cover of ‘India’s Pakistan Conundrum: Managing a Complex Relationship’ by Sharat Sabharwal
In a meeting of prime ministers with their delegations during Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s visit to Lahore in February 1999, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif informed the partly surprised, partly amused Indian prime minister that he would see him as a greedy man in Maharaja Ranjit. Want to tell a joke about the courtier. Lion’s court Wanting to snatch some money from the Maharaja, the courtier told him that he had seen him. abba ji (father) in a dream last night and was advised by him to meet his son, who would give him a hundred ashrafis (gold coins). The Maharaja sensed the intention of the courtier and told him that he too had seen it. abba ji in a dream the previous night and was advised by him to beware of the courtier, who may ask him for a hundred ashrafis, Instead he should hit with her a hundred times ‘jutti’ (shoes). To this the courtier said, “What kind of abba ji Do you have it? He tells me one thing and the exact opposite of you. There was a pregnant pause as we all tried to figure out the relevance of the story to the work. Nawaz Sharif broke the silence and said, “Vajpayee sir, let’s talk to each other directly, because if we talk through Americans, they will say one thing to you and the other to us.” The gathering broke into laughter as the meeting moved on to other issues.
Nawaz Sharif’s counsel was contrary to Pakistan’s conduct in repeatedly seeking third party intervention on Jammu and Kashmir. But it points to a self-evident fact that third parties serve their own interests before serving the interests of the countries between whom they mediate. As stated elsewhere in this book, other countries have often taken advantage of the tilt towards India or Pakistan to bolster their interests. Nawaz Sharif was also preaching to someone who was convinced of the value of dialogue. During his tenure as Prime Minister, Vajpayee repeatedly faced serious provocations from Pakistan – including Kargil, the December 1999 hijacking of an Indian Airlines plane and the December 2001 terror attack on the Indian Parliament, Pakistan-sponsored in India. Strong wave of terror. Kargil reacted strongly to end the incursion and ordered Operation Parakram after the attack on Parliament, although it was only a partial success. But he never lost faith in dialogue and diplomacy. His visit to Lahore was followed by the Kargil incursion and yet he invited its architect Pervez Musharraf to Agra within two years for talks. He ordered a ceasefire along the Line of Control in November 2003 and paved the way for talks through his visit to Islamabad in January 2004 to attend the 12th SAARC summit. He also started back channel discussion on Jammu and Kashmir which continued during the tenure of his successor Dr Manmohan Singh.
Being nearest neighbours, India and Pakistan cannot wish each other away. When they are not talking at the table, they have often done so with guns. Every time the guns have become very sharp, it has brought in the intervention of influential countries to defuse the situation. Since the Simla Agreement, India has remained firmly committed to bilateralism to resolve issues with Pakistan and yet has often sent messages through the Americans and other countries in moments of crisis. There is nothing unusual in this kind of messaging. It happens all the time among other alienated countries. However, it needs to be acknowledged that when Pakistan is not spoken to directly, we have often done so through third countries.
,
The frustration with the dialogue between India’s policy makers and the Indian public stems from the fact that it is perceived as a concession to Pakistan in return for Pakistan becoming a normal state and ending terror. This is not going to happen anytime soon due to the internal dynamics of Pakistan. India has to treat Pakistan as it is, not as India wants it to be. Furthermore, negotiations are not a concession in itself and should not result in any concessions unless India decides to make it.
Furthermore, it goes without saying that as long as Pakistan persists with its enmity and terror; Detention, coercion and calibrated retaliation will continue to be part of India’s policy. However, having spent long years in the Foreign Service, I believe that diplomacy and dialogue have a place in even the toughest relationships. Raising their voices in their national positions and giving and receiving protest notes is an easy part of the job of diplomats. The real challenge for them is finding some common ground even in the most demanding of situations. Furthermore, while the dialogue has so far not shown the ability to mold Pakistan’s behavior and change the nature of the relationship according to India’s will, it does promote a lesser, yet significant, goal from India’s approach to managing relations. with lower levels of instability and violence, so that its violent swings do not distract India from major challenges such as the country’s economic transformation and dealing with an increasingly aggressive China. It also facilitates engagement with the section in Pakistan that supports better relations with India. In the past, it has helped India gain an edge in areas such as trade and people-to-people contacts, which are anathema to Pakistan’s security establishment and cut the roots of the security state paradigm it supports.
Reproduced from India’s Pakistan Riddle: Management of a Complicated Relationship by Sharat Sabharwal with permission of INFORMA UK Ltd via PLSclear. order your copy Here, No part of this quotation may be reproduced or reproduced or used in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
Disclaimer: The author and publisher of the book are solely responsible for the contents of the book or any portion thereof. NDTV will not be responsible or liable for any claim arising out of the contents of the book, including any claim of defamation, infringement of intellectual property rights or any other right of any third party or law.