Opinion Breaking out of the same old

Where do the two countries go from here? Are there any lessons to be learnt from this episode? Let’s consider some facts without going into the details of what Rehman Malik,Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s Advisor on Interior,told the media on Thursday.

It is now known,through reports in Pakistani as well as the western press,that even as Mumbai was happening and much before India sent its dossier to Pakistan,investigation agencies like the Special Investigation Group (Sig),the rather secret cell within the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) assigned to look into cases of terrorism,had got down to the job of finding out who had done Mumbai.

With the benefit of hindsight,it is easy to determine that India and Pakistan could have avoided much bad blood if New Delhi had not chosen to shoot from the hip and if the Indian media,especially TV,had not gone overboard in the ratings game.

The calculus of a complex situation became easy. An Indian government,under pressure from the right wing and in the run-up to state elections,had to come across as doing something. But what?

The question resulted in a flurry of moves. Pressure Pakistan; ask for cooperation,failing which; get the attention of the western governments (read: the US); hit the pause button on the normalisation process; generally show Pakistan to be perfidious and unreliable,imply that the state was complicit in the actions of the attackers,etcetera.

To use that terrible cliché,suddenly it was déjà vu. There was domestic political need for the Congress-led government to show impatience; to get the job done before the political cost of perceived inaction ran too high.

Not unusual,this. After all this is the downside of democracy,especially in a country as complex and multi-layered as India. But what did it beget? Pakistan,while quietly going about its investigations,pumped up its sinews. The air force flew sorties,the army made some movements,and some sections of the media said “to hell with India”,almost in competition with the vaulting fraternity across the border.

But to return to the issue. Things could have been managed with greater sobriety if New Delhi had retained some patience. Cases of terrorism are not easy to unearth and when investigation agencies begin to unravel plans they still require not just pieces of incriminating circumstantial evidence but enough of such material to become conclusive — or largely so.

Pakistan now has a First Information Report against some alleged terrorists. The case has to go to a court of law. As in all criminal cases,the onus of responsibility for proving culpability lies on the prosecution. The defence counsel(s) have to simply sit back and let the prosecution prove its case before standing up and poking holes in it.

Getting it right,therefore,takes time. In Mumbai’s case,add to the difficulty the political dimension created by New Delhi and we get a situation in which the real issue is pushed to the backburner. Most unfortunate because terrorism is not just hurting India; statistically,of all the countries in the region with the exception of Afghanistan,it has hurt Pakistan the most.

But a number of factors militated against India’s cutting Pakistan some slack. Even now,it is a safe bet that Malik has disclosed less than what he knows and for good reasons too. Investigators abhor the idea of revealing facts until they are absolutely certain they have enough to pin the culprits down. Malik has had to do what he did to raise India’s comfort level.

Now,as President Asif Zardari has said,it’s India’s turn to cooperate. If New Delhi can send a team to consult the FBI and share its findings,it must do the same with Pakistan. It cannot ask Pakistan for more without sharing what it (India) knows and which would definitely help Pakistani investigators move forward.

Simultaneously,greater cooperation would require improving the optics and normalising. And that necessitates hitting the play button on the dialogue framework because that is the only mechanism in and through which the two sides can work out matters when they enter rough waters.

Malik has made it clear that the plan was extensive and involved a number of entities across continents. The Mumbai police chief is reported to have conceded the involvement of indigenous groups and elements. This shows how non-state actors have metastasised and what kind of cooperation is required by states to address the problem.

India has begrudgingly acknowledged Pakistan’s efforts. That doesn’t really work. The Pakistani report is a clear indication that Islamabad is sincere in its efforts. It must get the same vibes from India.

Finally,for a longer-term solution,states need to shed some of their nationalist hubris to begin looking into the nature of their social contracts. Why do some elements within or across states decide to use violence? Fire-fighting alone cannot solve the issue. It needs to be broadly contextualised.

The writer is Op-Ed Editor Daily Times and Consulting Editor The Friday Times,Lahore; the views expressed are his own.