Stalled dialogue

AT a book launch in New Delhi on August 30, the Indian external affairs minister remarked that “the era of uninterrupted dialogue with Pakistan is over”. Dialogue is the essence of inter-state conduct, particularly between neighbours. To shun dialogue is to shut the doors on diplomacy and open doors for conflict. Since 2016, India has cut off all links with Pakistan and conditioned dialogue with it to an end to the alleged cross-border terrorism from Pakistan. The irony is that it is Pakistan that is suffering from terrorism, including by Indian state operatives who have assassinated 20 Pakistani citizens in 2023 alone. In March 2016, Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian spy and a serving Indian Navy officer, was caught red-handed in Balochistan planning acts of terrorism and sabotage under the fake identity of Hussain Mubarak Patel.
Indian leaders often talk about Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-i-Mohammad without taking into account the fact that both organisations and their leaders are proscribed in Pakistan under Schedule-I of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 (ATA), and the bulk of their leadership is behind bars. India also tries to give references to these organisations in its joint statements with other countries. Yet, no country now raises this matter with Pakistan because they are well aware of the concrete actions Pakistan has taken to fight terrorism and to choke terrorist financing in pursuance of the ATA and the recommendations of FATF and UN Security Council 1373 committee’s monitoring team.
In another remark, S. Jaishankar stated that India was not passive in relations with Pakistan and “whether events take a positive or a negative direction, either way, we [India] will react to it”. India has so far reacted negatively to every recent positive gesture from Pakistan. For instance, the foreign minister of Pakistan has twice raised the possibility of opening trade with India, but the latter did not give any response, positive or negative. Pakistan has also invited India to attend the meeting of heads of governments of SCO that Pakistan is hosting next month. It is not clear if India will attend at the level of prime minister or even external affairs minister.
On Jammu and Kashmir, Jaishankar remarked that “… Article 370 is done”. The Kashmir dispute has four parties: India, Pakistan, Kashmiris, and the international community. How can India unilaterally take a decision ignoring the other parties to this UN-recognised dispute, particularly the Kashmiris? When Kashmiris resist Indian occupation, India terms their struggle as Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. For over 70 years, Kashmiris have sent a consistent message to India that they want to exercise their right to self-determination. How long must they speak out before India realises that Kashmiris do not wish to remain under Indian occupation and want to decide their political destiny themselves? Jaishankar said that “actions have consequences”. He would well appreciate that India’s resort to excessive force against Kashmiris also has had consequences in terms of regional peace and stability.
At this point in time, India is able to get away with its dominating posture towards its neighbours. If only Indian leaders could see how all nations in South Asia are now deeply frustrated with the interventionist stance that India has adopted in its dealings with neighbours. It appears that the Indo-US strategic partnership, which is aimed at containing the rise of China, has emboldened the Indian leadership to behave as a regional hegemon. When Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, the then Pakistan foreign minister, visited India to participate in the SCO meeting in Goa last May, the Indian foreign minister chose to set aside all diplomatic norms and called him a “justifier [and] spokesperson of a terrorism industry”. Such arrogance has become the principal impediment to India’s ambitions to become a global and regional power and a net security provider in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region.
The people and leadership of Pakistan have done well by offering peace and dialogue to India even in the face of India’s persistent refusal to engage in talks. Indian leaders are well advised to remember that times change and what they decide today will affect future generations and the course of history. Indeed, actions have consequences. And the consequence of the no-dialogue policy could be a fratricidal conflict in South Asia, which will hurt all sides. If that is the legacy the Modi regime wishes to leave behind, so be it. A wiser course, however, would be to resume bilateral dialogue, revive Saarc, and address issues like all nations do, and thus engender a positive legacy of leading a secure, conflict-free, and economically integrated South Asia.
The writer is a former foreign secretary and chairman of Sanober Institute Islamabad.
Published in Dawn, September 8th, 2024