Daily Times

President Zardari’s private visit to India is the first time in the past decade that a meeting between Indian and Pakistani heads of state and government has ended without controversy, in good atmospherics. Part of the reason was tight programming and careful planning of public display. The visit was short and so was the meeting; the script was tailored to signal good intentions and was scrupulously adhered to.

By contrast, the Agra summit of 2000 between President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee was a display of unplanned and uncoordinated fireworks that both governments took several years to recover from. The Sharm al-Sheikh meeting between Prime Ministers Gilani and Singh, which was very positive on the whole, was marred by lack of any follow up action on the issues that the two leaders discussed.

This, of course, was a private visit. But the statements that President Zardari and Prime Minister Singh made to the press, as most commentators have noted, emphasised renewed commitments by the Indian and Pakistani governments to resolve the disputes between their two countries and work for good neighbourly relations. And the issues discussed by them, both in their one-on-one meeting and at the lunch that followed, were substantive.

These were not the only positives. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) welcomed the meeting and attended the lunch that Prime Minister Singh gave for President Zardari. For the past several months, the BJP has appeared to be on the same page as the government in relation to a peace process with Pakistan and for Jammu and Kashmir. Though there were sceptics in the Indian policy community, the tenor changed to positive on the eve of President Zardari’s visit and has remained positive after it.

Most important of all, concrete actions have followed immediately after. The large Lifestyle Pakistan exhibition in Delhi, showcasing Pakistani goods for sale in the Indian market, and the opening of the Integrated Customs Post on the Wagah border, within a week of the visit, are ideally positioned as visible outcomes, both for the speed with which they took place and for their future potential. This development, of visible outcomes following soon after a meeting of the two countries’ leaders, has rarely been seen in the on-again-off-again India-Pakistan peace process, which has more often been characterised by post-meeting acrimony — or even worse, violence.

If trade is the first track on which concrete progress has been achieved, there are several other tracks on which progress can be made. As several analysts have pointed out, agreements on Siachen and Sir Creek can be reached in a relatively short time. Their importance is underlined by the tragic avalanche that buried 138 Pakistani soldiers and civilians and the scores of fishermen who languish in jails because they have strayed into the undemarcated waters of either country. Similarly, talks on Jammu and Kashmir began again last year, and if the back channel of 2004-7 is revitalised, they could make rapid progress.

Can we then expect that a sustained and results-oriented peace process will ensue? Indian analysts are divided on this issue, because the signs from Pakistan appear mixed. On the one hand, the large and semi-official delegation that accompanied President Zardari, his prior meetings with General Kayani, and PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif’s welcome of the meeting indicate broad support for the mission. On the other hand, the opposition of parties such as the Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, the Difa-e-Pakistan Council, Hafiz Saeed and his militant followers presents formidable obstacles. It appears that battle lines are being drawn between supporters and opponents of an India-Pakistan peace process.

This is a dangerous situation. As long as Hafiz Saeed is free to rally his forces, the potential for another terrorist attack on India remains high, and Indian public opinion will be cool towards progress on other tracks of the peace process. Moreover, with Syed Salahuddin (actual name Yusuf Shah), the head of the United Jihad Council, joining the chorus against opening up trade, the threat of militancy beginning again in Jammu and Kashmir, or more specifically the Kashmir Valley (it has already resurfaced in Gilgit-Baltistan), is once again rising.

A terrorist attack will once again derail the progress that has been made in the past weeks. It is incumbent on all concerned to work towards ensuring that no such attack takes place. While most Indian analysts understand how complex and difficult the task is, it is difficult for us to believe that the Pakistani authorities are doing all they can to tackle the problem. The cases against Lakhvi et al are held up because we are told voice samples are un-Islamic and inadmissible in Pakistani law (can this really be true?). The Judicial Commission that came to India recently to follow up the cases rubbished their trip because they could not cross-examine the sole terrorist arrested, Ajmal Kasab. But they knew even before they came that meeting Kasab was ruled out because his appeals were being heard, and the only way access to him could be given would be if the prosecutions in India and Pakistan are clubbed.

For Imran Khan, the head of the Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf, to talk of the law taking its course against Hafiz Saeed is disingenuous. The law has signally failed to take its course, because those who should collect the evidence against Saeed fear to do so or are unwilling. Admittedly, the civilian political parties, whether in government or opposition, cannot do much without the support of the army and intelligence agencies. But one thing they can do is stand together in the struggle against militancy. From the sympathy that Pakistani civil society showed to the victims of the Mumbai attack — indeed, it was the Pakistani media that established Kasab’s citizenship — it is clear that the majority of Pakistanis support peace with India. Let them be heard.

The writer is a Trustee and Director of the Peace and Conflict Programme of the Delhi Policy Group