Clinton in India

A week ahead of the foreign ministers-level talks between Pakistan and India, the United States has underscored advisability of sustained dialogue between them. "We are encouraged by the dialogue occurring between India and Pakistan ...This is the most promising approach," US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at a news conference after talks with her host counterpart, Foreign Minister S. M. Krishina, in New Delhi on Tuesday.
If the US government feels impelled to convince New Delhi of the need to talk to Islamabad, the Pakistani leadership is more than willing to be part of it as that's the only viable option to make durable peace between the two regional nuclear rivals. Only the other day, in her meeting with Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad, soon after being sworn in as Pakistan's new foreign minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, emphasised the imperative of a sustained dialogue between Pakistan and India, stressing that it should be "uninterrupted and uninterruptible" - her emphasis, vicariously, exposing the fallacy of New Delhi's decision to disrupt the dialogue in the wake of 2008 Mumbai carnage. Secretary Clinton seems to have felt that way also, but was a bit discreet confining herself to merely highlighting the fact that of all the countries, the worst sufferer of international terrorism is Pakistan. In a rare admission she told the Indian media that "Pakistan had suffered more than the United States from terrorism". A slight change in American perspective on Pakistan's contribution to the anti-terror war - following the recent hectic contacts between Pakistani and American officials - is reflected from remarks that though the US would not tolerate safe havens "anywhere", but fighting terrorism on its soil is Pakistan's own responsibility. Rightly then she was not prepared to share India's stereotypical accusation of a Pakistani hand in the growing incidence of terrorism in India, excluding her claim that "in the interest of an improved relationship between Pakistan and India - we will continue to work with the government of Pakistan to try to tackle this mutual threat".
How much of her soft-pedalling Pakistan's position on terrorism would influence Indian attitude, we would come to know next week when Khar meets her counterpart in New Delhi or even before that when she would be having informal meetings with Secretary Clinton and Foreign Minister Krishna in Indonesia on the sidelines of the Asean Regional Forum in Bali, Indonesia. The fact is that since the Cricket World Cup in India, early this year, there have been a series of meetings between the officials of the two countries on myriad issues of contention but real and concrete progress is nowhere in evidence. That Pakistan has yet to do more to 'clear its name' with the Indian authorities and the United States is helping in that, is not on; the foreign ministers talks next week must result in some kind of breakthrough, particularly on some of the issues like Sir Creek and Siachin wherein substantial progress has been reportedly made. Pakistan seeks a meaningful way forward rather than just talks for the sake of talks. And on the face of it, none of the issues that confront the Pak-India relationship and have been on the table of talks for decades now was on the Clinton-Krishna agenda in this second round of their strategic dialogue.
In fact, India is seen to be exploiting the American concerns in the region for its own aggrandisement, flaunting its potential to emerge as the only viable challenge to China in yet another spell of the 'Great Game in the Indian Ocean' that the American media says is about to begin. For that, the price India expects the United States to pay, is in many denominations ranging for its greater say in the post-Nato Afghanistan, to a hegemonic position in South Asia to substantial concessions in business and investment, besides allowing it to cut corners on the nuclear supplies regime. None of these political ambitions is justified, given the ground realities and geopolitical scenario that presently obtains in the region. And no other country would be more adversely affected than Pakistan in case India happens to succeed in any of these unrealistic objectives.
By signing up the so-called civilian nuclear agreement with India, the United States tends to undermine the nuclear equation in South Asia, which is very crucial to sustaining regional peace and tranquillity. Then, India is pandering for some kind of interventionist role in Afghanistan where it already has put in place a comprehensive network to destabilise Pakistan. Foreign Minister Krishna's pleading with Secretary Clinton that the "ground realities" in the post-pullout Afghanistan demand the foreign forces' 'continued presence', runs counter to the growing Afghan sentiment that their country should be free of foreign occupation. Just because in the shadow of foreign military presence India feels secure to carry on its anti-Pakistan activities, that is not acceptable. Admitted the US is in search of a regional partner to share its anti-China worldview, but that is hardly a justification to grant India the role of a regional bully.