The dead end with Pakistan : The Tribune India

Join Whatsapp Channel

The dead end with Pakistan

The Modi government’s decision to cancel the New York meeting between External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and her Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi, within a day of its announcement, shows that its timing and context were simply not thought through.

The dead end with Pakistan

Marked: By issuing such stamps, anti-India propaganda has been taken to a new level.



Vivek Katju
Ex-Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs

The Modi government’s decision to cancel the New York meeting between External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and her Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi, within a day of its announcement, shows that its timing and context were simply not thought through. Diplomatically, it made sense to give a positive response to Pakistan PM Imran Khan’s suggestion that the two ministers meet. India should never be intransigent in exploring peace with Pakistan, even as it should always be firm, if not proactive, in dealing with its hostility. The agreement to meet signalled the former while the caution that it should not be construed as the beginning of the bilateral dialogue process clearly demonstrated the latter. The distinction between the two — a simple meeting and comprehensive dialogue — is real and valid.  

The political leadership has to carefully weigh all factors, not only diplomatic, while making up its mind on foreign policy issues. This is especially in matters relating to Pakistan for they evoke, for historical reasons, such popular passion. If the government had decided, for whatsoever reason, to profile the surgical strikes, the meeting would have caused avoidable confusion in the public mind about its Pakistan policy. The External Affairs Ministry’s timing of announcing the meeting added to an inherently problematic decision. BSF jawan Narinder Singh, who was killed by Pakistani forces, was cremated on the same day. The spike in public anger against Pakistan led to anger against the decision. That, the government could hardly ignore. 

The government could have gone ahead with the meeting if it had taken the nation into confidence on what Sushma Swaraj would covey to Qureshi. The cleaner alternative though was to cancel it and face some criticism. That is the path the government chose. It attributed the cancellation to the killing of three police personnel in J&K and Pakistani set of stamps on slain terrorist Burhan Wani and claims of rights violations. The stamps were issued in July but officials maintain that decision makers became aware of them only after the meeting was announced. In issuing these stamps, Pakistan has taken anti-India propaganda to a new medium and, hence, to a new level. It cannot absolve the Imran Khan government by stating that they were brought out by the interim government. It was open to Imran Khan to try to withhold their distribution. He obviously decided not to do so. Indian anger is justified but a question remains. How did Indian diplomats and intelligence agencies miss the stamps? And, if they were aware why was the government kept in the dark?

The External Affairs Ministry statement cancelling the meeting said Pakistan’s ‘evil agenda’ has been ‘exposed’. Surely, Imran Khan’s proposal for talks and new beginnings notwithstanding the government could not have been oblivious of Pakistan’s continuing agenda, controlled by the army, against India. Why was then the government hopeful that Imran Khan’s coming would change Pakistan’s policy? Why the exuberance of giving him a cricket bat signed by the Indian cricket team? Was High Commissioner Ajay Bisaria authorised to publicly say that with Imran Khan’s coming in a ‘new political window’ had opened up and ‘we were filled with cautious hope’. In any event, Pakistan’s India policy is, and will remain, under the army’s control. Qureshi’s claim that Pakistan’s foreign policy would be made in his ministry is bogus. Thus, does a political window, even if there is one, ever relevent? The government needs to introspect.

Imran Khan’s tweet about ‘small men’ occupying ‘big offices’ and showing ‘no vision to see the larger picture’ was petty. It is one thing for foreign ministries to exchange bitter statements involving comments on leaders and quite another for a leader to personally make them. Is it that in the age of Trump international norms are morphing? If so, it will make the task of diplomacy to manage relations more difficult. A foreign ministry should not make a derogatory comment on a foreign leader. It serves no diplomatic purpose.  

As PM Narendra Modi’s current foray runs into the sand, he should deeply reflect on his Pakistan initiatives. His first, inviting PM Nawaz Sharif to his swearing in to open a new chapter ended with the then Pakistan high commissioner’s meeting with the Hurriyat, prior to a visit of the foreign secretary to Islamabad. Some months later, Modi took a second initiative, sending the new Foreign Secretary to Pakistan, and then met Nawaz Sharif at Ufa. They agreed on India and Pakistan national security advisers meeting in Delhi to discuss terror. The Pakistani generals objected and Modi agreed to dilute the agreement. Consequently, the NSAs met in Bangkok along with the foreign secretaries. That engagement led to Sushma Swaraj’s visit to Pakistan, the announcement of a Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue and Modi’s drop-in visit to Lahore on Christmas in 2015. Despite the Pathankot attack, Modi tried to salvage the initiative by allowing a Pakistan investigating team to visit the Pathankot air base. However, the Uri attack put paid to it after it was teetering because of Pakistan’s support to the Kashmir agitation after Burhan Wani’s killing.

The unmistakable lesson of these events is that the Pakistan army, even with the country amid deep economic problems, is unwilling to give up its calibrated terrorism against India. It wants an engagement, but only on its terms. This is demonstrated, once again, by the present episode and despite the Doval-Janjua contacts. The prudent approach for Modi is to handle the Pakistan relationship through a focus on humanitarian and people-to-people issues and adopting strong and sustained measures to end Pakistani terror. Is there an alternative in the light of three decades of experience?

 

Top News

Lok Sabha polls: PM Modi holds massive roadshow in Palakkad

Lok Sabha polls: PM Modi holds massive roadshow in Palakkad

Modi’s Palakkad roadshow follows his recent participation at...

Patanjali advertising case: Supreme Court asks Ramdev, Balkrishna to appear before it

Patanjali advertising case: Supreme Court asks Ramdev, Balkrishna to appear before it

The bench also issued notice to Ramdev to show cause why con...


Cities

View All