Bang Galore
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 10,685
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Saleem Safi
- Wednesday, December 02, 2015
When you have no desire to develop relations even on Track I, it is indeed a daydream to have any hope of success for any Track II dialogues. I was quite clear about that. And yet I accepted the invitation to participate in a dialogue in Delhi that was to brainstorm Pakistan-India relations.
The invitation was extended to me by the Jinnah Institute, Islamabad and the Center for Dialogue and Reconciliation (CDR) in India. I accepted the invitation on the basis of two incentives: to acquire first-hand knowledge of India; and to see – after many years – the new India under Modi. I am very thankful to the Jinnah Institute that both objectives were achieved through their generous offer to participate in this event.
In the two-day dialogue held at The Claridges hotel in Delhi, the Pakistani delegation was headed by Sherry Rehman, the CEO of Jinnah Institute and vice president of the PPP. Other members on the delegation were former foreign secretary Aziz Ahmed Khan; former ambassador Shafqat Kakakhel; former foreign secretary and former Pakistan’s ambassador to India, Salman Bashir, Speaker AJK Assembly Shah Ghulam Qadir, Marvi Sirmed, senior journalist Zahid Hussain, Director Programs Jinnah Institute Hassan Akbar, program manager Safwan Ahmed – and yours truly.
The Indian delegation was composed of personalities like former foreign secretary Salman Haider, former ambassador S K Lamba, former Indian ambassador to Pakistan Satyabrata Pal, former chairman National Commission for Minorities Wajahat Habibullah, representative of the Communist Party from Occupied Kashmir Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami, a young intellectual from Srinagar Goher Gilani, famous journalist Siddharth Varadarajan, chief editor of The Citizen Seema Mustafa and from CDR, Shubhra Chaturvedi.
The dialogue consisted of four sessions, each dedicated to a broader theme. The themes discussed were: bilateral relations; Kashmir; Afghanistan; and the role of the media. The official minutes and report of this dialogue will be issued to media and governments by the Jinnah Institute and CDR. But I would like to share my own opinion and observations here with the readers. I did not just depend on what was said and discussed in the conference hall. Rather I tried to interact with as many persons – and classes – as was possible in this short time.
I spoke with Pakistan’s High Commissioner to India Abdul Basit on a one-to-one basis during lunch. I participated at a dinner hosted by the Pakistan embassy and tried to learn the opinion of the many hosts and guests that were attending the event. Along with Shah Ghulam Qadir I visited some markets and bazaars of Delhi and talked with people on the street, shopkeepers and taxi drivers.
What I have managed to conclude from this visit to India is that in the present conditions any effort to talk with India is futile. And this is not only because of Narendra Modi; I felt a widespread superiority complex in India regarding Pakistan. This is found equally among common citizens as well as in political leaders, intellectuals and media persons. They discuss all issues as part of ‘bilateral relations’. The message one gets is that initiation of any talks is something only Pakistan is in need of it.
The analysis is almost always in black and white – Pakistan all-sinners, India all-saints. Even playing cricket with Pakistan is something they consider to be a favour. Most importantly, now the foreign policy of India towards Pakistan is in the hands of Ajit Doval, India’s national security advisor, instead of the foreign office of India.
India’s foreign office too does not possess friendly feelings towards Pakistan. But Ajit Doval is directly related to what RAW is all about. Even in person, Doval holds a very negative image of Pakistan; this can be easily seen in his speeches and presentations.
Perhaps the most negative aspect in bilateral ties between India and Pakistan is the Indian media. Sustaining a war-like situation against Pakistan seems to be in fashion in the news media of India. Almost always, at the state level, first governments and then establishments try to use the media for such purposes. Eventually they become captives of the same media which then does not leave any peace options open for them. The same is the case in India.
Even if the Indian PM was Atal Bihari Vajpayee today, and not a person like Narendra Modi – even then the Indian media would not let him establish good relations with Pakistan. While the Pakistani media does air anti-India sentiments, we have a sizeable number of critics and analysts that advocate logic and balance. But in India there are very few critics available on foreign policy. Thus criticism of Narendra Modi, RSS and the debate after the Bihar election results are all discussed for their internal dynamics and not for their foreign impacts or merits.
