Changing tune

Pakistani trucks filled with dry fruit cross the border at Wagah on October 3, for the first time since 1947, as part of measures to boost India-Pakistan trade. Previously, goods were transported to the border post by porters and collected by trucks on the other side. - NARINDER NANU/AFP

India is careful not to be perceived as interfering in the internal affairs of Pakistan.

THE reaction to General Pervez Musharrafs self-coup has been generally muted in Western capitals. Indias reaction has been similar to the West. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) official statement only expressed regret about the imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan. We regret the difficult times that Pakistan is passing through. We trust that conditions of normalcy will soon return permitting Pakistans transition to stability and democracy to continue.

Pakistani civil right activists and media personalities have said that they would have preferred New Delhi to take a tougher stand. But the Indian government seems to prefer a cautious approach and is careful not to be perceived as interfering in Pakistans internal affairs. It is also of the view that for the foreseeable future the Pakistan Army will remain the main player in the countrys politics. A senior Indian official said that Washington would create another democratic facade for the military to continue its rule in Pakistan. Washington has shown a preference for authoritarian rulers despite all the talk of democracy. At the same time, intelligence communities, in the United States and India, seem to believe that the Pakistan Army has become more radicalised since Musharraf staged his coup in 1999. The U.S. backed the coup because Musharraf was perceived as a moderniser who could stem the growth of Islamic radicalism in the army. From the U.S. perspective, things have now gone from bad to worse in the Pakistan Army. There are regular reports of army units surrendering to the Taliban without a fight in the tribal areas. Graham Fuller, the former Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), has described the current crisis as a manifestation of anti-American Islamic nationalism.

Indian officials claim that New Delhi has traditionally done business with whoever is in power in Islamabad. However, India was vociferous in its criticism of the government in Pakistan after Musharraf seized power in 1999. At that time, New Delhi raised its voice in all major international fora against the trampling of democracy. Now, both New Delhi and Islamabad are with the U.S. in the war on terror. U.S. Deputy Secretary of State for Defence John Negroponte told Congress, before his recent trouble-shooting trip to Islamabad, that there was not a mission in the world more deserving of our persistence and considered patience than Pakistan.

The military has been in overt control of Pakistan for most of the time since the country became independence. Washington has been blindly supporting military dictatorship in Pakistan for most of the last 53 years. New Delhi is aware that Washington continues to consider Musharraf as the bulwark against Islamist militancy in the region after the events of September 11, 2001. Since the nuclear deal between India and the U.S. was put on the table, New Delhi has generally kowtowed to Washingtons priorities in the region, whether it is Pakistan, Iran or Afghanistan.

Indeed, bilateral relations have never been better since the 1980s. Trade between the two countries has increased significantly. Since 2004, India and Pakistan have been involved in substantive talks. Incidents of cross-border terrorist activities have come down substantially. In the last couple of years, Musharraf has made many proposals to resolve the contentious issue of Kashmir. But once it became obvious that the Generals powers and charisma were waning, the Indian establishment began stonewalling Islamabads initiative.

A favourable deal on Siachen was there for the taking. The attitude in the MEA from the beginning of the year was that more concessions could be extracted from a politically weakened Musharraf.

The impending election of a new Commonwealth Secretary-General could be another reason for Indias muted reaction. Islamabad was reportedly veering towards supporting Kamalesh Sharma, Indias candidate for the post. Now, however, India may not have to worry about Pakistans vote.

The nine-member Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) has issued a warning that the country would be suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth before the Commonwealth Heads of Government (CHOGM) summit scheduled to be held in Kampala on November 22. India is not part of the CMAG.

Many of the CMAG members had asked for full suspension of Pakistan, as was done in the case of Zimbabwe in 2003. Britain was mainly responsible for the tough line against Zimbabwe. Now it is in the forefront of stalling moves for Pakistans immediate suspension from the Commonwealth.

The CMAG has given Pakistan a deadline of November 22 to restore democracy. It has sought, among other things, the repeal of emergency provisions and full restoration of the Constitution, including the independence of the judiciary. The CMAG has also demanded that Musharraf should step down as army chief before November 22.

Indias National Security Adviser, M.K. Narayanan, told the media recently that there was a danger of increased infiltration of terrorist groups from Pakistan if the political crisis continued. He also talked about the possibility of terrorist sleeper cells being activated in India. New Delhi has been accusing Islamabad of complicity in the terrorist attacks that have rocked India this year. No clinching evidence has, however, been provided by the Indian authorities. The Pakistan Army is now engaged in counter-insurgency activities of its own as it tries to stop the spread of the Taliban in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon said that India was concerned about the instability on its periphery but emphasised that it was for Pakistanis to decide about their rulers.

New Delhi has left it to Washington to articulate the fears relating to Pakistans nuclear arsenal. Musharraf has rejected the Bush administrations demands that it be made privy to the location of the countrys nuclear weapons. The Pakistan President insists that under no circumstances will he compromise with Pakistans sovereignty on this issue. Musharraf, even though he finds his back against the wall, has in recent times taken decisions that cannot have pleased Washington. Pakistan went ahead and signed the gas pipeline agreement with Iran in early November. Last year, Islamabad, unlike New Delhi, refused to vote against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency. Musharraf has strengthened ties with countries such as Russia.

Islamabad has taken more interest in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) than New Delhi in recent years. The Saudi Royal House has been deeply committed to the Pakistan Army for a variety of reasons. It is unlikely to ditch Musharraf in a hurry. China remains an all-weather friend of Pakistan but has remained circumspect on the internal politics of the country. New Delhi is no doubt aware that Musharraf has still many cards left to play.

The Left parties in India have been particularly critical of the imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan. The general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Prakash Karat, said that the events in Pakistan exemplified the dangers of getting embedded with the U.S. The Pakistani elite in the 1950s was elated when the country became part of the South East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO), the military alliances led by the U.S. By the 1980s, the Pakistan Army had virtually become a mercenary army, fighting Americas war in Afghanistan. Indias foreign policy, on the other hand, was until the 1990s aimed at minimising the domination of neocolonial powers.