To target Pak, raise costs for its military

India has taken one firm decision so far after the Uri attack — to not attend the Saarc summit in Islamabad due in early November. And, in sympathy, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Bhutan have also decided to skip the meet. The clear import of this is that the Islamabad summit may now not take place at all, if any of these nations follows through on its move to not attend with holding back consent for proceeding with the summit. (In the last summit in Kathmandu, Bangladesh did not attend but permitted the meeting to go through.)

At the regional level, this diminishes Pakistan and shows that for all the international support it enjoys in relation to leading powers like the United States, China and Saudi Arabia, its neighbours view its policies toward them as dubious, to say the least. However, it is open to interpretation whether this can be seen as “diplomatic isolation”.

As a concept, Saarc has value, but Islamabad’s contribution to its development has been far from impressive. In fact, it has frequently been obstructive on account of its opposition to India. Consequently, Saarc has remained an idea whose time has not yet come. This has led India to participate enthusiastically in sub-regional or bilateral cooperative arrangements with countries in South Asia, and some of these relationships have taken wing.

However, the question will not easily go away whether the fate of Saarc constitutes retributive action against Pakistan for using terrorism as an instrument of state policy, although Islamabad’s neighbours speaking so forthrightly can cause a public debate within Pakistan.

In its communication to Nepal, the current Saarc chairman, India said Tuesday that it cannot attend the 19th summit in Islamabad because of “increasing cross-border terrorist attacks in the region and growing interference in the internal affairs of member states by one country”.

This is quite pointed. But Islamabad finds its economic and financial solace in the US, China and Saudi Arabia, not South Asia. Will it see the latest developments as punishment for Uri or promoting extremism and terrorism? If its actions and words suggest otherwise, the issue arises whether we may expect more actions in relation to Pakistan on the part of India and its neighbours.

It appears that India is still in the process of devising ways to raise the costs for Pakistan. As a followup to the boycott of the Islamabad summit, New Delhi will need to raise its game and seek to persuade some of the leading powers to wield the economic stick against Islamabad, particularly its military leadership. The fight against terrorism does need to be given an effective international dimension which translates into economic punishment for Pakistan’s military, which, in real terms, is the permanent regime in Islamabad.