In this context I see no possibility of constructive dialogue and progress over bilateral relations between Indian and Pakistan. After my visit to India, I am of the opinion that PM Nawaz Shari’s participation in the oath-taking ceremony of Modi, and asking for dialogue, was a mistake. The Ufa meeting and agreeing to its declaration was an even bigger mistake. And an even worse mistake would be to initiate any one-sided effort to resume dialogue.
Before this visit, I was of the opinion that Pakistan should not play cricket with India until a formal and written apology from the Indian side but now I feel Pakistan should refuse to play even in any third country. There should be only one option: the Indian team should play in Pakistan, otherwise we need not play at all.
National dignity and diplomatic strategy both demand that we now answer India in the same tone. We should restrict all other relations with India for now; and diplomatic relations should be kept at the minimum required level. Our Foreign Office wishes to include the Indian foreign minister at the ‘Heart of Asia Conference’ that is to take place next month in Islamabad to discuss the diplomatic possibilities over Afghanistan. I propose that only a casual invitation would be enough for Indian participation at the conference.
Over the issue of Kashmir, state institutions should not move an inch from their stand. However, instead of a daily rebuttal over the issue, it is better to wait silently for some time, as China did on Hong Kong and Taiwan. Such open and heated debates in the media on a daily basis – over cricket, national security advisors etc – could lead both governments towards an unwanted war. The length of this diplomatic pause with India, though, would depend on the policy response from India.
Pakistan, in the meanwhile, ought to concentrate over its internal security and economic issues. We can invest our energy in developing good relations and rapport with other regional and international powers; and most importantly to fight against all forms of extremism.
The only risk for a positive outcome of this proposed diplomatic pause could be non-state actors. We have to seal our borders and guard against all extreme elements. We have to ensure that no one from India, following Ajit Doval’s policy, is able to cross the border; and no one should cross the Indian border from our side even by mistake. Minimum relations with India could result in a prosperous Pakistan; but if India gains any chance to interfere in the internal affairs of Pakistan it would result in the diplomatic success of India against Pakistan.
The world already stands with India, so we have to stop its interference and media bashing. We have to improve our conditions and present our demands as and when there is a good chance to be noticed on the global stage.
The writer works for Geo TV.
A few days in India - Saleem Safi
- Wednesday, December 02, 2015
When you have no desire to develop relations even on Track I, it is indeed a daydream to have any hope of success for any Track II dialogues. I was quite clear about that. And yet I accepted the invitation to participate in a dialogue in Delhi that was to brainstorm Pakistan-India relations.
The invitation was extended to me by the Jinnah Institute, Islamabad and the Center for Dialogue and Reconciliation (CDR) in India. I accepted the invitation on the basis of two incentives: to acquire first-hand knowledge of India; and to see – after many years – the new India under Modi. I am very thankful to the Jinnah Institute that both objectives were achieved through their generous offer to participate in this event.
In the two-day dialogue held at The Claridges hotel in Delhi, the Pakistani delegation was headed by Sherry Rehman, the CEO of Jinnah Institute and vice president of the PPP. Other members on the delegation were former foreign secretary Aziz Ahmed Khan; former ambassador Shafqat Kakakhel; former foreign secretary and former Pakistan’s ambassador to India, Salman Bashir, Speaker AJK Assembly Shah Ghulam Qadir, Marvi Sirmed, senior journalist Zahid Hussain, Director Programs Jinnah Institute Hassan Akbar, program manager Safwan Ahmed – and yours truly.
The Indian delegation was composed of personalities like former foreign secretary Salman Haider, former ambassador S K Lamba, former Indian ambassador to Pakistan Satyabrata Pal, former chairman National Commission for Minorities Wajahat Habibullah, representative of the Communist Party from Occupied Kashmir Mohammed Yousuf Tarigami, a young intellectual from Srinagar Goher Gilani, famous journalist Siddharth Varadarajan, chief editor of The Citizen Seema Mustafa and from CDR, Shubhra Chaturvedi.
The dialogue consisted of four sessions, each dedicated to a broader theme. The themes discussed were: bilateral relations; Kashmir; Afghanistan; and the role of the media. The official minutes and report of this dialogue will be issued to media and governments by the Jinnah Institute and CDR. But I would like to share my own opinion and observations here with the readers. I did not just depend on what was said and discussed in the conference hall. Rather I tried to interact with as many persons – and classes – as was possible in this short time.
