Can AfPak policy stop Talibanisation?

It was only recently that President Obama’s emerging Afghanistan-Pakistan (AfPak) policy was based on the assumption that the key to solving the Afghanistan problem was a stable and cooperative Pakistan. It is a measure of the rapidly changing dynamics of this region that overnight it has become Pakistan that is the primary focus of both US and international concern. Predictions of it becoming a failed state are no more in the realm of speculative exercises.

The situation is quite perilous. In February, the Pakistan government struck a peace deal with the Taliban, acceding to the latter’s demand for the imposition of Sharia throughout the Malakand agency that includes both Swat and Buner.

Emboldened, the Taliban declared their intention to enforce Sharia in the whole of Pakistan claiming that Western-type democracy was alien to the Islamic way of life.The Taliban then occupied the district of Buner, a mere hundred kilometres from Islamabad. This set the alarm bells ringing in Washington.

Strong statements emerged from Washington. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, talked of events moving closer to the tipping point of a militant takeover of Pakistan.

General Patraeus told administration officials that Pakistan had run out of excuses and the next two weeks would determine whether it would survive. The White House asked the Pakistan and Afghanistan Presidents to be in Washington for a trilateral summit with US President.

This sustained diplomatic pressure and the approaching summit had the desired effect and the Pakistan military which thus far had been a mute spectator sprung into action. Their operations were perfectly timed to soften the reception that the Pakistan President and his party, including the ISI chief, would receive in Washington.

Then, on the eve of the summit, came the news of a major offensive launched by the Pakistan Army inflicting heavy casualties on the Taliban. Pakistan was repeating what it does best — running with the hare and hunting with the hound!

Within two days, the mood in Washington had softened and the strong statements verging on panic moderated. With the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan by his side, the US President declared, “We meet today as three sovereign nations joined by a common goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qaeda and its extremist allies in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their ability to operate in either country in the future.”

I am completely surprised as this statement emphasised terrorist activities only within these three nations. I have also felt that the US has always been somewhat ambivalent about expanding the definition of its war on terror to include Pakistani-abetted terrorism against India since it desperately needs Pakistan for its war in Afghanistan.

Clearly, President Zardari and the Pakistan Army had played their parts in this charade well. Pakistan was rewarded with good words and a cheque for $400 million.What smart fellows they are! They will even beat Shakuni Mama(Mahabharat) in the astuteness.

Where does this leave India? Judging by the tranquillity being displayed by the Indian security establishment amidst some of the most ominous security developments in the region, one can only conclude that the Indian foreign policy and security establishments are still basking in the glory of the Indo-US civilian nuclear cooperation deal and the anticipated strategic embrace that would propel India into world power status!

We are now faced with stark choices. A Talibanised or failed Pakistan is not in our security interests. Yet this is a possibility and in an environment where even friends and allies are putting their national interests first, we cannot be doing otherwise.

Describing India’s response to the Mumbai terrorist attacks as remarkable, Mrs Hillary Clinton told the House panel that both the Obama and Bush administrations had worked hard to prevent India from reacting to the Mumbai attacks and predicted that the perpetrators would not cease their attacks, in India, because they were looking precisely for the reaction that the US wished to prevent.

Clearly, the message to the soft Indian establishment is that while there may be more attacks, India must be patient and not provoke Pakistan, because that would hurt US and Western interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As far as the US and its allies are concerned, terrorism in Kashmir and the rest of India is a byproduct of India-Pakistan relations, and solutions lie in improving them. In short, the West’s war on terror is different from that of India.

Taking a cue, it is time for India to jettison the mindset that others will help propel it to great power status. It must make its resolve clearly known that its status will come from its inner strength and that it has the will to safeguard its sovereignty.