Kasuri ka kya kasur tha?

Both in India and Pakistan, Kasuri is considered a dove, a man swayed by the dreams of a solution rather than stymied by hard wall of obstacles, comments Karan Thapar.

Today I want to play Devil’s advocate. It is, after all, the name of a programme I make for CNN-IBN. More than that, it’s a well-established role for journalists to adopt.

HT Image

To question conventional wisdom is one way of inviting people to think again. That is my intention.

For his comments after the Bombay blasts Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri has been severely criticised. But what did he say that was so terrible?

Could it be that he spoke the truth but his timing was tactless? Would we accept the same sentiment from someone else? And has he been made a scapegoat?

First let me own up to the fact I’ve met Kasuri and like what I know of him. He’s a warm, friendly and accommodating man. But even if he was not I would still argue the point I’m about to make. It’s not influenced by interest or friendship.

This is what Kasuri said on July 11, hours after the Bombay bombs: “I think the Mumbai incident -- however tragic it may be and it is undoubtedly very tragic -- underlines the need for the two countries to work together to control this environment, but they can only do so if they resolve their disputes.”

In other words, the threat from Kashmiri terrorists will continue till the Kashmir dispute is amicably resolved. Well, who can deny that?

In the same Reuters interview Kasuri made his point in two other ways. First, “If you have these disputes, it enables negative forces in both the countries to blame the other country and exploit the sentiment ... So I think we should try and take advantage of this improved atmosphere and resolve outstanding disputes, particularly the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir.”

Second, “the situation is bound to improve once Pakistan and India have resolved their main disputes”. Again, can you quarrel with that?

There are three thoughts embedded in Kasuri’s comments. First, if the LeT did it -- and that’s the Indian position though the LeT deny it -- their aim was to further their Kashmir cause.

Second, such organisations now have the potential to carry out terror despite Pakistani pressure to desist. Third, when the Kashmir issue is settled they will lose their legitimacy and fade away.

That’s by and large true. We can bicker over the dimensions and significance of Pakistani support but the broad truth behind these assumptions seems undeniable.

So why did South Block blow a fuse and call Kasuri’s interview “appalling”? I can hazard three guesses. To begin with Kasuri’s timing was tactless. His comment sounded like a triumphal ‘I told you so’.

Given Pakistan has frequently complained that India is dragging its feet over the peace process this ill-timed expostulation was perceived as a way of rubbing it in. It was bound to rile Indian sensitivities.

Another explanation is that Kasuri’s comment wasn’t tactless but deliberate. He wanted to hurt, annoy and provoke. Although I can’t prove that wasn’t the case, it goes against the grain of the man.

So far, both in India and Pakistan, he’s considered a dove, a peacenik, a man swayed by the dreams of a solution rather than stymied by the rock hard wall of obstacles.

So to believe he meant to wound you have to first claim he’s changed. Up till now even South Block hasn’t made that leap.

Third, South Block was looking for an excuse to postpone the Foreign Secretary talks and slow down the peace process. General Musharraf’s proposals -- which received a warm welcome from Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti and Mirwaiz Farooq -- were becoming difficult to ignore or dismiss.

And India’s failure to respond -- or come up with options of its own, something it committed itself to do in October 2004 -- had become hard to explain.

So rather than let the process roll on, a small spanner in the works was the best alternative. Kasuri unwittingly provided the excuse.

However, unpublicised in India, The Economist has come to the same conclusion as Kasuri. The headline of an editorial dated July 15 reads: “India’s Horror: the attacks in Mumbai show why India and Pakistan must solve the problem of Kashmir”. But this time South Block hasn’t complained!

Of course, none of this is to deny Pakistan uses terror as a lever. That’s why we’ve agreed to talk about options for a solution to Kashmir.

And whilst Islamabad may reduce the level -- even occasionally to a minimum -- it won’t switch it off altogether until an acceptable solution is found. Otherwise why would India talk?

Kasuri’s mistake was to remind us of this at a raw moment. But that transgression hardly deserved the reply it got.

A more subtle and mature response would have served us better. A strategic riposte is a dish best served cold. To strike back in anger is to foot fault oneself.