Senator Mir Hasil Bizenjo, son of the legendary Baloch leader Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo, for instance, sees 'no proof of Indian support' or involvement in Balochistan's troubles. Nor is he alone in making that assertion.

Pakistan conveniently forgets the longstanding denial of distributive economic justice and development in its largest province. India is always the easy villain for anything that goes wrong in Pakistan. While there may be some takers of this propaganda within Pakistan and among some of its friends, the latest charge of India funding the Taliban flies in the face of all logic.

That India, one of the prime targets of Talibani fundamentalists, should be funding and propping up Taliban-Al Qaeda network is a lie even Goebbels would have ruled out for his own reputation. One would have dismissed such a claim as kite flying if it had been made by some lowly functionary of Pakistani establishment but not so when it came from Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik. Even that could have been dismissed in Pakistan's current state of affairs where ministers often parrot out their Master's Voice. The tactic could certainly not be ignored when it was repeated by the Army Chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani himself.

Dr Manmohan Singh, normally quite taciturn, spoke his mind on America's CNN television channel in an interview with Fareed Zakaria when he said:    India didn't know whom to talk to in Pakistan.

That brings us to the question: who really speaks for Pakistan? Or better still, who rules Pakistan? There are at least six power centres in Pakistan, five within the constitutional norms and one outside the accepted law. Top of the constitutional ladder has the figure of President Asif Ali Zardari.

Never a popular leader, his authority as a party or national leader has been dealt a devastating blow with the annulment of amnesty over corruption and other charges under the NRO by the 17-strong bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry. Zardari himself may still be beyond the reach of fresh prosecution because as president he enjoys immunity but some of his cabinet ministers and other establishment functionaries and supporters face re-opening of cases against them. Even his own position is not half as assured as he might like to believe. Critics across the country are baying for him and asking him to step down forthwith on moral grounds. The chorus for this demand is only going to grow shriller with time.

Prime Minister Gilani is presumably the next figure on the political ladder. Unfortunately he does not come from Sindh province, the power base of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). Nor does he have any significant political base even in his native Punjab province. His tenure obviously depends on the pleasure of PPP led by Zardari whose own position is visibly wobbly.

Army Chief General Kayani certainly looks more powerful than others on that ladder. But the perceived failure of the long military rule under his predecessor General Pervez Musharraf and his huge electoral defeat and consequent exit from the political scene renders General Kayani and his military team a rather weak and not-so-credible a force. Certainly the army is in no position to stage any coup and take control of civil power. Nevertheless the army remains the most powerful authority in the current scenario while the constitutional players from president to National Assembly (parliament) leaders take time to assert their authority.  

Mr Nawaz Sharif, leader of the opposition Muslim League (N) power centre, has plenty of credibility in the most powerful Punjab province but he is suspect in the eyes of the military as an old adversary. His brush with General Musharraf still rankles in military circles. Besides, he is dubbed somewhat pro-India for his initiation of the 1998 dialogue with former Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his stand ten years later on the identity of Ajmal Kasab, the lone terrorist caught alive in the Mumbai 26/11 carnage in India.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, though eminently placed on the ladder of hierarchy in Pakistan, rules himself out of political or diplomatic power play by virtue of the judiciary's constitutional place in the scheme of things.

Last but not least is another power centre in Pakistan — the unconstitutional and outlawed Taliban-Al Qaeda network. Brazen in its attacks on Pakistan's military and other institutions, it yet pulls at the heartstrings of a diminishing, yet sizeable section of elements within and outside the Pakistani establishment.

So who does India engage with for a resumed dialogue? That is the Doctor's genuine dilemma and Manmohan   Singh can be excused for openly saying so. 

'I do not think whether we have a partner right now. I think when General Pervez Musharraf was there (president of Pakistan), I was to ask him and he said: “well, I am the army, I represent the armed forces, I represent the people.” Now I do not know whom to deal with,' Manmohan Singh told Zakaria in the CNN interview.

The state of power play in the country is in a flux, just ripe for the Talibani saboteurs of Indo-Pak samjhota or rapprochement. While sorting out the internal mess is Pakistan's own responsibility, India need not stand aloof and watch the Taliban make greater inroads into Pakistan or, God forbid, even take over Pakistan.

Let the dialogue be resumed at the military level. The army chiefs of both countries could start the ball rolling and thrash out ground level differences. A few rounds of talks at the military level can do no harm and may even break the logjam. At a later stage constitutional authorities — prime minister/president — can be brought in along the route to a final approval or ratification by the parliaments of the two countries.

It may not be so easy to work out the modalities of such a dialogue, more so because bringing together military minds could be a formidable exercise by itself. Let the military chiefs shake hands, instead of shadow boxing with each other from a distance.

. top