It is ironic that in the midst of a red alert of another possible terrorist strike in Mumbai, where allegedly seven specific targets were identified, India should have given cause to the Pakistan army’s general head quarters in Rawalpindi to celebrate. The reason, a joint statement by the prime ministers, Manmohan Singh and Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani, after their meeting on the sidelines of the non-aligned movement summit at Sharm el-Sheikh.

What has bewildered many in the Indian strategic community is the volte face by India in accepting that “action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and that these should not be bracketed” — contrary to the stand India had taken after the 26/11 (and earlier) terrorist attacks. The message to the Pakistan army and the ISI is that they can continue unhindered with their “silent war of inflicting a thousand cuts” on India, while the Pakistan government will sit on the diplomatic table with India signalling to the international community their involvement in banishing the scourge of terrorism

The United States of America and its Nato allies are presently concerned with Afghanistan, al Qaeda and the Taliban, and not with terrorists fathered and nurtured by the Pakistan army to wage jihad in Kashmir. They need Pakistan’s support for operations in Afghanistan. Hence it surprises no one when the US secretary of state, on a visit to India, cheers this diplomatic feat.

Among other issues, the joint statement agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both countries and the leaders affirmed their resolve to fight it and to cooperate with each other to this end. No mention was made of who qualify as terrorists as there is no agreed definition of a terrorist even among the international community. One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. There is even talk in Western capitals of differentiating between good and bad Taliban in Afghanistan. Nations are guided solely by national interests and India needs to recognize this reality.

Endless reference to both nations being victims of terror without differentiating who the perpetrators are, distorts the entire picture. India is a victim of terror born out of Pakistan’s state policy where outfits have been created by the ISI as strategic assets to wage asymmetric war on India. Pakistan, on the other hand, is victim of its creation, the Taliban, who now are reacting to Pakistan supporting the US and Nato presence in Afghanistan. To overcome this rather obvious contradiction, Pakistan has now succeeded in trapping India into bringing “Balochistan and other areas” into the equation. Having introduced a red herring, the stage is set to bolster Pakistan’s oft-repeated claims that India is interfering in these areas. Worse still, every attack in Balochistan and other areas by the Taliban will be painted as an Indian-sponsored terrorist attack with suitably fabricated evidence.

Not surprisingly, on his return, a combative Gilani fired the first salvo by claiming that the joint statement “underlines our concerns over India’s interference in Balochistan and other areas of Pakistan”. In one go, India has achieved the diplomatic feat of moving from being an internationally accepted victim of Pakistan-sponsored terror to being accused of sponsoring terror in Pakistan.

It was in January 2004 that Pervez Musharraf reassured Atal Bihari Vajpayee that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan’s control to be used for supporting terrorism in any manner. This solemn pre-condition resulted in an agreement to move forward with the process of the “composite dialogue”. That this rapprochement had the nudging of the US became apparent when Colin Powell, then secretary of state, boasted to US News and World Report about the US’s role: “We have been working with the Indians and Pakistanis for almost two years, from a period of ‘We’re going to nuclear war this weekend’ to, you know, this is a historic change. And so I think a lot of the seeds that were planted are now germinating and you’ll (see) us harvesting crops.”

In July 2006, when seven bomb blasts took place in Mumbai suburban trains leaving 209 dead and 700 injured, the truth of dealing with Pakistan should have dawned on us. A strong statement made by the prime minister was followed by the minister of state for external affairs announcing that India would suspend talks with Pakistan until Musharraf abided by his 2004 promise of ending all support to cross-border terrorism. This proved to be hollow rhetoric.

Barely two months later on his flight to Havana for the summit of the NAM in September 2006, the prime minister surprised everyone by mentioning that Pakistan was also a victim of terror. At the conclusion of the meeting with Musharraf, the PM read out a joint statement that said, “They have decided to put in place an Indo-Pak anti-terrorism institutional mechanism to identify and implement counter-terrorism initiatives and investigations.” Not only had we forgotten the Mumbai train blasts, but clearly we continued to put blind faith in Musharraf, the architect of Kargil and of a subsequent coup in his country.

Our belief in ‘setting a thief to catch a thief’ naturally produced nothing tangible except some sharing of intelligence, to our detriment.Then followed the July 2008 suicide attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, during which 58 people including two Indian diplomats were killed and 141 injured. The New York Times on August 1, 2008, reported allegations by unnamed US officials of Pakistan’s ISI having aided the attack. During the 15th SAARC summit in Colombo in August 2008, Gilani assured India that his government would carry out an independent investigation of the attack. India should have known that these were hollow words, as it is common knowledge that the GHQ Rawalpindi and the ISI do not share their plans even with their own government. Both India and Pakistan were now playing the game of hollow rhetoric as far as terrorism was concerned.

The most daring of all attacks was on Mumbai on November 26, 2008. No ordinary attack, this bore the marks of one that was planned and supported by the military, clearly indicative of what the future holds. Mumbai was held hostage for three days and glaring shortcomings in our intelligence and anti-terror planning were on display to the world. Among the 173 people killed were some foreign nationals, and over 300 were injured. One terrorist who was captured has recently confessed guilt during his trial. The US and Israel, which lost citizens, have since conducted thorough investigations, but have revealed little to the public. It is possible that the US now realizes that containing the Pakistan military and ISI was easier said than done. Their own anxiety in Afghanistan coupled with the Pakistan military’s craftily exaggerated fear of India has made the US conclude that the only option from their own perspective was to work on the soft Indian state. So when Hillary Clinton welcomes the Sharm el-Sheikh initiative, she knows too well the part the US is playing behind the scenes in nurturing and harvesting the crop that Colin Powell had sown.

General Shankar Roychowdhury, an former chief and Rajya Sabha MP, quotes Brigadier S.K. Malik to conclude that hatred of India is a deep-rooted article of faith in the Pakistan army, deliberately nurtured over the years and handed down through the ranks for generations. The Indian security establishment would do well to heed these and many other such warnings. That there will be another terrorist attack on Indian soil is not in doubt. What is in doubt is how the Indian State will then react. From events of the last few years we seem to be running out of options and indulging in hollow rhetoric. It’s time to get real and accept that the Pakistan army and the ISI are committed to a silent war and unless the internal structure within Pakistan changes, India is at a grave risk. Talk by all means, but know your enemy.

Ad hoc handling of national security issues is detrimental to the long-term security interests and morale of the country. The nation needs to be taken into confidence. The government needs to assess the long-term security threat shorn of short-term national or international pressures, to share it with the people in clear terms and to tell the people what is being proposed to safeguard the security interests of the country and the price the nation should be prepared to pay. A white paper on national security should be prepared by the government and be discussed across the country and in Parliament. The matter is too sensitive to be politicized or deferred. On the issue of national security, let the nation display unity, resolve and some spine.