The Neighbour from Hell - Some Common Myths about India-Pakistan Relations

“Phir ek baar kiya, to dekhna” is not effective policy

Ambassador PP Shukla 

(Joint Director, VIF)

As tensions rise between India and Pakistan, the usual arguments are being repeated on both sides of a serious divide in India on how to deal with that country. The reason we are unable to get the relationship right is that the country and the public discourse is in the grip of some fallacies that we have adopted unquestioningly, particularly at the official level. What follows is an attempt at busting some of the myths. This is important because it is these errors that are leaving us lurching from one failed start to another.

A hard line response will strengthen their hardliners

It is commonly argued that if India were – hypothetically – to adopt a firm line in responding to Pakistani provocations, that would only play into the hands of the military and the terror networks supported by the military. A bit of history will be useful here. The Pakistan army first took power in 1958. Since then, it has been in effective control of security policies more or less without let-up till today. There have been some moments, though, when the military was weakened. The first was in 1971, after the defeat in Bangladesh. The second, less stark, moment was in 2011, after the US incursion in Abbottabad, to kill and snatch Osama bin Laden. On that occasion, the head of the ISI had been forced to apologise to the “bloody civilians” in the Pakistan National Assembly and offer to quit.

Both these were occasions when hard power had been exercised against the army, and it had been defeated. Indeed, this is a basic rule of statecraft: when you defeat a policy, you defeat the authors of that policy.

Parallels from other countries abound. Hitler was not stopped by appeasement; he was finally stopped only by war. And it was only when defeat looked certain that there was a move from within to unseat him, in July 1944. Similarly, Khrushchev was strengthened and the Soviet military weakened after the Cuban Missile Crisis ended with the Soviets pulling their missiles from Cuba.

To look at it another way: if it is true that a hard line on our side strengthens the hardliners in Pakistan, then the corollary must be that a soft line [appeasement, which we have been practising for decades now] should strengthen the moderates. But this has clearly not happened; in fact, over the years of appeasement, the contrary has happened, and the military has only got stronger, as its policies of bleeding India have gone unchallenged.

We shall all grow together or none will grow

It is also sometimes formulated in terms that suggest that peace is vital for the Indian economy to grow. Again, history is a good guide. We had peace with Pakistan in the 1970’s, and indeed, Gen Zia-ul-Haq called it the golden period in Indo-Pakistan relations. And yet, the decade of the 1970’s was the very bleakest in the economic history of independent India. By contrast, the period after 1993 has been the most turbulent in the subcontinent, and this has been the period of the best Indian economic performance.

Pakistan has maintained its own pace through this period, somewhat better than India in the 1970’s and significantly worse since the 1990’s, to the point where it has become the sick man of Asia. There is no correlation between the rates of growth in India and Pakistan. And there is logic in this. There is little trade between us – for India the total trade turnover with Pakistan is less than 1% of our global trade turnover of US$ 600 billion. Our GDP is ten times that of Pakistan, a fact our analysts rarely mention, though we are constantly told – wrongly – that China’s GDP is four times that of India.

We have to help [current leader] survive and strengthen him/her

Time was when it was the Americans who used to tell us that this or that leader was our “best bet” – it started with Ayub, and thereafter, we did not need to be told. We sold this hokum to ourselves. After Zulfikar Ali Bhutto – the man who promised a thousand-year war, it was Gen Zia. Of course, it was but natural that it had to be Benazir after that, and then it was Mian Nawaz Sharif. And so goes the dreary cycle – it turns out it is now in our own interest to strengthen Mian Nawaz.

This begs two questions: is any leader worth strengthening at the cost of our own interests, and can it be done by any outsider? As to the first, the proposition that we need to strengthen this or that leader is dangerous nonsense. It was in this mistaken belief that even as shrewd a leader as Indira ji was led astray at Simla in 1972. Her laudable motivation was to shore up Bhutto, so that he, in turn, could keep his promise to settle the Kashmir issue on terms acceptable to both sides. But just as soon as he could, he turned his back on the understanding, and we are paying in the blood of our soldiers and innocent citizens for the misplaced generosity. Yet again, the same Bhutto’s subsequent career is instructive on the second point too: by 1977, he was overthrown, and by 1979, he was executed.

Admittedly, this is an extreme case, even by Pakistan’s gory standards. However, the case is illustrative of what these kinds of simplistic ideas can lead to. It needs to be borne in mind, because once again, voices are being raised that we need to help Mian sahib strengthen his position. No, we do not need to, and we should have the modesty to accept also that we do not know how to go about it. Ignoring hostile acts and going ahead with business as usual – even if we accept for argument’s sake that it is the army that is behind the latest burst of hostility – will not strengthen him; in all likelihood, it will weaken him and further embolden the army.

