Kanwal Sibal
Our policy towards Pakistan has been marked by flip-flops and lack of coherence because an adequate answer to the complex and enduring challenges that we face from that country has evaded us so far. We have repeatedly reached out to Pakistan in the hope that in its own interest it will see the wisdom of ending its confrontation with India, and we have not been deterred from doing so even when our expectations have been repeatedly belied. Like a gambler we keep placing bets, keep losing, but keep hoping we might win one day.
We are again reaching out to Pakistan, with the prime minister, Narendra Modi, speaking to his counterpart in Pakistan and deciding to send the foreign secretary to Islamabad. The cloak of SAARC and cricket has been given to this initiative, so that it is not too glaring that we are reversing course and resuming foreign-secretary-level talks with Pakistan that we called off in August, 2014, because Pakistan's high commissioner in Delhi met the Hurriyat leaders first.
Of course, if Pakistan had sent us encouraging signals in the intervening months, we would be right in re-connecting with it. Permanent tensions with Pakistan are not in our interest. But we cannot normalize relations unilaterally; Pakistan must want that too, and this should be visible in its actions and not in mere affirmations of peace meant for diplomatic consumption, especially in the West.
In actual fact, Pakistan has not changed its hostile attitude towards India. Nawaz Sharif has been notably aggressive over Kashmir by repeatedly invoking the United Nations resolutions and self-determination, and calling it - very recently again - the "jugular vein" of Pakistan. If so, then it is a territorial, life-and-death issue for Pakistan, not one of "self-determination", as it spuriously claims. He constantly seeks third-party intervention in Jammu and Kashmir, contrary to the Simla Agreement, which he studiously ignores in his references to past India-Pakistan accords. He sees no contradiction in his supposed commitment to peace with India while seeking a solution to Kashmir at India's expense.
Pakistan's forces have been firing regularly in recent months across the international border in Jammu, where villages populated by Hindus are located. Nawaz Sharif, despite past promises, is not moving forward in trying those responsible for the 2008 Mumbai massacre. On banning the Jamaat-udDawa as a terrorist organization, the Nawaz Sharif government has been deliberately deceitful in its statements. Far from placing any curbs on Hafiz Saeed, it is giving him opportunities to hold rallies and spout his usual venom against India. We see no tangible action by Nawaz Sharif against jihadi groups in Pakistan that target India. Many elements - including General Musharraf - are poisoning public opinion in Pakistan by alleging Indian support for the Pakistani Taliban and the Peshawar school massacre. We are accused of interference in Baluchistan from Afghan soil whenever the issue of their support for terrorism in India is raised. In fact, Pakistan refuses to recognise any responsibility for terrorism in India, citing its own combat against terrorism at home, which it claims is "sponsored and supported from abroad". Nawaz Sharif pointedly fails to mention the 2004 Islamabad Declaration committing Pakistan to end terrorism against India from territory under its control. Pakistan is determined to keep agitating the water issue, with its latest move to obstruct another Indian power project permitted by the Indus Waters treaty in acutely power-deficient J&K. For political reasons, Nawaz Sharif has baulked at according the status of "most favoured nation" to India, in spite of earlier commitments and benefits that a beleaguered economy in Pakistan would reap in improving trade ties with India. On Afghanistan, Pakistan is pursuing its strategy of countering India's presence and influence there.
In recent weeks, Nawaz Sharif's national security and foreign affairs adviser, Sartaj Aziz, has exhibited Pakistan's unremitting hostility towards India by publicly objecting to American support for India's permanent seat in the UN security council, claiming that this would violate the UNSC's resolutions on matters of international peace and security, such as the J&K dispute, and declaring that India "by no means qualifies for a special status in the Security Council". He also voiced opposition to India's membership of the nuclear suppliers group, arguing that this discriminates against Pakistan and is a case of another country's specific exemption, which would undermine the credibility of the NSG, the fragile strategic stability in South Asia, while weakening the nonproliferation regime. He attacked the nuclear deal between India and the United States, struck for "political and economic expediencies" for its detrimental impact on nuclear deterrence and overall balance in South Asia. He threatened that Pakistan reserves its right to safeguard its national security interests. He has warned against "India's dangerous desire to create a space for war". According to him, the dialogue process can only be advanced if talks are held on basic issues, which obviously means Kashmir as well as water.
Such a broadside by any country on the visit of a foreign leader to a third country as part of their bilateral engagement is most unusual in diplomacy unless it is a protest against something that has been said against it during that visit. To resent improved ties between the US and India to this extent shows an almost pathological antagonism towards India. Those in Pakistan, India and the West that distinguish between Pakistan's civilian government and its armed forces for negative attitudes towards India, and advise India to be more supportive of the former, should note that these statements are being made by civilian leaders. If they are fronting for the military with this kind of virulence, then it is hardly worthwhile courting them with any political gestures so long as they conduct themselves like puppets. Pakistan's fulminations should be contrasted with China's reticence on many elements in the India-US documents issued during Obama's visit that it can view as being directed at it.
The US has always prodded India to resume the dialogue with Pakistan, no matter how Pakistan behaves. During his visit,Barack Obama seems to have pressed Modi to resume contact with Pakistan. According to the US deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, the pursuit of dialogue "is something that the United States has consistently supported, and we will continue to do so". After Obama's visit, the US ambassador to India has publicly espoused his country's interest in furthering such a dialogue. US officials told the media before Obama's visit that he will raise with Modi the issue of "how the two nuclear-armed neighbours can resume dialogue and reduce their hostilities", which is the usual US excuse for supporting Pakistan and seeking to control India's Pakistan policy.
Pakistan is persuaded that even if the dialogue process is broken by India because of Pakistan's provocations, it will resume talks eventually because, first, it has no choice and, second, the international community will pressure it to do so. It knows well that its intransigence will pay. With India now initiating foreign-secretary-level contact, Pakistan will conclude that its assumptions have been proved right again. It may be that developments behind the scene justify the government's initiative. And maybe the gamble will pay off this time.
The author is former foreign secretary of India sibalkanwal@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment