Geopolitics

India’s options in dealing with Pakistan
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
Issue Net Edition | Date : 07 Aug , 2013

On Siachen also we weakened our position by proposing at the highest political level to convert it into a mountain of peace, thereby emboldening Pakistan to believe that India could be persuaded to withdraw from the glacier, whatever the reservations of the Indian army.

Pakistan is Janus -faced with both friends and foes. It would seem that we are not impervious to Pakistani posturings despite evidence of their duplicity.

Because there could not be any corresponding concessions by Pakistan in Siachen as it is not under its control, the decision to include this as an agenda item undermines our position that we have sovereignty over the whole of J&K, besides providing Pakistan an opportunity to put us on the defensive on the issue by making us appear rigid, when the opposite is the case.

Siachen is supposed to be the low hanging fruit that Pakistan claims can be culled only if, in Pakistan’s self-serving narrative, India would reciprocate with some step the several concessions it has made to India.

In actual fact Pakistan has made no concessions to India. Its leaders have developed the art over the years to appear plausible in their protestations of friendship and peace, even when their intent and actual policies are quite different. Pakistan is Janus -faced with both friends and foes. It would seem that we are not impervious to Pakistani posturings despite evidence of their duplicity.

We should not give credit to Pakistan’s goodwill if the number of terrorist attacks against India have declined, as other factors are at play.

After the Mumbai attack Pakistan’s credibility at the international level has got eroded. The discovery of Osama bin Laden on its territory has reinforced Pakistan’s double-faced discourse on terrorism, with its friends now accusing it of double-dealing. Pakistan can no longer practice deniability as before.

Pakistan’s preoccupation with domestic terrorism, with local Taliban groups attacking the country’s armed forces, as well as the situation on its western borders, have combined to lessen the heat on India.

India’s policy of engaging Pakistan has also deprived the Pakistani armed forces of excuses to step up activity In Kashmir, especially with the US interest in ensuring that priority attention is given to the country’s western border across which NATO forces in Afghanistan are being threatened.

General Kayani has pronounced that Pakistan’s concerns remain India-centric. His policies in Afghanistan have also a strong component of check-mating India’s influence there.

The relative relief at reduced infiltration and terrorist incidents being experienced on our side should be seen as circumstantial rather than a change of heart.

General Kayani has pronounced that Pakistan’s concerns remain India-centric. His policies in Afghanistan have also a strong component of check-mating India’s influence there. The latest attack on our Consulate in Jalalabad points to Pakistani abetted terrorist attacks against us increasing in Afghanistan as 2014 nears.

On our side, it is not clear why when international pressure on Pakistan on the terrorism issue has increased in recent years, instead of exploiting this to our advantage, we have given clean chits to Pakistan on terrorism, lowering its salience in our dealings with that country and building its credibility as a negotiating partner.

If the country most affected by Pakistan based terrorism can take such a pragmatic view of Pakistan’s conduct, we have little to reproach others if they too overlook Pakistan’s deplorable linkages with terrorist activity.

If the composite dialogue has produced no result on political and security issues it is because of Pakistan’s unwillingness to cede ground.

On Sir Creek, they still insist on their position.

On Kashmir their parliament passed a resolution in April 2012 declaring that the issue had to be settled on the basis of self-determination under the relevant UN resolutions. Such statements have been made by Pakistan’s top leadership too without much reaction from us, except countering them in the UNGA.

Pakistan has added to existing differences by provocatively raising water issues and concocting the charge that India is diverting water in violation of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT).

On the issue of terrorism, it is highly doubtful if Nawaz Sharif can give us satisfaction.

It has dragged India into arbitration over water projects in J&K allowed by the IWT, with the intention to impede India to ease the power situation in J&K. We are unable to exploit this to promote anti-Pakistan sentiment in J&K as we have boxed ourselves into a situation in which we cannot adopt a hard posture towards Pakistan.

The only area of positive movement is trade.

Pakistan’s dire economic situation has made responsible sections of its polity open to more trading ties with India. Pakistan has moved from the positive to the negative list and although trade volumes have increased, the issue of imbalance in trade and Pakistani complaints about our non-tariff barriers could prove obstacles ahead.

Pakistan, however, has not yet delivered on its commitment to grant India MFN status.

Some progress has also been made in the area of people to people exchanges, with some liberalization of the visa regimes.

These are welcome steps but votaries of strong economic ties should not expect resolution of political and security differences as experience shows, whether in the case of our relations with China or China-Japan differences.

Now that Nawaz Sharif, with his declared intention to improve relations with India, has been elected, does this in way change the outlook on our relations with Pakistan and open up new options for us?

With religious extremist groups becoming stronger in the Punjab, it is unclear how Nawaz Sharif and his brother in Punjab will be able to politically handle any restrictions on Hafiz Saeed…

It would be wise to remain prudent in this regard.

We were prompt in sending Prime Minister’s special envoy to establish contact with Nawaz Sharif and he has in return sent his special envoy to Delhi to convey his readiness to move the relationship forward with the backing of all the stake-holders in Pakistan, meaning the armed forces.

These are useful steps in probing what the respective expectations are, but experience should tell us that the complexity of India-Pakistan relations transcends the thinking of individuals.

Our Prime Minister is wedded to good relations and a sustained dialogue with Pakistan. In Asif Zardari Pakistan had a president who was capable of making out-of-the-box statements on relations with India, but the sum of this positive thinking on both sides has been meagre.

On the issue of terrorism, it is highly doubtful if Nawaz Sharif can give us satisfaction.

Pakistan itself is ravaged by terrorism and the government will not find it easy to eliminate this internal phenomenon with all its external linkages, even beyond the region as in the case of the Lshkar-e-Toiba.

Even the Pakistani armed forces are now targeted.

It is significant that Kashmiri separatists visiting Pakistan have warned of stepped up violence in J&K after the NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, which implies India-directed activity by groups like the TPP.

The Jamaat-ud-Dawa of Hafiz Saeed has links with political personalities in the PML(N); the Punjab government has been very complaisant with him, releasing funds to his so-called charitable foundation. So has been the local judiciary.

With religious extremist groups becoming stronger in the Punjab, it is unclear how Nawaz Sharif and his brother in Punjab will be able to politically handle any restrictions on Hafiz Saeed, a step he seems to have promised to take.

PML(N) has had long standing links with the radical India-baiting and Shia-baiting groups like Lashkar-e- Toiba, the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the Sipah-e-Sahiba. The TTP did not, tellingly, target electioneering by PML(N) and Imran Khan’s party in the recent elections.

Because of these dubious links, Nawaz Sharif will not be able to expedite the trial of those involved the Mumbai terrorist attack. All the arguments that the Pakistani side has given to us in the last four and a half years for failure to move forward, including the reluctance of judges to try the case, will not disappear.

It is significant that Kashmiri separatists visiting Pakistan have warned of stepped up violence in J&K after the NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan, which implies India-directed activity by groups like the TPP.

Nawaz Sharif announced his intention to re-start the dialogue on Kashmir soon after he took over. Now we hear of a strategy to focus on the issue internationally at non-official level in order to maintain the facade of goodwill towards India at the official level. The strong statement by the Pakistani Foreign Office on the recent firing in Kashmir was unnecessary if Nawaz Sharif wanted to turn a new page.

Nawaz Sharif seems eager to renew the Composite Dialogue with India, with the Pakistani side suggesting some dates for resumption.

There is talk of our Prime Minister meeting Nawaz Sharif on the margins of the UNGA. While a meeting of this kind would normally be unobjectionable as it would provide an opportunity to make personal contact with the new Pakistani leader, there are political dilemmas on both sides.

By talking of resumption of dialogue Nawaz Sharif has pre-empted what the result of the New York meeting should be. If no dialogue is announced, it will be a political set-back for Nawaz Sharif. If we are forced to announce the dialogue with no concrete action by Nawaz Sharif on moving forward the trial of those guilty of the Mumbai massacre, and, much more importantly, the grant of MFN status to India, promised by the previous government, we would have been diplomatically outmanoeuvred by Pakistan.

…our only option is to put our house in order, improve our internal security, stop playing politics with the issue of terrorism for electoral reasons, create conditions for sustained high growth, widen the gap between India and Pakistan, show no anxiety to have a dialogue with Pakistan…

We seem ready to resume the dialogue, starting with discussions on Sir Creek and Wullar Barrage. If we do, it would indicate our inability to get out of the rut of sterile discussions with Pakistan.

There is no reason for tardiness by Nawaz Sharif to grant MFN status as the subject has been a matter of examination and debate within Pakistan for a long period and views have been sufficiently crystallized on this move.

The bottom line is that Nawaz Sharif’s Prime Ministership does not affect the debate on our options towards Pakistan because we have chosen a soft and accommodating course in the last few years which cannot be reversed, especially without testing the intentions of the new government and giving it time.

The best one can hope for is that we will not compound the mistakes we have been making by being persuaded that we need to strengthen the hands of Nawaz Sharif by offering some concessions.

We should remember that Nawaz Sharif is the Prime minister of Pakistan and has Pakistan’s interests foremost in mind. He will use honey-tongued diplomacy to extract concessions from India, whether on Siachen or our Prime Minister’s visit to Pakistan.

Finally, Nawaz Sharif’s mutually suspicious relations with the military will limit his capacity to make any real concessions to India as he will not have a free hand in his India policy, however constructive he may intend it to be.

At the end of the day, our only option is to put our house in order, improve our internal security, stop playing politics with the issue of terrorism for electoral reasons, create conditions for sustained high growth, widen the gap between India and Pakistan, show no anxiety to have a dialogue with Pakistan, keep the focus on Pakistan sponsored terrorism in whatever conversations that take place, abjure language that equates Pakistan’s problem with terrorism with ours, prevent the Kashmiri separatists from meeting Pakistani politicians and diplomats in Delhi or Islamabad, cease discussions on Siachen in view of Chinese aggressive conduct in Ladakh and mounting presence in POK, respond if Pakistan makes genuine moves towards normalization, increase trade exchanges to the extent Pakistan wants, ease travel restrictions reciprocally keeping in mind security considerations but avoid romantic ideas about people to people contacts.

We will not, of course, do most of this.

1 2 3
Rate this Article
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

About the Author

Kanwal Sibal

is the former Indian Foreign Secretary. He was India’s Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia.

More by the same author

Post your Comment

2000characters left

2 thoughts on “India’s options in dealing with Pakistan

  1. in my opinion, our options are limited to two. First- Continue as we are, i.e., continue nullifying their option of the ‘proxy war’. The terrorist infiltrations and their subsequent neutralisation continues. Our security forces continue with their sacrifices in so doing and the danger of mass casualties to the general public lingers if terrorists manage to succeed in beating the security forces to their targets (the civil population). This is what is happening now. Second- we take the initiative to hit at the terrorist camps across the border. In this case there is every possibility that it might escalate into a full scale war. We have to be prepared for it with the attendant ramification of the nuclear fall out. It takes a lot of guts to take the second option. I do not foresee any of our leaders having that guts. Therefore, we have to perforce stick with the first option.

  2. The author himself confesses that strict attitude has not worked with Pakistan. there is need to go for conciliatory approach if we want India to move ahead. As a responsible nation, we must honor our commitment of plebiscite in Kashmir and should not restrict ourselves to bilateral-ism, which has not worked so far. Pakistan lives with after that we created in 1971 by supporting Bengalis, who have the guts to live as sovereign nation and look into our eyes. Let us understand that India can not undo Pakistan. Let us stop supporting Baloch and TTP, otherwise, LT may jack up its activities….Hope we understand the meaning of PEACE,,,,so let us change our image from hegemon to big brother,,

More Comments Loader Loading Comments