If you don’t talk, you are pushing the subcontinent to war

This is an argument that crops up each time there is a flare-up in tensions between India and Pakistan. “Talk” is actually a euphemism for the more accurate description for what we have been doing – appeasement. The Pakistanis are particularly good at using this argument, and this is then amplified by like-minded persons on our side. The reality is that there are any number of options between appeasement and war. There are diplomatic, economic, political, and, yes, military measures that can be employed, all below the level of conventional war. We do not need to look very far: Pakistan is doing all of this quite successfully against us, and we just need to pay them back in the same coin.

The odd thing is that Pakistan is much the weaker country in this stand-off – its GDP is one-tenth that of India, as has already been mentioned. Its military cannot match ours even after decades of under-spending on defence by India. We have mesmerised ourselves by how far China is ahead of us by exaggerating the gap, but we never look at the gap between India and Pakistan. It is vulnerable to economic pressure, both on water and on power – and we are holding out a lifeline to them on both. This can be changed, and must change.

Similarly, we need to get our perspective right on the issue of MFN treatment for Indian exports to Pakistan. Hardly any of the talking heads have pointed out that this is not really a decision for Pakistan to make in exercise of its sovereign rights. It is an obligation under WTO rules. And for sixteen years, it has flouted this obligation, and we have accepted this without either withdrawing MFN from our side too, or taking the country to the Dispute Settlement Procedure in WTO. This is how we encourage hostility from Pakistan – by making it a cost-free policy.

In talking of options short of war, it must nonetheless be kept in mind that we are operating in a dangerous security environment, and war may be visited upon us, whether we wish it or not. For that contingency, we need to be fully prepared to defend ourselves, and along multiple fronts.

Cannot change geography

This is especially hard to understand, coming from India. We have seen geography change right from the dawn of Independence. The creation of Pakistan itself was a change of geography, and a very important one, from our perspective. Then China became a neighbour, and a country called Tibet was removed from the map of sovereign countries. Bangladesh emerged in 1971. All three happened right on our borders, and yet we keep saying one cannot change geography.

In point of fact, change of geography has only gathered pace since the end of the Cold War. The USSR disappeared and fifteen independent countries emerged in its place. Yugoslavia disappeared and six new countries replaced it. More recently, new countries called Timor Leste [East Timor] and South Sudan have appeared on the map.

The point is that we should be clear that, contrary to our officially-stated position, we have no interest in a strong, stable, united Pakistan. We cannot hold it together if it is on the way to becoming a failed state. And we do not need even to try and do so either. What we need to do is to prepare for this contingency, should it arise.

Pakistan is itself a victim of terrorism

This is a particular favourite of the Pakistanis. They frequently mention that they have lost forty thousand lives to terrorism, of which four thousand are soldiers. This is a figure of losses over at least a decade, and works out to some four hundred a year on average. That is admittedly a large number, but not such a number as to deter an army from its strategic goals. The Indian army was losing more than this number in the 1990’s – to Pakistan-sponsored terror - but that did not deflect us from our aims.

More to the point, the terror that has taken this toll in Pakistan is a creation of that country itself. It is as if a bomb-maker dies because the bomb goes off prematurely, as has been known to happen, he should be regarded as a victim. Surely, this is a grotesque misrepresentation of the reality.

Morality and an eye for an eye

Finally, there is that hoary old chestnut – we are the land of Gandhi. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind – very emotive, completely fallacious. An eye for an eye makes two adversaries one-eyed, and keeps them on par in respect of physical ability. Nothing more, nothing less.

But more substantively, it is important to remember that Gandhi [who never said what is attributed to him about an eye for an eye] was fighting against a very different enemy. There is a quote from President Kennedy in his letter to Nehru written just after the 1962 war had begun, where he refers to Nehru’s efforts for peace - and Nehru was surely the most devoted of followers of Gandhi unlike the ersatz variety so much in evidence these days. Here is what Kennedy wrote:

You have put into practice what all great religious teachers have urged and so few of their followers have been able to do. Alas, this teaching seems to be effective only when it is shared by both sides in a dispute. [Emphasis added].

And this is the element that the votaries of no-change towards Pakistan seem to miss. The other party does not share the teaching, and, ironically, it was none other than Gandhi himself who failed in his dealings with the future leaders of Pakistan.

What is more, it is ahistorical to call for us to persist in this failed policy. This is precisely the policy that India has followed at least since the days of then-Prime Minister VP Singh – all to no avail.

The purpose of this myth-busting is not to score debating points. India is facing very serious security threats, probably the most serious in our independent history. This is no time for woolly thinking or ego-driven policies – even less is it permissible to look to vote banks. Statecraft demands that we unshackle our minds from thoughts that have held us hostage for far too long, and work out alternative policies that will address our security challenges.

Tailpiece.

New York, 26 September 2013 (Agencies)

This just in.

It is reported that the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan met in New York, and had a highly successful meeting. Prime Minister Singh had prepared well for the meeting and told his counterpart: “This time I really mean it. Phir ek baar kiya to dekh lena”.

The use of the word “really” caused some ripples, and one of the Party General Secretaries, who knows so little about so much, felt that Singh had been unnecessarily jingoistic in the conversation. He suspected that some “communal elements” had smuggled this into the Prime Minister’s talking points.

Nonetheless, the meeting was a grand success from the Indian point of view. The Prime Minister personally briefed a correspondent, who occasionally writes for a misleadingly-named newspaper. This correspondent reported after the briefing that the Pakistanis were shaken by this remark of the Prime Minister.

This is the same correspondent who recently broke the story about the existence of a group in India called the “Teach Pakistan A Lesson” school, which was propagating irresponsible ideas like upholding the sovereignty of India. It was he who also broke the story that this same school was wrong to suggest that the Pakistanis were indeed shaking after the meeting – with laughter.

A large group of deshbhaktas, who see Pakistan much better than the rest of the country because they see it by candle-light, averred one more time that Pakistan was changing. They confirmed that the Pakistanis had indeed been shaken to the core by Mr Singh’s remarks, and promised that terror attacks would never happen again. 

Nettlesome Neighbour

Kanwal Sibal 

(Member, VIF Advisory Board) 

We need to take proper stock of our policy towards Pakistan after the recent incidents on the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir and the manner in which the government of Pakistan has reacted to them. A re-examination of some of the assumptions underlying our policy is needed. We believe that the principal problem in our relations with Pakistan is lack of trust. 

This implies that our differences are not of a fundamental nature and can be overcome by dialogue and correcting misperceptions on both sides that have been allowed to endure for decades. 

Have we made real progress in reducing the trust deficit between the two countries? The latest incident of mutilating the bodies of two of our soldiers and beheading of one of them by Pakistani troops reveals the undercurrents of hate that exist. 

Even if we were to treat it as an isolated incident, the reaction of the Pakistani government to the incident is perturbing. The right thing would have been for the Pakistani government to take note of our accusation, promise proper investigation and appropriate action against those responsible if the charges proved to be factually correct. 

Instead, it conveyed the deplorable message that Pakistan is dismissive of India’s anguish, to the point of even imputing that we have contrived the incident. 

Pakistan’s foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar, has excelled herself in cocking a snook at India. She is appalled at what she terms as absolutely unacceptable Indian charges. She has accused India of war mongering, adding contemptuously that if a billion Indians ask questions Pakistan is not obliged to answer them. 

If the exercise of the last eight years and more was for building trust between the two countries, then the kind of tongue-lashing that Ms Khar has given India hardly demonstrates that it has been successful. She represents the civilian government of Pakistan, which is supposed to be more committed to improve ties with India. 

People of goodwill in Pakistan and India never fail to exhort the government of India to strengthen the civilian set-up in Pakistan against the security establishment. Well, it is the civilian government that is deriding our concerns and sentiments. If the civilian foreign minister of Pakistan is such a servile tool of the Pakistani military that she cannot even choose diplomatic vocabulary befitting her responsibilities, then the civil-military distinction we are asked to make is of limited consequence. 

We have tried to build trust with Pakistan by agreeing to a composite dialogue even without satisfaction on the terrorism issue. Despite our pleas Pakistan has not brought to justice those responsible for the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. We protest about Hafiz Saeed but live with the reality of his uncurbed venomous rantings against us. We have not resisted Pakistan’s strategy to wrong-foot us on terrorism by bringing the Samjhauta Express issue into discussions. 

Visa restrictions

The Pakistani interior minister Rahman Malik, comes to India and equates the Mumbai attacks and Babri Masjid, besides suggesting Indian complicity in the former, and we let it pass to avoid clouding the atmosphere. We have agreed to ease visa restrictions, permit sporting ties and increase cultural ones, besides welcoming the expansion of trade ties without Pakistan granting us MFN treatment, so as to enlarge the orbit of trust between the two sides. 

As against all this, what has Pakistan done to build trust? Pakistan has persisted with provocations on Kashmir. In early 2012, Pakistan’s parliament passed a resolution calling for resolving the Kashmir issue in accordance with UN resolutions, a position that president Zardari reiterated in his UNGA speech in September. 

After the recent LoC incidents Pakistan’s foreign minister has taunted us with an investigation by the UN Military Observers Group whose role India does not recognize since 1971. Pakistan insists on Indian withdrawal from Siachen which it never controlled. On Sir Creek, Pakistan is unwilling to accept a compromise solution consistent with established international principles. 

On water related issues Pakistan has deliberately distorted public perceptions by resorting to malevolent propaganda against India’s imagined high-handed actions. 

Pakistan has used its nuclear capability to promote terrorism against India, as it feels protected against any strong Indian conventional response. Pakistan distorts the content and intent of the India-US nuclear deal and under cover of that is expanding its nuclear arsenal and is preparing to introduce tactical weapons as a step to lower the threshold of use of nuclear weapons against India. 

As a victim of terror itself, Pakistan claims that it can hardly be accused of abetting terrorism against India. This is a specious argument because its military still considers jihadi groups targetting India as strategic assets. Kashmiri insurgents have safe-havens in Pakistan; infiltration across the LoC continues. The latest act of beheading an Indian soldier reflects a jihadi mind-set even in the armed forces in whose motto ‘jihad’ figures prominently. 

Our prime minister’s statement that it cannot be business as usual with Pakistan after this barbaric act and that Pakistan should mend its ways; if it wants friendship with India adequately captures the public mood. 

This does not mean no dialogue in the future. It means Pakistan has to act like a civilised country and do serious introspection about its destructive attitudes and policies before we can resume efforts to build mutual trust. 

Those criticising the suspension of sporting and cultural ties should not equate their political and moral duty as citizens to share public anguish at the treatment given to Indian soldiers by the Pakistani military with their right to be entertainment by Pakistani sportspersons and musicians. We must get our priorities right as a society.

Be to Pakistan as its Posture Warrants

Kanwal Sibal 

(Member, VIF Advisory Board) 

Our international relations experts are divided on how to deal with Pakistan, with a section always advocating moderation in reaction to Pakistani provocations and others favouring more robust responses to Pakistani belligerence.This lack of consensus makes our Pakistan policy look vacillating and irresolute. 

It is easy to wear the mantle of moderation as the accompanying vocabulary of peace, engagement, dialogue and restraint sounds mature and wise. Those wanting firmer treatment of Pakistan slip into talk of retaliation, force, reprisal, imposing costs, which sounds aggressive and war-like. Public opinion on the whole is more indulgent towards “doves” even when their judgments are skewed than towards “hawks” even when their views are sounder. Dovish views are less unsettling than hawkish ones in a country that still lacks self-confidence and is more comfortable with caution than with risk-taking even when provoked. 

Dialogue

The complexity of our problems with Pakistan would justify a degree of prudence in our reactions. What is less justified is our posture of helplessness. We say meekly that we have no choice but to have a dialogue with Pakistan. Some on our side actually advocate “an uninterrupted and unterruptible” dialogue. Such thinking is pernicious for our interests but serves those of Pakistan, which is why its foreign minister has made this catchy phraseology her own. She has thrown it in our face while berating us for creating tensions over the recent beheading incident. She is hoisting us with our own petard! 

We were against negotiations with Pakistan with the gun of terrorism pointed at our head. We therefore linked resumption of dialogue with Pakistan’s commitment to end terrorism. Politically cornered when Pakistan failed to honour its commitment, instead of interrupting the dialogue we gave ourselves a way out by agreeing that both countries were victims of terrorism, which implied that terrorist incidents in India were the handiwork of non-state actors with no official connivance. Later, we formally delinked dialogue and terrorism and continued our parleys with Pakistan despite a spate of terrorist attacks, until the enormity of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks made such a position politically untenable. After a short interregnum we again resumed the dialogue because our decision-makers have convinced themselves that a “no-dialogue option” in not available to us. 

Between not having a dialogue and a composite dialogue covering all contentious issues, there is considerable space for talking to each other, but we have straight-jacketed ourselves into a structured dialogue that in fact reduces the centrality of terrorism and allows Pakistan to put in all elements of its political agenda where it wants territorial and other concessions from us, whether it is Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek or the Tulbul project. In fact this composite dialogue exposes us to Pakistani demands that we cannot satisfy, with the result that even Pakistani peaceniks express their disappointment at India’s rigidity, especially on Siachen. 

What this superficial formula of “an uniterrupted and uninterruptable dialogue” means is that even if another Mumbai-like attack takes place, India’s hands must remain tied and the dialogue must continue, ruling out any retaliatory action. 

Restraint

The perspective of such a draconian restraint on India provides no incentive to Pakistan to take any step to weed out terrorists targetting India, as any future attack would neither mean an end to bilateral engagement nor retaliation. Pakistan will thus retain the freedom to keep India under pressure with the threat of terrorism- as China does by not settling the border issue- and compel India to temporize, “buy” off Pakistani hostility with friendly gestures, including not taking advantage of its increasing internal difficulties and international isolation. What can suit Pakistani strategy better?

Some diehard apologists of Pakistan in India claim that there is a change in the Pakistani mindset towards India and none in India’s mindset towards Pakistan? Pakistan has supposedly moved away from communal hostility towards India to national hostility? Why the latter should re-assure us more is not clear. By the same logic, a nationalist but more politically open China would be better for its neighbours than the exisiting authoritarian version. Facts would suggest that Pakistan is becoming more “communal” or sectarian in character by becoming more intolerant towards the Shias and other minorities, that religiosity in society is increasing and extremism is on the rise. 

Provocations

It can hardly be that the internal mayhem being caused by the spread of extremist ideologies in Pakistan implies a more tolerant religious attitude towards India. Our policies towards Pakistan in the last 8 years both under the NDA and UPA governments show, on the contrary, how far our attitudes towards Pakistan have changed

In any case, if the Pakistani mindset towards India has changed, in what positive way has it expressed itself? On Kashmir, Pakistan has reverted to UN resolutions as a solution, on Siachen it feels wronged and on Sir Creek it rejects international principles. It will not permit Tulbul and will obstruct any power project in J&K, it is creating a new water issue despite the generous Indus Waters Treaty, it is expanding its nuclear arsenal by distorting the intent and purpose of the India-US nuclear deal and it is treating our terrorism concerns with contempt. If it has moved away from its irrational position of not trading with India and giving us MFN treatment, we do not need to feel grateful. Pakistan will benefit from this as well as the visa agreement more than we will, though any progress in these areas should be welcomed by us.

We should treat Pakistan as a friend when it is friendly and as a foe when it is inimical. We should be doves or hawks as the situation demands.

Dealing with the Neighbour from Hell - The Prime Minister Must Not Visit Pakistan

PP Shukla (Joint Director, VIF)

To the insistent clamour that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh must visit Pakistan in the near future, this is a rejoinder, and a plea not to be emotional in our approach to relations with Pakistan. An analysis of the argument in favour of a visit shows that there are really three arguments being advanced in favour of the visit.

The first is that the time is now for an outreach to the people of Pakistan, for it is up to India to strengthen the forces of moderation at a time when that country is wracked by extremist sentiment. The second argument, closely related to the first, is that the decision makers in Pakistan are becoming aware of the dangers their country faces, and are ready to move forward and improve relations with India. Some erudite commentators add a third argument in the form of a history lesson: Europe overcame its problems through economic cooperation, and that is how the two countries should overcome their problems. It worked there, it will work again here.

The idea of an outreach to the “moderates” inside Pakistan is not new. This is exactly what guided Indira Gandhi at Simla, and it was not long before she realised that she had misjudged badly. Within a few months, Bhutto was back to the earlier rhetoric, and denying that any understanding had been reached over Kashmir. Even then, he was also thrust aside, and the proxy war in Punjab started shortly after Gen Zia took over. All our efforts at strengthening the “moderates” were unavailing.

Prime Minister Gujral – may his soul rest in peace – took this further when he became first Foreign, then Prime, Minister. The Gujral Doctrine was specifically aimed at strengthening these “moderates”, and it did not do much for the relations, as Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism continued unabated. It did nothing the “moderates” either, who were again thrust aside as another military dictator took over in 1999.

This time round, the ground reality of Pakistan is even more adverse for such woolly-headed overtures. The military may be somewhat weaker, but that proposition has not been tested. After the removal of Gen Karamat, there was a sense in India again, that the army had been brought under control, an assessment that was buttressed by the weakening of the army after the Kargil fiasco. But more important, even if the army is reluctant to take over formal power, it remains strong, and continues its role in upholding the terror infrastructure. The infiltration of terrorists into India also continues at higher levels than before. Further, the growing radicalisation of Pakistani society, and the growing power of the jihadi network, calls into serious question the notion that the “moderates” are now in a position to make a difference. The fact that the judges who sentenced some of the high-profile killers in recent months had to go into hiding, and sometimes leave the country, tells a very different story from the narrative of those who want the visit to take place. The plight of the Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and even the Shias is further compelling evidence of the real changes that are taking place inside Pakistan.

Finally, even the so-called moderates are not the kind that are willing to let the Kashmir issue drop. No, the difference is that they want to talk and settle the Kashmir issue on their terms; their only difference is that they are willing to criticise the use of terrorism for this political end. But their end is the same as that of the hard-line elements. Nobody is even willing to countenance any kind of territorial settlement that would stand a chance of acceptance in India.

The second argument is that there is a change in Pakistani thinking and policies towards India. This boils down to two developments in recent months. The first is a statement made by the Pakistani Army Chief on Siachen. It is worth emphasising that he made these remarks while visiting – not Siachen, for the Pakistan Army is nowhere in Siachen, but west of Saltoro – where an avalanche had led to the death of some 130 soldiers. Pakistanis were asking why the soldiers were there and why they could not be pulled back to safer distances. Here are the actual words he spoke: “…we’d like to resolve this [Siachen], but there is a method of resolution and of course, we’ve talked about it, there have been a number of rounds of negotiations and hopefully we should be able to resolve it, and I think we should resolve it.”

Our response at the media level was inexplicable: not only did the General say nothing new, his own words indicated as much. He said clearly that there was a method, and it should be used to resolve the issue. This is precisely what we were doing, in the resumed dialogue. There has been a solution in the works for more than two decades, and it has foundered each time on the Pakistani insistence that it will not reflect the actual position held by the troops at present. This itself reflects and suggests bad faith on their part, especially bearing in mind that as early as 1989, then-Foreign Minister Yakub Ali Khan had agreed that, as a military man, he recognised that any troop withdrawal must indicate where from the withdrawal was to take place.

The other issue that has had excessive play has been that of Most Favoured Nation [MFN] treatment for Indian exports to Pakistan. Since the beginning of the year, there has been a clamour in India that this has been done by Pakistan. Of course, nothing of the sort has happened yet, and the promise is that it will happen at the end of the year. Meanwhile, a Pakistan parliamentary panel, headed by a ruling Party MP, has recently recommended against such a move by Pakistan. True, the two countries have moved from a positive list to a negative list, but there is nothing in this that allows Indian goods entry into the country on terms equal to those for other trading partners. In any case, Pakistan is obliged, under WTO rules, to treat Indian exports on MFN terms, but has refused to do so for close to two decades, even though we have given Pakistani exports MFN treatment since the mid-1990’s. This actually shows the scant regard it has for its obligations under even international treaties. It is entirely characteristic of us that we find this a major step forward. Firstly, it has not happened; moreover, it is not a major step anyway.

So much for the signs of change in Pakistan; the other two matters are easily disposed of too. The idea of reaching out to the so-called moderates inside Pakistan is not new. Foreign Minister [later Prime Minister] Gujral, whose sad passing away we have just marked, had just this idea behind the Gujral Doctrine. He did occasionally say that the Doctrine did not apply to Pakistan, but this was only with regard to the principle of non-reciprocity; but in his words and actions, he was always mindful of the possible constituency in favour of better ties with India within Pakistan. Since then, we have maintained a steady posture of nurturing this constituency, through the Vajpayee and the Singh Governments. Under the latter, we even signed some incomprehensible joint statements on setting up a joint terror mechanism, and allowing a gratuitous reference to Baluchistan – all to no avail. If there is a “moderate” group in Pakistan, it is unable to affect policy. From the days of the Gujral Doctrine, right through to the present, we have had terrorist attacks to contend with without cease: from the Kandahar hijacking through the attack on Parliament, attacks in various cities [Bangalore, Delhi and Mumbai], and finally, the carnage in 2008. And on all of these, the Pakistanis have stonewalled any move to bring the terrorists to book. All told, one would be well advised to question whether there is any relevance to this thesis today, given that the extremist elements are much stronger than before, as we saw in the killing of Governor Taseer and Minister Bhatti – their killers were regarded as heroes even among educated middle-class sections of Pakistani society. We are also witnessing the growing terror attacks on the minorities in Pakistan.

The proponents of the outreach to the “moderates”, therefore, owe it to Indian society to explain why they still persist in this failed enterprise, and when the rest of us will see any results of the Sisyphean undertaking. They owe it to the skeptics, who have historical evidence on their side, to tell us when their efforts will bear fruit, and what the milestones are that will tell us we are on the right track.

