By appreciatively citing the example set by his sphinx-like predecessor, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who reversed India’s Pakistan policy at least half a dozen times during his six years in office, prime minister Manmohan Singh is seeking to take India on a similar roller-coaster ride. In fact, Singh’s latest statements in Parliament reveal eight dangerous misconceptions on Pakistan.
One, political geography is unalterable. “We cannot wish away the fact that Pakistan is our neighbour,” Singh says. But political maps are not carved in stone. Didn’t Indira Gandhi change political geography in 1971? The most-profound global events in recent history have been the fragmentation of several states, including the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. When Pakistan looks increasingly decrepit, Singh says “a stable, peaceful and prosperous Pakistan” is in India’s “own interest”.
Two, India and Pakistan are locked by a shared destiny. Therefore, “our objective must be permanent peace with Pakistan, where we are bound together by a shared future and a common prosperity.” How can a plural, inclusive and democratic India share a common future with a theocratic, militarised and radicalised Pakistan? In fact, Pakistan, with its “war of a thousand cuts,” poses an existential threat to the very principles and values on which India is founded.
Three, the alternative to a policy seeking to placate a terror-exporting adversary is war. “There is no other way unless we go to war.” That draws on the classic argument of appeasers that the only alternative to appeasement is provocation or conflict. The simple truth is that between bending backwards and waging aggression lie a hundred different options.
Four, India cannot emerge as a great power without making peace with Pakistan. “It is in our vital interest, therefore, to try again to make peace with Pakistan.” By linking India’s global rise to the placation of Pakistan, Singh has hyphenated India with that country even more strikingly than any international actor. Actually, to say that the country cannot emerge as a major power without making peace with an adversary wedded to waging war by terror is to go against the grain of world history and to encourage the foe to hold India’s progress hostage. Does Singh wish to egg on Pakistan to have its cake and eat it too — wage unconventional war while enjoying the comfort offered by India-initiated conciliation and peace talks? While India should make efforts to build better relations with its regional foes on the basis of “verify and trust” (not “trust and verify,” as Singh wants), its own global rise is not dependent on adversarial goodwill.
Five, as India has nothing to hide and indeed “our conduct is an open book,” it can let Pakistan include any issue in the bilateral agenda. It was such logic that encouraged Pakistan to turn its terror target, India, into an accused on Balochistan. Singh’s attempt to rationalise that blunder, though, threatens to exacerbate matters. Not “afraid of discussing any issue” extends an invitation to Pakistan to place on the bilateral agenda any subject it wants, including a matter internal to India.
Six, if Pakistan merely acknowledges what is incontrovertible, that is enough for India to change policy course. The policy change at Sharm-el-Sheikh, according to Singh, was prompted by Pakistan’s submission of a dossier in response to India’s dossier. That Pakistan has yet to begin dismantling its state-run terror complex against India was overlooked. Indeed, an enthusiastic Singh even agreed that India will “share real-time, credible and actionable” intelligence with Pakistan on future terrorist threats. In other words, India is to alert Pakistan in time to the terror actions being planned by its state institutions and their front organisations, given that the Pakistani Army, the ISI, the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Muhammad constitute a seamless jihad web.
Seven, high-level dialogue and “meaningful” dialogue can be delinked. “We can have a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan only if they fulfill their commitment, in letter and spirit.” However, at the level of prime minister, foreign minister and foreign secretary, India will continue its dialogue with Pakistan on “all outstanding issues,” whether Pakistan demonstrates its anti-terror bona fides or not.
Eight, diplomacy of hope and prayer makes sense. “I hope and pray that the leadership in Pakistan will have the strength and the courage to defeat those who want to destroy, not just peace between India and Pakistan, but the future of South Asia.”
Wishful thinking has long hobbled Indian foreign policy. Now, in the glaring absence of holistic, institutionalised decision-making, prayers are being added to the wishes.
Comments