The New Nation - Internet Edition

Nasim Zehra

India's post-Mumbai concerns are genuine as is its need to fully investigate the facts that wreaked havoc in its business commercial city.

It would also be legitimate for the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to seek Pakistan's cooperation in tracking down if there is any involvement from across the border. Meanwhile, Pakistan as a neighbour, one presently gripped within with terrorism itself, should feel obliged to help Delhi. And for such cooperation an anti-terrorism mechanism already exists between both the countries.

But all these facts notwithstanding three weeks into the Mumbai tragedy, confrontation looms large in the region. While Pakistan has committed flip-flops on issues like sending the ISI chief to Delhi, violation of its airspace and Masood Azhar's whereabouts, it has remained consistent with its offer to help Delhi to deal with the rising threat of terrorism. Complying with the UNSC Anti-Terrorism Committee's resolution, Pakistan has, however, banned Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), sealed its office and arrested some of its leaders.

New Delhi has opted to reject the bilateral track for resolving the Mumbai tragedy. Instead, it has made unilateral public demands. The demands are: Pakistan should hand over the 40 men on its terrorist list; and Pakistan should dismantle terrorist infrastructure and destroy the terrorist training camps.

These demands have been consistently backed by a threat of force and diplomatic pressure from the United States and Britain. Meanwhile, China has taken the position that the final outcome of the Indian investigation is still awaited, and it would be useless to jump the gun. Beijing maintains that any finger pointing is, therefore, premature and has recommended a joint Pakistan-India investigation into the terror attacks.

However, Britain and US have supported the Indian position. It has led to the banning of JuD by Pakistan, a successor organisation of Laskhar-e-Tayaba. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has asked that UK's intelligence agencies be allowed to interrogate Pakistani "suspects" involved in terrorism. The threat of use of force is continuously being upgraded with private Intelligence outfits declaring that an Indian surgical strike is imminent.

Whatever the Delhi's policy-making community may contemplate or advocate as the next step India would take in dealing with Pakistan, one thing is for sure it can't be the option of use of force. Given Pakistan's guaranteed military response to an Indian strike, it has a high risk of escalating into an all-out war. The past military confrontations between the countries confirm this fact. Kargil remained contained since it was not a direct military engagement. Also Pakistan's flawed military strategy and the international community's pressure forced the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the Kargil heights.

Pakistan's response to Indian government's demand list has been rather uncomplicated. Delhi has neither handed any evidence to Pakistan nor to the Interpol authorities. Instead, Indian officials have held meetings with the US Director of National Intelligence and shared 'evidence' with him.

Meanwhile, the only document handed over to Pakistan has been Ajmal Kasab's letter, which he has written in Indian custody.

Reportedly, it reads like a confession document and he has asked for Pakistan's legal help in fighting his case.

While Pakistan remains bogged down with terrorism at home, it is unlikely that it can make any substantive move on Delhi's demands. Without any credible and concrete evidence Pakistan must not take action against its citizens. India bases its premise on the fact that Pakistan used to hand over its nationals to the US without following any legal procedure.

A more strident position is that of the BJP, which says it regrets having trusted Pakistan and the peace process it initiated in 2004.

Delhi's headstrong attitude is unwise. India mistakenly believes that it could take the US post-9/11 route for dealing with the problem of terrorism: a brow beating approach, with the threat of use of force. Delhi must understand that Pakistan and its people want peace. However, Pakistan will fight terrorism within the parameters of international and national law. The post-2007 Pakistan, with a strong commitment to the rule of law and citizens' rights, will play by the rules. Delhi needs to go beyond 'browbeating.'

India needs to adopt a more constructive attitude in dealing with the post-Mumbai crisis. There is no international 'browbeating' route that will yield any results for India. Pakistan must be engaged on the bilateral track.

If Delhi persists in taking the international route at the cost of bilateralism, Pakistan-India relations will be badly hit. If such an unwise approach is prompted largely by political expediency, given 2009 is an election year for India, whether the Congress will get any additional votes is still unclear. What it will certainly not get is security and stability, which is desperately needed.