Making sense of Pathankot

0
124

Pakistan should not tolerate the actions of non-state actors

 

The attack on the Indian air base at Pathankot is too big an event to ignore. India has to take note of the security and intelligence lapses as well as the inside collaboration without which such attacks cannot be executed. India will surely evaluate the quality of its response to the attack from within the base and from outside the base. Pakistan has to figure out if its territory was used for infiltration into India by the attackers or whether they were from within India. Pakistan must also act on the initial evidence provided by India of cross-border affiliations of the attackers and if any sponsorship of the attack from Pakistan is proved then action has to be taken. In a telephone call to his Indian counterpart Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif assured him of Pakistan’s full cooperation and resolve to act on the leads provided. A spokesman of the Indian Foreign Ministry has said that the ball is in Pakistan’s court and that they await Pakistan’s response to the evidence provided.

The attack is not a first — neither for India nor for Pakistan. The immediate aftermath in terms of responses by both sides is definitely a first. India showed restraint (official India, not the media) and took time to deal with the attack and then carry out an initial investigation before reaching out to Pakistan. This is a change to the knee jerk reaction of blaming Pakistan from the word go. The Pakistani Prime Minister’s call and assurance moved the two countries to work together in dealing with such events and away from unilateral determinations. Notwithstanding the rabid outbursts of Pakistan-bashers India has not blamed Pakistan as a state for this act of terrorism. Pakistan has therefore not gone into a denial mode. The political leadership on both sides has shown maturity by setting the tone for restraint and joint determination leading to action. No doubt this will influence the investigative process and the interaction between the two sides at all levels, especially the National Security Adviser level. There is also a new sense of responsibility being shown by the media on both sides.

The reason for this departure from the past is obvious. The political leadership on both sides has invested much in working to improve the bilateral relationship. The Pakistan military that usually gets the blame for being the hardliners and spoilsports in any interaction with India has been on board with all the political overtures and responses from Pakistan and the fact that the National Security Adviser of Pakistan is a recently retired general should be a further reassurance of this fact. There are those who are propagating that the Pathankot attack is part of some overall convoluted strategy to strike India, but this simply does not make sense. Pakistan’s target is terrorism and to neutralise and sideline this threat it needs good bilateral relations with India and Afghanistan. This is what Pakistan is striving for and in this it has the support not just of the US but the whole world. It is in the context of this stance against terror that Pakistan has declared support for the Saudi initiated alliance against terror without any intention of acting against any state or getting involved in extra regional conflicts. Pakistan is for sectarian harmony in its own interest and could play a role in the Saudi-Iran standoff. India and Pakistan have much to gain from a normal cooperative relationship rather than an adversarial and confrontational one.

The world has noted that Pakistan is prosecuting the war against terror with determination and at great cost with the military in the vanguard. The government’s efforts to bring about political and economic stability are also being appreciated. The National Action Plan promises to consolidate the gains being made. In such an environment Pakistan will not and should not tolerate the actions of non-state actors or groups from its territory. To act decisively Pakistan needs reciprocity from both India and Afghanistan. An indication from India that it will cease using Afghan territory for destabilising Pakistan, and that one result of the dialogue process could be the demilitarisation of Kashmir would send the right signals. This is especially important because the Hurriyet leadership supports the India-Pakistan dialogue process. Afghanistan could act on the elements that have sanctuary there and are attacking Pakistan.

The major conclusion is that the ongoing interactive process between Pakistan and India and Afghanistan and Pakistan needs to be continued and should transcend the setbacks being created by those against peace and stability. The current state of play in the Middle East is a stark reminder of how adversarial relationships can spin out of control and how South and South West Asia could be caught in the fallout from that region if there is conflict and violence within their states.

 

Spearhead Analyses are collaborative efforts and not attributable to a single individual. www.spearheadresearch.org