Time to reassess, size up Pakistan

PAKISTAN is a failed State. Pakistan should be declared a terrorist state. Pakistan’s economy is sinking. Pakistan has been internationally isolated. We have dehyphenated ourselves from Pakistan. Even Prabowo Subianto, President of Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation, delinked his visit to India from a trip to Pakistan. For a decade now, the Indian public has been fed this narrative. A leading New Delhi think tank even published a paper by one of its senior scholars, titled, ‘Jaishankar Makes it Clear: Pakistan is Now Just a Sideshow for India.’

Advertisement

What accounts for this hesitation on the part of the so-called ‘international community’ to call a spade a spade?

On June 4, less than a month after the two nations were engaged in hostilities focused on terrorist groups based in Pakistan, the United Nations Security Council named Pakistan as vice-chair of its Counter-Terrorism Committee. This comes on top of a series of minor and major diplomatic victories for Pakistan over the past month. It is time to pay greater attention to our relations with our neighbour and to how the world views Pakistan.

The first diplomatic shock came when on May 9, two days into the cross-border hostilities, the executive board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) voted to extend an over $2-billion loan to Pakistan. India was the only member of the board that abstained. All others, including all members of the Group of Seven, voted to give Pakistan a breather. The only Indian official who publicly criticised the IMF board for this decision, Raksha Mantri Rajnath Singh, did so almost as an afterthought. The IMF decision was followed by financial support from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.

Then spoke US President Donald Trump. In the first of a dozen statements so far, he claimed credit for getting the warring neighbours to declare a ceasefire. He persisted with his claims even after India officially denied that the US had anything to do with the ceasefire. To rub salt into Indian diplomatic wounds, President Trump not only equated India and Pakistan as good friends of the US but claimed that both are important countries because they are nuclear powers and that they would now trade with each other and the US to avoid future conflict.

While many countries supported India in its battle against terrorism, only two — Israel and Afghanistan — named Pakistan as its sponsor. Within days, Beijing hosted a trilateral with Pakistan and Afghanistan and made the two make up. That left only Israel, accused today of conducting genocide against a hapless people, supporting India. Even Russia spoke with a forked tongue. Days after the Pahalgam terror attack, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar mocked the European Union, saying that India was seeking “partners not preachers”. Sure, no one preached after that. However, few partnered.

Many in India are aghast. What accounts for this hesitation on the part of the so-called ‘international community’ to call a spade a spade? Why has there been no whole-hearted condemnation of Pakistan or at least a more genuine expression of solidarity with India? Why did Prime Minister Narendra Modi have to depute multi-party delegations of members of Parliament around the world to do the work of India’s ambassadors?

The point is that it was not always like this. The international community stood with India when in 1999 it repulsed Pakistani soldiers attired in mufti at Kargil. The global opinion on the status of Kashmir changed after that, with US President Bill Clinton giving his imprimatur to the Simla Agreement that sanctified the Line of Control as a virtual border. Clinton visited India for five days and Pakistan for five hours. He praised India and admonished Pakistan.

Again, in November 2008, after the terror attack in Mumbai, the entire world stood with India. Pakistan was shamed for its role on both occasions because its role was manifest and, equally importantly, the world gave Indian statements due regard. Statements made by the governments of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh were taken seriously in all major capitals of the world. Neither had to waste national resources to fly 50 parliamentarians around the world to convince them of our case. Professional diplomats did that job.

The Union Government’s inability to identify the nationality of the terrorists involved in the Pahalgam attack and clearly establish Pakistan’s culpability has handicapped Indian diplomacy this time. Equally, many countries are wondering whether Indian domestic politics has not played its part in weakening India’s case on cross-border terrorism. The Indian State was viewed as a secular and democratic state and the governments of Vajpayee and Singh as responsible governments that deserved international support. The Indian case in this regard has become weaker and international opinion less charitable.

The first task of national security and foreign policy management has to be the correct sizing up of one’s enemy. Second, to ensure adequate contact at different levels that facilitates an exchange of credible information. By shutting down all diplomatic, business and civil society engagement with Pakistan, India has deprived itself of the means to acquire a balanced assessment of its neighbour and the ability to influence opinion across the border.

While the economic gap between the two countries has certainly grown, Pakistan is not a basket case. It has a sizeable economy, a sizeable industrial and agricultural base, links with major economies and a competent military.

In a recent interview with The Print’s Swasti Rao, a European diplomat reminded Indians of the many strengths and capabilities of Pakistan’s air force. Apart from its hard power, Pakistan has always enjoyed the soft power of its elite. In a highly feudal and unequal society, Pakistan’s elites continue to be groomed to interact with confidence and class with their Western interlocutors. India’s new middle class that now populates its politics and diplomacy is no match.