External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar’s upcoming visit to Islamabad recalled to memory a statement by a former defence secretary who said only Punjabis negotiating on behalf of both India and Pakistan could find permanent solutions to disputes between the two countries.
The occasion, about 30 years ago, was a book release by a foreign secretary who had retired around the same time as this Punjabi defence secretary. Responding to this argument, the former foreign secretary, a Malayali, quoted Urdu poet Ghalib from the book being released: “Nuktacheen hai gham-e-dil usko sunaey na baney / Kya baney baat jahan baat banaye na baney.” (The cogitations of my heart are so complex and convoluted; how can I explain them to my protagonist? How can I create a harmonious relationship when the impulses and motivations for it are not there?)
P V Narasimha Rao, then the prime minister, appeared to give the defence secretary’s rationale an honest try. He picked R L Bhatia, minister of state for external affairs and an Amritsari, to break the ice with Pakistan and sent him on a visit to Islamabad. It came after a long hiatus in bilateral talks following the demolition of Babri Masjid. In the end, Bhatia’s Islamabad visit amounted to nothing.
Bhatia told the Rajya Sabha subsequently that Pakistan was given another chance to engage India. That was when the foreign secretary went to Islamabad to take part in a meeting of the Commonwealth’s senior officials in November 1994. “We had conveyed in advance to Pakistan through diplomatic channels that the foreign secretary would be available for any discussions, formally or informally, on bilateral issues. Pakistan, however, did not avail itself of the opportunity to resume the bilateral dialogue,” Bhatia said.
Jaishankar’s clarification last week that he was not going to Islamabad to discuss India-Pakistan relations is a familiar case of history repeating itself on one side or the other. When Jaishankar said “I am a courteous and civil person, I will behave myself accordingly” in Islamabad, what he meant was that there will be a handshake between him and Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar.
There was a time when Indian and Pakistani leaders refused to shake each other’s hands if they came across one another. That period of mutual incivility after the Kargil intrusion and the December 2001 terrorist attack on parliament ended a year later at the SAARC summit in Kathmandu. After finishing his address to South Asian heads of state and government, General Pervez Musharraf took everyone by surprise when he walked towards Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee with an extended hand. Vajpayee got up from his seat and took Musharraf’s hand.
But Vajpayee was cutting when his turn came to speak. Departing from his prepared text, Vajpayee said: “I am glad that President Musharraf extended a hand of friendship to me. I have shaken his hand in your presence. Now President Musharraf must follow this gesture by not permitting any activity in Pakistan or any territory it controls today which enables terrorists to perpetrate mindless violence in India.”
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Jaishankar are right in not wanting to resume bilateral dialogue with Pakistan at this stage. It will be a wasteful exercise. Even though there will be no talks with Dar or anyone else of similar standing across the border—as of now—there will be a spring in Jaishankar’s steps in Islamabad. The largely peaceful conduct of assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir and the impressive voter turnout have significantly added to the credit column of Pakistan diplomacy in South Block, the seat of the ministry of External Affairs. Because the BJP did not win outright in the Union territory, there will be greater credibility for the poll process, unlike the notorious, rigged assembly elections in 1987, for instance.
All the same, not engaging Pakistan cannot be a permanent policy. The government’s position that talks and terrorism cannot go hand in hand is appealing to the Indian masses, but it will not cut ice with the international community forever. The world is moving on—the long strife in Northern Ireland has ended, Timor-Leste is independent and at peace, the Balkans are no longer seeing genocide, nor is Rwanda, to give some of many contemporary examples.
If India is to claim its rightful place as a responsible big power in the long run or take its permanent seat at the horseshoe table in the United Nations Security Council chamber, it must solve its disputes with Pakistan. At least, it must be seen to be doing something about it. That is what diplomats are for, juxtaposed with rabble-rousing, vote-seeking politicians. Jaishankar must think out of the box sooner than later about what to do with Pakistan, since routine steps have been tried and have failed.
State policy in Islamabad and Rawalpindi, the Army General Headquarters, towards India is unlikely to change. It can only harden with domestic politics in the northern neighbourhood rapidly descending from a sump into a cesspool. Caught up in daily efforts to stop bloodshed from cross-border terrorism and neutralise plots almost weekly, India’s policymakers have never sufficiently acknowledged that Pakistan is not a monolith in the way it views India. The people of Balochistan have a lot of affection for India owing to the region’s history. Residents of Sind have more in common with Gujarat and Maharashtra than they have with the rest of Pakistan.
It is time to break down a comprehensive Pakistan policy into reciprocal approaches towards its provinces. If it has been done in the past, it has been limited, by way of outreaches to the Muttahida Qaumi Movement in Karachi and Baloch nationalists. Their objective has been to corner Islamabad. These outreaches have to be widened.
India must have a contingency plan for the dangerous eventuality of a break-up of Pakistan in view of its ongoing siege within. Indians could envisage living in peace with the people of Sind and Balochistan if Rawalpindi’s veto on India policy is weakened. Maybe, as the former defence secretary said three decades ago, Punjabis on both sides of the border could then negotiate their own people-to-people relations through border trade and a shared heritage.
(Views are personal)
(kpnayar@gmail.com)
K P Nayar | Strategic analyst