B L Saraf
After hearing much pompous talk, emanating from both the sides of Redcliff line, Pakistan Foreign Minister, Billawal Bhutto Zardari finally landed in Goa -India – to take part in Foreign Ministers Conclave of the SCO, held recently. How fruitful or otherwise his visit was is better left to the other day. Suffice to say, an element of civility in Jai Shankar – Bhutoo interaction was a desired thing.
Referring to the role of Pakistan in sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir and other parts of the Country, Government of India would publicly shun any kind of engagement with Pakistan and explain its position thus: “terrorism and talks can’t go together “. On the other side, Pakistan too would, publicly, refuse having any talk with India until “K issue was put on the table.”For both, these are the predictable positions. The real situation tells something else. That mutual engagement between the two countries which started on a serious note in 2006 keeps going on with occasional break downs.
Sometimes domestic politics comes in the way of India -Pakistan to pick up the thread of mutual engagement, compel them to take confrontational positions and accuse each other of many wrong doings happening in their respective countries to publicly shun dialogue: the fact, however, is that both countries are in touch with each other to iron out issues which bedevil their relations. Doha talks and mutual exchanges held in a South East Asian country will bring forth the point. They have been talking to each other even after Balkot happened and developments of August, the 5th 2019 took place. If we have to believe a noted Pakistani columnist, Prime Minister Narandra Modi was about to visit Pakistan around 2021 to resolve pending issues.
Well known Pakistani journalist, Hamid Mir disclosed that General Qamar Javed Bajwa had almost settled Modi’s visit to Pakistan while Pak Foreign Minister was kept aloof. According to Mir, when FM Shah Mohammed Quereshi came to know about the development he rushed to his PM Imran Khan for clarification. Where upon, Imran Khan told General Bajwa to keep Foreign Minister in loop about the matter. One may not vouch authenticity of what Hamid Mir has said about Modi’s “not happened ” visit to Pakistan but it is quite true that high level contact between the two countries did exist , even in trying times . No wonder the knowledgeable circles attribute February 2021 cease fire agreement on the LOC to the back channel interactions between NSA Ajit Doval and Pak ISI Chief.
Hamid Mir had another interesting story to share with his fellow journalist, Naseem Zehra. That once he and some other journalist were invited by the then Pakistan Army Chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa to the Army Head Quarters and were informed that Pak Army can’t afford to go to war with India as its tanks were not in working condition and that there was no sufficient diesel for movement of forces. Genral Bajwa told them that Pakistan needs one hundred years peace on the LOC. Despite occasional belligerence of Pak Army towards India, it is true that for most of the period when peace prevailed on the border and useful treaties were executed between India and Pakistan Army was directly at the helm , in Pakistan. This is an accepted position across countries that Pakistan Army is a major stakeholder in matters relating to that country. So it has been prudent on the part of the governments in Delhi to take it on board.
Ambassador Satinder K Lambha, who has had a long career in diplomacy and managing Indo-Pak Back Channel dialogue for decades together, writes in his book In Pursuit Of Peace India – Pakistan Relations under Six Prime Ministers Penguin Viking:
” Historically , India and Pakistan have been successful in concluding agreements, treaties et al, when the Pakistan Army has been very much in the picture .Starting in 1958 -60, during the tenure of President Ayub Khan , boundary disputes relating to the borders of the states of Assam, Punjab, West Bengal and the then union territory of Tripura were resolved. Again in 1961, when Ayub Khan was in power, the Indo Pak Indus Treaty was signed. In June 1965, when Ayub was once again in power ,the dispute relating to Rann of Kutch was resolved .” Lambha goes on to write that even in President Zia’s time the intelligence chiefs of India and Pakistan had finalized agreement on LOC and even exchanged maps in that regard but on his sudden death these did not surface in Pakistan .
For many reasons it is the interests of India to keep Pakistan engaged. China is attempting to limit India’s influence by actively seeking new friends in its neighborhood. The Red Dragon is fast moving towards the West Asia where India has had traditional friendship with so many countries. They are now bowing to the China’s economic and military prowess, where it recently brokered peace agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia. This is a major development India can ill afford to overlook. And then China doesn’t seem to relent in Ladakh and Arunachal sectors where its forces are breathing down our neck .
True, it is rotational but presidency of two major global events in a one calendar year doesn’t come fortuitously. For a country like India to have ‘double presidency ‘of SCO and G -20 nations, in 2023, is an acknowledgement of its growing influence beyond borders. Such an honor brings in concomitant obligations for the host country. Prime one is an absence of bilateral tensions with a neighbour. Though good relations with all the neighboring countries will add to the luster.
The security scenario in J&K is far from satisfactory. Our brave hearts continue to attain martyrdom on the roads of Poonch, Rajouri and other places while fighting Pakistan trained and sponsored terrorists, whose only aim is destabilize India. They do not spare even unarmed civilians. There can be no let up against the blood thirsty terrorists who should be fought to the finish. As an added strategy, their source in Pakistan may be tackled by engagement. Here one may find great merit in what Ambassador Lambha suggests in his book (referred above) as a way forward. He writes:
” We can defend ourselves against hostility but instability in the neighbourhood can have unanticipated consequences .Not engaging a neighbor with a strong antagonism against India , a growing nuclear weapons arsenal and worsening stability , is not a wise choice .” P339
(The author is former Principal District & Session Judge)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
