Pakistan has been pressurising India for resuming the composite dialogue which, apart from other issues, it thinks will help it focus on Kashmir. India had earlier refused to resume talks unless Pakistan took credible action against the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

Apparently, three factors are mainly responsible for India's readiness to resume the dialogue. One, the US pressure. Two, the signs that Pakistan, forced by its internal turmoil and US pressure, has started taking action against some of those behind the Mumbai attacks. Three, India cannot afford to have perpetually strained relations with its neighbours if it has to become a strong regional and world power. Those who criticized Manmohan Singh for deciding to resume talks without seeking an end to Pakistan-sponsored terrorism forget that the Atal Behari Vajpayee-led NDA government had resumed the stalled talks with Pakistan even after Kargil and Parliament and Akshardham attacks.

As a part of his two-pronged peace initiative, Manmohan Singh also offered an olive branch to the Jammu and Kashmir separatists suggesting talks if they shun violence. Both hardline and moderate separatists have laid down conditions for participating in the talks. These include (a) release of political prisoners, (b) revocation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, Public Safety Act and Disturbed Areas Act. (c) withdrawal of armed forces from cities and towns. The Muzzafarabad (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir)-based United Jehad Council, an amalgam of various militant outfits, has also said it is ready to accept Prime Minister's talks offer “provided it is not asked to lay down arms”.

The demand for revocation of laws giving special powers to security forces without asking militants to lay down arms is self-contradictory. The security forces were given special powers to check terrorist violence. The result was a decline in terrorist killings and infiltrations. But after the withdrawal of thousands of security personnel from the state during the past few months, there was escalation in terrorist violence again. What is the guarantee that any unilateral action of revoking the security forces special powers without the militants agreeing to lay down arms would ensure end of terrorist violence?

The present scenario needs to be seen in the background of the US-sponsored “war on global terror”.

The US and Pakistan had been riding the terrorism beast not knowing how to get off without being eaten. The 9/11 terrorist attack on the US prompted Washington to send Army into Afghanistan to curb Al Qaeda and Taliban, the twins in whose birth both Washington and Islamabad had acted as midwives. The US's entanglement in Afghanistan in which it also made the initially reluctant Pakistan to join, however, did not stop the latter from infiltrating and helping the terrorists and separatists in India . First it was Punjab where its game was defeated. Since 1989 it has been Jammu and Kashmir where the unchecked misuse of US-supplied arms and money has led to killings of thousands of innocents by the militants.

When Taliban started targeting Pakistan, Washington realized that Pakistan's continued sponsorship of terrorism in India would make the atmosphere more conducive for the terrorists to escalate their activities in the region which would adversely affect America's “war on terror” in Afghanistan. This forced the US to pressurize Pakistan to stop promoting terrorism in India. As a result, the then Pervez Musharraf government had to declare that Pakistan would not allow its soil to be used by militants against India. This, coupled with the Indian security forces stepped-up anti-terrorist measures, resulted in steep decline in infiltrations and terrorist activities in Kashmir. This was a setback for the Pakistani promoters of terrorism, particularly the elements in the Army, and they again stepped up their efforts to push armed militants into Kashmir early this year. The result was an increase in terrorist violence in the past few months.

Any development that makes the atmosphere more conducive for terrorism makes the 9/11-hit US hyper active in dealing with terrorists. Two developments need to be seen in this context. One is the revelation that the failed Times Square bomb accused Faisal Shahzad had links in Pakistan's Taliban-dominated South Waziristan tribal region. This has provoked Washington to threaten that it would resort to a unilateral military strike against Pakistan if any terror plot is traced to Pakistan. The other development is the Washington's realization that any effort by Pakistan to step up its support to Kashmiri terrorists would make the security atmosphere in the region more conducive for the Taliban activities. This has prompted Washington to again warn Pakistan against continuing infiltrations into India and giving clandestine support to Kashmiri terrorists. These seem to be the main reasons behind the comparative lull Kashmir has again lately started experiencing. How long will Pakistan allow this situation to continue is a big question.

One should not expect any dramatic outcome of the next month's talks to be held in Islamabad between the two countries Foreign Ministers. The talks would see India particularly focusing on terror and Pakistan on Kashmir. The talks would, however, be considered fruitful if the two sides decide to initiate steps aimed at minimizing the distrust between the two countries and strengthening people-to people relations. Such a development, if it takes place, will have the potential of changing the dynamics of India-Pakistan relations and also of Kashmir problem.

Optimism is the elixir of life. (IPA Service)