Coherent strategy for Pak

One of the best things to emerge from the eventful Monsoon Session of Parliament is a richly instructive report on India-Pakistan Relations. Surprisingly, the report — remarkable, among other things, for Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar’s significant policy observations – has not drawn the attention it deserves in the media or the strategic affairs community.

Presented to the Lok Sabha on August 11, the report of Parliament’s Standing Committee on External Affairs is, perhaps, the most comprehensive one of its kind in recent memory.  The 31-member Committee, chaired by Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, has surveyed the entire spectrum of India-Pakistan relations — from the strategic to the economic and cultural. In its year-long examination of all the dimensions of the relationship, the Committee begins with an historical overview; maps the dialogue process, approach and policy; reviews border management and security, Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism and subversive activities, Jammu & Kashmir, nuclear and missile programme and the recent surgical strikes; captures the role and reactions of global actors and institutions; and, finally, suggests the way forward with a roadmap of 22 recommendations.

Rarely has such an exhaustive report of this kind — based on information, evidence and views of the Ministries of External Affairs, Home Affairs, Defence, Commerce and Industry and five experts – been brought out before. The report also carries comments critical of the Government. For instance, the Committee feels “that the Government’s measures to curb such (subversive) activities (of Pakistan) lack the necessary determination.” The report says that “the Government needs to be more decisive so as to send a clear-cut message to sponsors of these (subversive) acts.”

The Committee wants a National Security Framework to be worked out — without further loss of time — with the MEA playing its rightful role in shaping it. As in the past, the need for a National Security Doctrine as part of the Framework has been reiterated. The emphasis on the MEA’s “rightful role” points to the pulls and pressures at work behind the scenes for deciding which ministry and who gets to spell out the Framework and the doctrine. It is no secret that there is a tussle between the Ministry of Defence and MEA to take the lead in drafting the doctrine. There is also a view that it is the prerogative of the National Security Advisor to come up with the doctrine; and, that besides the MoD and MEA, the top brass of the armed forces also wants their say in it.

Perhaps, the emphasis on the Framework, instead of the doctrine, is intended to end the tussle for authorship of the doctrine, which has been going on for a long time. And, the absence of a doctrine (and framework) may be a major reason for the lack of a “coherent strategy towards Pakistan”. Whether the government has a coherent strategy towards Pakistan — or not — has been debated for many years in the strategic affairs community and among diplomats. It is also reflected in what at least one of the experts has submitted to the Committee.

Hence, it comes as no surprise that the Committee as a whole has mooted a Framework to develop “a coherent strategy towards Pakistan”; and, made out a case for it by citing “the multiple crises resulting from militancy, insurgency, terrorist attacks, unsettled border disputes etc.” The MEA, doubtless, finds this unacceptable and has said on record that “it is inaccurate to say that the Government does not have a coherent policy towards Pakistan”.

This is just one of the many points on which the MEA and the Committee differ, and the differences including of nuance are evident in the Report.

In fact, such differences add to the merit of the Report and make it educative and insightful. For that very reason, it needs to be ensured that every MP and every section of interested experts and institutions in India and abroad, especially global actors digest the report for its ramifications.

The public and even informed sections of opinion-makers are often bewildered by India’s policy, approach and strategy towards Pakistan. This report may help them grasp the underlying rationale and gain clarity.

The report is a good basis for the government to come out with a concise White Paper on India-Pakistan relation and lay the ground for an extended debate in Parliament on the matter. Such a debate would contribute to policymaking, influence future Committee reports and reinforce the bipartisan consensus which still prevails when it comes to core issues of foreign policy and national security.

The differences between the government, particularly the MEA, and the Committee are healthy in so far as they point to the influence of Parliament and political parties in the making of policy. The bipartisan consensus on policy is political and, therefore, reflected in the report of the Committee, which has representatives from all major parties. No matter how powerful the Foreign Secretary — and, Jaishankar is, perhaps, the most powerful incumbent in the last two decades — he, like the MEA, is the instrument for implementation. Whatsoever be his and the NSA’s influence and inputs in the matter, making policy is (and should remain) the preserve of the political leadership.

Similar reports on India-China and India-Afghanistan relations would be useful for clarity on policy.

The author is an independent political and foreign affairs commentator