I spoke with Pakistan’s High Commissioner to India Abdul Basit on a one-to-one basis during lunch. I participated at a dinner hosted by the Pakistan embassy and tried to learn the opinion of the many hosts and guests that were attending the event. Along with Shah Ghulam Qadir I visited some markets and bazaars of Delhi and talked with people on the street, shopkeepers and taxi drivers.
What I have managed to conclude from this visit to India is that in the present conditions any effort to talk with India is futile. And this is not only because of Narendra Modi; I felt a widespread superiority complex in India regarding Pakistan. This is found equally among common citizens as well as in political leaders, intellectuals and media persons. They discuss all issues as part of ‘bilateral relations’. The message one gets is that initiation of any talks is something only Pakistan is in need of it.
The analysis is almost always in black and white – Pakistan all-sinners, India all-saints. Even playing cricket with Pakistan is something they consider to be a favour. Most importantly, now the foreign policy of India towards Pakistan is in the hands of Ajit Doval, India’s national security advisor, instead of the foreign office of India.
India’s foreign office too does not possess friendly feelings towards Pakistan. But Ajit Doval is directly related to what RAW is all about. Even in person, Doval holds a very negative image of Pakistan; this can be easily seen in his speeches and presentations.
Perhaps the most negative aspect in bilateral ties between India and Pakistan is the Indian media. Sustaining a war-like situation against Pakistan seems to be in fashion in the news media of India. Almost always, at the state level, first governments and then establishments try to use the media for such purposes. Eventually they become captives of the same media which then does not leave any peace options open for them. The same is the case in India.
Even if the Indian PM was Atal Bihari Vajpayee today, and not a person like Narendra Modi – even then the Indian media would not let him establish good relations with Pakistan. While the Pakistani media does air anti-India sentiments, we have a sizeable number of critics and analysts that advocate logic and balance. But in India there are very few critics available on foreign policy. Thus criticism of Narendra Modi, RSS and the debate after the Bihar election results are all discussed for their internal dynamics and not for their foreign impacts or merits.
In this context I see no possibility of constructive dialogue and progress over bilateral relations between Indian and Pakistan. After my visit to India, I am of the opinion that PM Nawaz Shari’s participation in the oath-taking ceremony of Modi, and asking for dialogue, was a mistake. The Ufa meeting and agreeing to its declaration was an even bigger mistake. And an even worse mistake would be to initiate any one-sided effort to resume dialogue.
Before this visit, I was of the opinion that Pakistan should not play cricket with India until a formal and written apology from the Indian side but now I feel Pakistan should refuse to play even in any third country. There should be only one option: the Indian team should play in Pakistan, otherwise we need not play at all.
National dignity and diplomatic strategy both demand that we now answer India in the same tone. We should restrict all other relations with India for now; and diplomatic relations should be kept at the minimum required level. Our Foreign Office wishes to include the Indian foreign minister at the ‘Heart of Asia Conference’ that is to take place next month in Islamabad to discuss the diplomatic possibilities over Afghanistan. I propose that only a casual invitation would be enough for Indian participation at the conference.
Over the issue of Kashmir, state institutions should not move an inch from their stand. However, instead of a daily rebuttal over the issue, it is better to wait silently for some time, as China did on Hong Kong and Taiwan. Such open and heated debates in the media on a daily basis – over cricket, national security advisors etc – could lead both governments towards an unwanted war. The length of this diplomatic pause with India, though, would depend on the policy response from India.
Pakistan, in the meanwhile, ought to concentrate over its internal security and economic issues. We can invest our energy in developing good relations and rapport with other regional and international powers; and most importantly to fight against all forms of extremism.
The only risk for a positive outcome of this proposed diplomatic pause could be non-state actors. We have to seal our borders and guard against all extreme elements. We have to ensure that no one from India, following Ajit Doval’s policy, is able to cross the border; and no one should cross the Indian border from our side even by mistake. Minimum relations with India could result in a prosperous Pakistan; but if India gains any chance to interfere in the internal affairs of Pakistan it would result in the diplomatic success of India against Pakistan.
The world already stands with India, so we have to stop its interference and media bashing. We have to improve our conditions and present our demands as and when there is a good chance to be noticed on the global stage.
The writer works for Geo TV.
A few days in India - Saleem Safi
So you are hoping your reputation will increase ... 
: 22 negative ratings
