Harsha Kakar
The Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan met on the side lines of the Heart of Asia conference in Delhi last week. They spent over ninety minutes in discussion, which logically should have covered all pending issues, however was a damp squid. The Minister of State for foreign affairslater stated in parliament that this meeting was not a part of the composite dialogue. In contrast to a joint statement, as is the norm, the Pakistan embassy released its own statement, even while the meeting was in progress,highlighting the issues theywere raising. The Indian statement came much later.
The Pakistaniagenda, whichcomprised of the settlement of J and K issue and Indian sponsored terrorism in Baluchistan and Karachi pushed the clock back. The counter reply by India and insistence on talks focussing on terror enhanced the distance. It appears that with passage of time allearlier progress has receded into the sunset.
Between January and now, when they were supposed to have met, immense water has flowed under the bridge. While the talks have been in limbo, their Joint Investigation Team (JIT) visited India and was presented the depth of evidence provingPakistan’s hand in the episode.Then was the press conference in which their High Commissioner stated that talks are suspended and the Indian NIA may not be permitted. Within this period was the arrest of the so-called Indian spy in Baluchistan. Recently, with the release of the Panama papers, the friction between their army chief and Prime Minister is out into the open. The army has slowly established a complete stranglehold on security and India-Pak relations. This has forced the civilian government onto the defensive preventing them from re-emphasising peace talks.
The actions taken by the two Prime Ministers aiming to move talks forward now seem to have receded. The diplomatic, military and economic support from China and the release of F-16 aircraft from the US has given the Pakistan military the power to continue with its policy of ‘bleeding India with a thousand cuts’.The offensive approach adopted by their foreign secretary appears to have beenscripted by the army. They were so certain of the flow, that their press statement was released even while the talks were in progress.
India continues to be defensive and mature in its dealing, while Pakistan on the other hand indicates brashness and rigidity in its approach. This is possibly due to its fear of the ever increasing Indian conventional military superiority as also Pakistan’s inability to overcome earlier military defeats. This is also proven by their statement that its nuclear weapon developmentis solely aimed at India. The appointment of a retired general as the NSA appeared to indicate a tacit approval of the army in progress of talks, howeverrecent actions show a reversal in their approach. Progress forward on all issues, including Pathankot and Mumbai, presently appear to be moving at snail’s pace, with no light at the end of the tunnel.
Pakistan’s woes also just do not seem to end. Lack of progress in the Afghan talks is inviting criticism from both Afghanistan and the US. The Afghan President has threatened to take the issue to the UN Security Council. While China may veto the move, however, Pakistan would be exposed. The front runners for the next US Presidency are clearly against their approach to terrorism, thus unless they act fast, they could lose future US support, which would only be India’s gain. Pakistan is working to ensure security to the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the Gwadar port, both of which are targets of various Baluch groups, level of success of which is still far from satisfactory. Internally the nation is on the boil, with terrorism raising its head even in Punjab. In this context, its only option is to blow the trumpet of the so-called Indian RAW agent theory. This automatically would justify their supporting terrorist groups operating against India as tit for tat, which is what they desire to continue doing.
While India may not consider Pakistan a high priority in its foreign policy agenda, however, it would need to deal with it in some manner. Even if talks do not commence, the borders remain peaceful or partially active, the worry is support to terrorist groups attacking Indian citizens. Therefore, Indian policy should be based on projecting Pakistan’s role in supporting international terrorismresulting in international isolation.
India should highlight the Pakistani connection in almost every terrorist activity on the globe from 9/11 to date. Recent arrests of Pakistani nationals in Europe, UK and USon terror charges, does indicate that the nation is an exporter of terrorism, intentional or otherwise. Its role in enhancing casualties in Afghanistan to civilians and NATO military personnel thuspreventing NATO withdrawal should be continually highlighted, especially with the ongoing battle for the White House. In addition, its supported Taliban has increased the production of opium in the areas it controls, impact of which would be felt far and wide.
India should also enhance its interaction with Pakistan’s traditional allies, the Gulf States to reduce its influence. Pakistan’s intended aim to gain proximity to Russia was rebuked recently by Putin, when he turned down an offer for a visit. India should aim at making Pakistan a state surviving only with Chinese support, unless it changes its outlook and policies.
The most difficult action for India would be restricting or controlling Chinese support for Pakistan. This unstinted support, increasing with the CPEC, provides them with the moral courage to continue with its terrorism support policy. Since China visualizes Pakistan as a strategic balance for India, it would continue to provide it with military and economic aid. India’s objection on the recent Chinese veto case changed nothing. China’s comments neither indicated a change in their stance, not their acceptance of India’s viewpoint.
While we may work to lowering the standing of Pakistan globally, Chinese support would continue unabated. India therefore, should prepare for the long haul, presently desist from talks unless firm and positive indicators come from them, while continuing to maintain a credible conventional military edge. Simultaneously we need to develop capabilities to retaliate against any terrorist strike on Indian soil. Finally, we need to officially provide moral support to the Baluch and other movements ongoing in Pakistan on humanitarian grounds, thereby truly engaging in tit for tat.
(The author is a retired Major General of the Indian Army)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel