Nirupama Rao Restarted Pakistan Talks After 26/11, Now Wants More Engagement
When former Foreign Secretary Nirupama Menon Rao recently suggested that women from India and Pakistan should come together to explore new avenues of engagement, it was presented as a thoughtful, forward-looking idea. But for many in India, the statement raises an uncomfortable question. This is the same diplomat who served as India’s Foreign Secretary from 2009 to 2011, a period when India resumed talks with Pakistan after the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. If that experience is any guide, why should India trust a similar approach again?
26/11 and India’s Strong Initial Position
The 2008 Mumbai attacks were not just another incident. They were a direct assault on India’s sovereignty, planned and executed by terrorists linked to Pakistan-based groups. India responded firmly. Dialogue was suspended. Diplomatic pressure was mounted globally. Pakistan was asked to act against terror networks and bring perpetrators to justice.
At that moment, India held strong moral and strategic ground. The world stood with India. Pakistan was under scrutiny. The expectation was clear: accountability first, engagement later.
Her Role as Foreign Secretary After 26/11
Nirupama Rao took over as Foreign Secretary in 2009, inheriting one of the most sensitive diplomatic situations in recent history. As the top bureaucratic authority in the Ministry of External Affairs, she was directly responsible for executing India’s foreign policy, including managing India-Pakistan engagement.
During her tenure, India moved towards resuming dialogue with Pakistan. Foreign Secretary-level talks were held in 2010, marking a clear shift from complete disengagement to structured diplomatic contact. While these decisions were taken by the political leadership, the Foreign Secretary played a central role in shaping, conducting, and defending this engagement.
The Decision to Resume Talks
By 2010, India had reopened dialogue despite key concerns remaining unresolved. The masterminds of 26/11 were neither prosecuted effectively nor dismantled from their networks.
This raises fundamental questions. What changed between 2008 and 2010? What new assurances did Pakistan offer? And most importantly, why did India move ahead without visible accountability?
What Actually Changed on the Ground
A closer look suggests very little had changed. Terror infrastructure across the border remained intact. Legal proceedings in Pakistan moved slowly, often appearing symbolic rather than substantive. There was no decisive action that would indicate a shift in policy or intent.
Despite this, talks resumed. The message it sent was troubling. That even after a major terror attack, India was willing to return to the table without securing concrete outcomes.
Did India Lose Strategic Leverage
Resuming talks had consequences. International pressure on Pakistan gradually eased. The narrative shifted from terrorism to broader bilateral issues. Pakistan regained diplomatic space it had lost after 26/11.
More importantly, it raised doubts about India’s deterrence posture. If dialogue resumes without accountability, what incentive does the other side have to change behaviour?
The Same Thinking, Repackaged Today
Fast forward to today, and the same line of thinking appears again. The idea of “insulated engagement” or cooperation in parallel domains is being presented as strategic maturity. But at its core, it reflects the same philosophy that guided policy after 26/11. Engage, even when core issues remain unresolved.
The only difference now is the framing. Instead of formal diplomacy, it is presented as a women-led initiative. But the underlying premise remains unchanged.
The Problem With This Approach
The issue is not engagement itself. Nations can and do engage with adversaries. The problem arises when engagement is detached from accountability. Without clear benchmarks, timelines, or consequences, such engagement risks becoming symbolic rather than strategic.
The recent proposal offers no mechanism. It does not address enforcement. It does not explain how past patterns will be avoided. It assumes goodwill where history has shown repeated violations.
India Deserves Answers
The decisions taken after 26/11 were among the most sensitive in India’s diplomatic history. They shaped the trajectory of India-Pakistan relations for years. It is reasonable to ask whether those decisions achieved their intended objectives.
Did India secure justice? Did Pakistan change its behaviour? Or did India concede ground without receiving anything meaningful in return?
These are not academic questions. They go to the heart of national security and strategic policy.
Conclusion
India cannot afford to repeat a cycle where terror attacks are followed by calls for engagement without accountability. Strategic patience should not become strategic complacency. Those who played a role in shaping post-26/11 policy, especially those in positions like the Foreign Secretary, must be open to scrutiny when advocating similar approaches today.
Engagement is not inherently wrong. But engagement without leverage, without accountability, and without lessons from the past is not strategy. It is risk.
