India’s ideal Pak policy: Speak softly and carry a big stick

India has won most major wars with Pakistan decisively. Yet Pakistan, through its proxy forces, continues to thumb its nose at India, at will. Why is it that India finds itself vulnerable in the face of a rogue neighbour? 

India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s indecisiveness on crucial issues of foreign affairs is no secret. India would have lost Kashmir had his primary concern for international opinion been heeded to. His daughter, PM Indira Gandhi, also, reportedly for frivolous concerns like ‘magnanimity in victory’, gave away unparalleled military gains from the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971. She could have bargained better. The Pak-bashing Indian PM, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who was readying for a conclusive battle with Pakistan after the terror attack on the Indian Parliament, was guided by similar considerations when he ordered demobilisation of the massive Operation Parakram.

Indian policy, in reference to Pakistan, has been seemingly structured on weak foundations. In contrast, Pakistan has consistently followed its goal of bleeding India, through clever use of proxy war. 

There have been some historic milestones achieved between them: a regular train, a weekly bus, and other similar travel facilities for the divided families. Moreover, to their credit, nuclear deterrence has sustained between them. However, a stable truce has proved elusive despite many formal and informal sincere endeavours. So where to from here? Can there be a recipe for durable peace and cooperation? It would be naive to suggest that India, with its fine military and expert intelligence, has not worked out a policy. The intention here is only to underline the need for a resolute execution of a comprehensive policy package. And also, that much of the onus in this regard should be borne by India. 

As for the recipe for a stable truce, the first ingredient for it is to talk peace with Pakistan, unconditionally, and in a proactive manner, through all circumstances. The vacillation on agreeing to talk, then calling it off, has to stop.

Mutual trade and economic cooperation should be taken to the next level. Simultaneously, a confidence revival process should begin in earnest in Kashmir. A comprehensive mechanism of grievance identification and redressal, and dialogue, engaging all stakeholders — elected representatives at all levels, teachers, preachers, NGOs and the youth volunteers — in the spirit of true democracy, is required. The entire campaign should be highly organised, and closely monitored for effective delivery, and shortfalls. 

A general amnesty, particularly for Kashmiris involved in minor offences, including stone-pelting, could be considered. The government should declare its intent to withdraw the AFSPA within a time-frame. There should be heightened focus on strengthening the police force by recruiting and training more personnel. 

On a parallel track, Pakistan’s low-intensity war needs to be responded to exactly in the same spirit, albeit with a difference. India has to be proactive, even preemptive. First, the state police and the armed forces on the ground need to be given a clear objective, in the spirit of the PM’s vision of zero tolerance of terrorism, with the freedom to accomplish the same, applying innovative tools and tactics. Of course, it needs to be ensured that the execution process doesn’t cross the threshold of a conventional conflict. Simultaneously, India’s initiative on regulating river water in the nation’s interest should not be abandoned half-way, as generally happens. 

Internal order of the J&K State must be corrected. Leaders involved in activities promoting secession or a pro-terrorist stance, including from the infamous ‘Hurriyat’, should be isolated from J&K society and the outside world.

Their prosecution must proceed simultaneously. Foreign funding should be accounted for and regulated. Ban unauthorised construction of religious places, the relay of jihadi content, and other peace-disturbing activities. 

India has to retain Kashmir, like any other state forming a part of its sovereign federal republic. It is also obliged, constitutionally and morally, to heal the wounds of Kashmir, and provide safety, security and development opportunities to its people. It needs to pursue these radically different measures to come out of this long impasse.

The writer is a former bureaucrat