighbours deal with Israel. Mankind must find a way to end this conflict.

However, this we must remember: what Israel is doing to others, and what others are doing to Israel, is a very bad example for South Asia to follow. As far as India is concerned, we must reject the policy prescription of hot-pursuit, Israel-style, of terrorists in their hideouts in Pakistan. And we must know that rejecting it is not a sign of national weakness. My congratulations to Jaswant Singh8212;who was not only India8217;s external affairs minister but also a proud officer in the Indian Army who later served as India8217;s defence minister for a short period8212;for his forthright statement, in response to the Mumbai blasts, that 8216;8216;hot-pursuit is not an option that India should consider8217;8217;.

This prescription is wrong for many reasons. Although every nation has the inalienable right to defend itself, cross-border military action is least effective for achieving durable success in India8217;s war against terror. In fact, in the 21st century there are very few intra-country or inter-country issues that lend themselves to satisfactory military solutions. Secondly, we must remember that the predicament of Israel and Palestinians is very different from the situation that defines the relationship between India and Pakistan. Thirdly, even in Israel, pragmatic and farsighted leaders such as Yitzak Rabin, a celebrated soldier-turned-peacemaker-turned-martyr have had to acknowledge that Israel and Palestinians must learn to live in peace, each recognising the inevitability and legitimacy of the presence of the other. But the most potent argument against hot-pursuit of terrorist outfits in Pakistan is that India can win8212;and is indeed partially winning8212;the war against terror even without it.

The fact that we have not exercised the military option against Pakistan, even though we have a legitimate reason to do so, has acted in India8217;s favour, not against it. It has raised India8217;s stature in the world community, including in the community of Islamic nations. That there are very few backers in the world for Pakistan8217;s claim on Kashmir now, as compared to the 8217;50s, 8217;60s and the 8217;70s, is a fact that only the purblind can deny. More significantly, Pakistani people8217;s own support for their country8217;s claim on Kashmir8212;and for the means that successive regimes in Islamabad have employed in pursuit of that claim8212;has greatly dwindled. More Pakistanis than anytime before, including those in the Pakistani army, know that there is not even a ghost of a chance for 8216;8216;the unfinished job of Partition8217;8217;8212;Kashmir8217;s merger with Pakistan8212;to be finished. On the contrary, they are all too aware that support to Taliban on the one hand and to Islamic militants in Kashmir on the other has taken a huge toll on Pakistani society and on Pakistan8217;s standing in the international community.

One only has to follow the news about terrorist violence and sectarian strife inside Pakistan to know why the Pakistani government8217;s support to terrorism and Islamic extremism in India is simply unsustainable. The domestic constituency in Pakistan desirous of an enduring peace and full normalisation of ties with India has expanded considerably. It can reach a 8216;8216;critical mass8217;8217; or the 8216;8216;tipping point8217;8217; with some imaginative steps on both sides.

Which is why when some well-meaning people, in the wake of the Mumbai blasts, demand abandonment of the peace process with Pakistan, I feel like telling them, 8216;8216;My dear fellow Indians, your anguish is understandable. But don8217;t force the Indian Government to act in a knee-jerk manner. Remember that we Indians, and it includes Indians of many political persuasions BJP, Congress, Communists and others, have made a huge investment of our emotional and intellectual resources in the peace process with Pakistan. We have stood firm and acted wisely even in the face of gravest of provocations, such as the terrorist attack on our Parliament. And our policy, combining firmness with readiness to be friends with Pakistan, has actually yielded results. For example, there are few successes in Indian diplomacy greater than what Atal Behari Vajpayee achieved in Islamabad in January 2004, when he secured a commitment from President Musharraf not to allow anti-India terrorist activities from Pakistani or Pakistan-controlled territory.8217;8217;

But has Pakistan abided by its commitment? This is a valid question. The answer is: not fully. Which is why, India must continue to talk tough and take all such non-military measures as are necessary to make Musharraf and his team to understand that they have an important duty on their hands. But let no one think that India is soft on terror because we are not pursuing a policy of hot-pursuit against Pakistan. The truth of the matter is closer home: if India is soft in its war on terror and it surely is, it is more because of internal rather than external factors. It is largely because of our inability or unwillingness and a combination of both to take necessary measures in our own domestic social, political and administrative space.

For example, is Pakistan stopping us from ruthlessly busting all terrorist modules within the country? Who is providing shelter to terrorists and their supporters, if not some anti-national elements within the country? Aren8217;t some of our own political parties, solely for vote bank considerations, preventing India from arming itself with an effective anti-terror law at the central and state levels? Is any hostile foreign power responsible for the pathetic state of India8217;s criminal-justice system, which routinely allows criminals to go scotfree? In which cases and self-perpetuating commissions of inquiry go on forever? In which the investigating agencies and courts, both following hopelessly archaic procedures, work at cross-purposes? And where corruption is rampant? Those who smuggle in RDX and AK-47s are no doubt enemies of the nation. But what about those in the system who allow them to do so for a big enough bribe?

India is soft in its war on terror because of these internal problems. And if any hot-pursuit approach is needed, it is against these internal enemies. Let8217;s remember: The Pakistani government8217;s capacity to export terror is on the decline, but the Indian Government8217;s capacity and Indian society8217;s vigilance to fight terror is not rising. This is where India8217;s weaknesses and vulnerabilities lie.