Finally, we have to address the European parallel. It is true, of course, that economic cooperation has transformed relations on the Continent, making war unthinkable. But there was a pre-history to this. The Nazi regime was first defeated, Germany dismembered, and the leaders brought to rough justice. A new Government arose in place of the Nazi regime, which disavowed, and negated on the ground, Nazism and all its works. Equally important, it renounced its claim to Alsace-Lorraine, the territorial dispute with France. It was only after all this that the economic cooperation was launched successfully.

There were earlier efforts at sweet-talking and making territorial concessions to the Nazi regime, in the 1930’s, but they came to naught. This policy of appeasement has been properly consigned to the litter of failed strategies, and has served as a warning to all future Governments that this is a very unwise policy course. This is the true lesson of European history. Those who forget it, would do well to remember how the West reacted to the election of Kurt Waldheim as President of Austria in the mid-1980’s: there was a whiff of suspicion – never conclusively proved – that he had a Nazi past, and that was enough for him to be boycotted by many western countries, and he was declared an undesirable alien in the US.

This author had made some of these points in a letter to the editor of the Indian Express, in response to a particularly fatuous article urging the Prime Minister to visit Pakistan, but the paper chose not to publish it – though it did carry much more abusive letters against the suggestion. Obviously, the idea is to paint the objectors as extremist and unthinking opponents of better ties with Pakistan.

The reality is that Pakistan is growing increasingly isolated as US disenchantment with their duplicitous ways grows. The fear in that country is that India and America might find it in their interest to coordinate policies on Pakistan, especially as the ISAF moves to pull out from Afghanistan. It would be rich irony if, after decades of asking the Americans to take a hard look at the reality of Pakistan, we were to hold out a lifeline to that country now. It would also be a betrayal of the assurances given to the people of India that the terrorist masterminds of the Mumbai attack would be brought to justice, and there would be no normal contacts until then.

Instead, we are advised by the Pakistan Foreign Minister not to be emotional and to move on beyond one issue. It occurred to no one, then or later, to point out that it was Pakistan that was being emotional about Kashmir, and was fixated on an issue that has been left behind by history, despite every terrorist trick in the trade adopted by Pakistan.

The ultimate irony is that, despite all the efforts by successive Governments – NDA not excepted – to reassure Pakistan that India does not mean any harm, few in the former believe our protestations. Here is a sample from an article in Nation, the Pakistani newspaper:

“The Indian leaders have on many occasions predicted and wished for Pakistan’s collapse. We keep hearing across the border voices demanding the re-inclusion of Pakistan into India. It is no secret that India has not only engineered trouble in Pakistan, but also instigated USA to hurt us whenever possible. Right after the Osama incident, the Indian leaders also aired their desire to take unilateral actions into Pakistan. India’s intentions are not a secret.” [Nation 23 Oct 2011].

Indian leaders have consistently maintained that we have a vested interest in a strong, stable, united Pakistan, and have repeated this sentiment in season and out. But it obviously does not make any impression on some of important media outlets in Pakistan.

It must be clear to all unbiased and uncommitted observers that there is nothing for the Prime Minister to do in Pakistan, and nothing to go for.

President Zardari’s India Visit: A Precursor To PM’S PAK Visit

Satish Chandra

President Zardari’s upcoming visit to India on April 8^th shares some commonalities with Zia’s visit in February 1987 and Gilani’s visit in March 2011. In all three cases the visits were arranged at short notice and their ostensible purpose--- a pilgrimage to Ajmer in the case of Zardari and to watch a cricket match in the case of the other two----was different from the real objective notably to touch base with the Indian Prime Minister. Furthermore, as happened during the visits of the earlier two Pakistani dignitaries the Indian PM will host a lunch for Zardari, and like in those visits little by way of concrete agreements is likely to emerge.

While it was only with much reluctance that Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi agreed to receive Zia, Dr Manmohan Singh went out of his way to host the Gilani visit and now the Zardari visit and may, in fact, even have engineered them. This difference in approach is reflective of the qualitative differences between Rajiv Gandhi--- the realist, steadfast in not making any concessions to an unreliable Pakistan which could compromise the national interest---and Dr Manmohan Singh---the woolly headed idealist ready to make any sacrifice to woo Pakistan quite unmindful of its inimical mindset vis a vis India.

