Daily Times

If I had a rupee for every time the Indian media put a hyphen between Pakistan and terrorism without adequate proof, I would be a very rich man indeed. Following the Pathankot airbase attack on January 2, 2015 by militants allegedly linked to Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), misplaced anger again squalls tunelessly from across the border. Pakistan’s ‘deep state’, they say, moves anew to sabotage Indo-Pak peace because detente is contrary to its endgame. The Kashmir-based United Jihad Council claimed responsibility two days later but CNN-IBN news reported that Indian authorities insist the infiltrators came from Pakistan.

It is hard to deny that there exist lobbies in both countries, uniformed and plain clothed, that simply abhor the idea of rapprochement because it either derails their gravy train or contradicts the agenda of shady international patrons. It is harder still to accept that some no-name militants put Pathankot in a chokehold for four straight days without local abettors. Former Indian spymaster A S Dulat is right to wonder: “How can the terrorists enter so easily without getting noticed and that too with such a huge quantity of ammunition? Are the terrorists also paying their way through like the drug cartels?”

Therefore, it is patently unfair of the Indian media to typecast Pakistan’s army as an entity steeped in subterfuge and forever at cross-purposes with the civilian government. Lest they forget, former President General Pervez Musharraf stoutly pursued peace through his tenure and came closest to clinching a comprehensive Indo-Pak deal at the botched Agra Summit in 2001. Also, he was the supreme ruler of states both deep and superficial when terrorists struck India’s parliament the same year in December. Surely, General Musharraf did not order a covert hit that could torpedo his personal legacy?

There are two obvious ways to rationalise the Pathankot attack. One, it seeks to scuttle the renewed bid to defuse tensions between India and Pakistan. Two, it aims to embarrass Indian Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi for his unilateral cooling of cross-border temperatures. India’s hawks champion the first option and their version of the Pakistan army’s historical role in scuppering any substantive peace talks. That said, citing a civil-military rift on all matters India as grounds for sabotage distorts the status quo.

Fully immersed in fighting militancy in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and shepherding paramilitary operations in Karachi, the army has precious little bandwidth to mull opening an eastern front. Also, this Indian truism that all attempts to hijack peace must spawn west of the Radcliffe Line is facetious. Swami Aseemanand, the brains behind the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombing that left 68 dead, is certainly not a citizen of Pakistan.

All things considered, the second scenario sounds more plausible. Modi took a huge political risk by stopping over in Lahore, leaving friends and foes back home either apoplectic or confused. Congress leader Manish Tewari warned “This adventure is going to have serious implications on India’s national security.” Steadfast ally Shiv Sena found little to celebrate either, grimly predicting: “Hobnobbing with it [Pakistan] does not do anyone any good.” The days following Pathankot will rigorously test Modi’s mettle as PM, especially as the attack coincided with gunfights around the Indian consulate in Mazar-e-Sharif.

Moreover, backpedalling on peace talks with Pakistan once he took the lead will be political suicide. As retired Indian General V P Malik explains, “The prime minister’s personal involvement is at stake. Earlier we could blame foreign policy, but now fingers will only be pointed at him.” Modi’s political opponents will gleefully paint him as capricious to go with the borderline bigot tag that sunk his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the recent Bihar vote.

Much hinges on the international actors who conspired to bring both countries together and will not want this newfound momentum to peter out over pinpricks. The official reaction from New Delhi has been cautious thus far. Modi himself slammed the Pathankot attackers as “enemies of humanity” whose “evil designs will never succeed”. BJP National Secretary Shrikant Sharma, however, hinted a rethink on the upcoming foreign secretary-level talks is possible and a decision “will be taken at the right time”.

New Delhi is likely desperate for a strong show of support from Islamabad beyond basic reproof and “heartfelt condolences”. How much the Nawaz Sharif government can help, though, where both Indian border policing and military intelligence have failed is moot. The foreign office confirms local law enforcement is “working on leads” provided by India, and PM Sharif personally phoned Modi to assure him of “prompt and decisive action” against the terrorists.

Conversely, if we accept the admittedly cynical viewpoint that superpowers or a shadowy world government make foreign policies and everyone else just reacts to them, then jujitsu of a far higher pay-grade than either PMs will decide the future of Indo-Pak peace. It could now be a question of sitting tight and hoping for the best.

The writer is a freelance columnist and audio engineer based in Islamabad