Though it is unlikely that any agreements will be signed during the Zardari visit one may expect that discussions would focus on a variety of India-Pakistan issues. One would expect that terrorism would be at the top of the agenda particularly in the context of the bounty of $10 million recently announced by the US on Hafiz Saeed. Other important issues likely to be discussed are Kashmir, on which the revived back channel must have provided inputs, Siachen, Sir Creek, visa liberalization, trade, water etc as well as the strategy to be adopted for follow on talks.

The importance of Zardari’s visit to India lies not in whether or not anything tangible emerges therefrom, in terms of resolving differences, but in building up an atmosphere of warmth quite divorced from reality which would facilitate Dr Manmohan Singh’s visit to Pakistan in the coming few months. It may be recalled that an invitation for the same was extended by Hina Rabbani Khar during her official visit to India in July 2011. This was reiterated by Gilani during the SAARC Summit in the Maldives in November 2011 and in his meeting with Dr Manmohan Singh in Seoul in March 2012. President Zardari will no doubt repeat it in New Delhi and perhaps even reach some understandings on the areas on which it may be feasible to sign agreements when Dr Manmohan Singh visits Pakistan so as to be able to project the same as a grand success.

It is regrettable that Government has been complicit in helping create the illusion of increasing warmth in India-Pakistan relations by its acts of omission and commission. Firstly by failing to impose any penalties on Pakistan for its involvement in the Mumbai attacks of November 26^th 2008 as well as subsequent terrorist attacks like those in 2011 in Mumbai and Delhi it has virtually brushed this issue under the carpet. No wonder, therefore, that those involved in the Mumbai attacks have not been punished and Pakistan continues to export to terror to India with impunity. India’s tolerance for Pakistan’s recalcitrance on this count has enabled the two countries to maintain the façade of a business as usual relationship. Secondly, contrary to commitments made by Government including by PM himself in Parliament in July 2009 that Pakistan had “to act and act effectively on terrorism” for any comprehensive dialogue with it the same has been undertaken without the latter having brought to book the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks or having shut down the infrastructure terror. Thirdly, India last year went so far as to withdraw its opposition to a EU concessional trade package for Pakistan even though this action has hurt our own textile exports. It has been argued that Pakistan reciprocated our generosity by moving some way towards an MFN regime for India. It needs to be noted, however, that this Pakistani move, which has been hailed with so much fanfare by our leaders, is no favour to us as we had accorded MFN treatment to Pakistan way back in the mid 90’s. Moreover, by not according MFN treatment to India, Pakistan was only depriving itself of access to competitively priced Indian goods and having to pay much more for similar imports from elsewhere. In brief, by more or less taking terrorism out of the equation, by resuming the composite dialogue process, by frequent meetings at the head of state and head of government level albeit on the sidelines of other regional and international meetings, and by hailing Pakistan’s belated moves towards according India MFN treatment as suggestive of a change of heart towards India, a wholly erroneous impression is being sought to be created that we are on the cusp of an improved India-Pakistan relationship which is at complete variance with the fact that Pakistan has given India no satisfaction on terrorism and through 2011 pumped in as much as Rs16 billions of fake Indian currency into the country in support of terrorism.

In this backdrop, one needs to be concerned about the nature of agreements that Dr Manmohan Singh is likely to arrive at when he goes to Pakistan given our proclivity to readily make concessions and Pakistan’s aversion to make the slightest compromise. While a settlement on Kashmir is not on the cards as any Indian leader would be most unwise to commit himself in this matter without a prior consensus within the Indian political firmament, agreement on issues of lesser import like visas, Sir Creek and Siachen are a possibility. On the latter two it is hoped that in our anxiety to reach out to Pakistan there is no deviation from our existing negotiating positions as they are minimalist in nature. On Sir Creek one should maintain the stance so far taken by us that the boundary should be in the mid channel of the Creek as per international practice and not succumb to a settlement on the basis of Pakistan’s claim that the boundary should be on the Eastern side of the Creek. Should we do so not only would there be an obvious loss of some territory in the Creek area but also serious negative implications in determining our maritime boundary and exclusive economic zone. Similarly, on Siachen, we need to hold firm to our position that any demilitarization of the area would be contingent on a formal recognition in the text of the agreement, and not in any side-letter or annex, of the existing disposition of the forces of the two sides and the positions that they would be redeployed to, accompanied by a map and a clear assertion that no forward movement in the area would be undertaken by the forces of the two sides. Pakistan’s reluctance to plot the positions of the forces of the two sides in the main agreement places in doubt its bona fides.

Author is Distinguished Fellow in Vivekananda International Foundation