Look Who’s Going To Pakistan

[ArsalanKhan21]

Look Who’s Going To Pakistan | The Indian Express

Look Who’s Going To Pakistan
As Pakistan becomes more a domestic than a foreign policy issue

Written by Seema Chishti | Publishedecember 12, 2015 12:15 am

As “go to Pakistan” quickly went from curse to foreign policy initiative, we woke up to find India’s foreign minister in Islamabad, rather than all those “Modi-baiters” and “beef-eaters”. It is a good moment to recap what has comprised a policy on the western neighbour all these months that this BJP-led government has been in charge in New Delhi.

Wounded Tiger, journalist Peter Oborne’s history of cricket and nationhood in Pakistan, recalls how Pakistan came to play its first Test series as an ICC nation in 1952 in India. India must have had supreme confidence at the time to have allowed this just five years after a bloody Partition. It has also been a long time since A.B. Vajpayee, in Parliament, alluded to a visit to the washroom by an eminent MP, who is a peacenik and frequent traveller to the Indo-Pak border, as one to Pakistan. Pandemonium followed, as Pakistan as a term for the washroom was a familiar insult.


Much distance has been travelled since, comprising bus journeys, infiltration, track twos, wars and four-point peace plans. The 26/11 Mumbai attacks brought Pakistan back to the centrestage, but some deft handling in India prevented it from becoming a vicious part of domestic politics, in a way that happened periodically, to obliquely refer to Indian Muslims. But that detente effectively ended with the 2014 Lok Sabha campaign. In his articulate and sharp campaign, the current prime minister urged the former UPA 2 government to “doob maro, doob maro (go drown yourselves)” for even meeting Pakistani ministers and officials. In that context, the invitation to the Pakistan PM in May last year was a surprise, but since then, references to Pakistan had harked back to a much earlier time-frame. Until, of course, “go to Pakistan” was taken literally by none else than the affable foreign minister.

The desire to re-hyphenate with Pakistan has been witnessed over the past 20 months or so. Pakistan has become the most domestic of foreign policy issues and the most foreign of domestic policy ones. Senior ministers, MPs and other leaders, with clockwork regularity, urged Indians of a certain description to “go to Pakistan”. Totally unmindful of the enormous hurdles the Pakistan high commission has strewn in the way of the most willing travellers to Pakistan, cabinet ministers and ruling party MPs kept urging departures. Union Minister Giriraj Singh started the trend early, when he said at an April 2014 rally that Narendra Modi’s critics would “have to go to Pakistan”.

The calls to travel came regularly after that, and the BJP president even suggested this year that a fireworks party might break out in Pakistan if the BJP lost Bihar. Whether Pakistani skies sparkled on November 8, we don’t know, as we were slacking on border control that night, what with people on our side of the border busy with their own fireworks/ silent moments. It didn’t stop there. There has been talk of an ordinance to grant citizenship to only Hindu refugees from the subcontinent. There is no law/ ordinance yet, but the call to travel to Pakistan for some and the projection of India as a Hindu homeland have sent a message about the deeper roots of this sort of messaging.

There is little doubt that the same kind of politics haunted the last BJP PM, Vajpayee, who went from eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation to warmly embracing his Pakistani counterpart in Lahore. There is word that Modi would like to add Pakistan to the list of countries he has visited since 2014. A go-to-Pakistan moment is welcome news, but it must account for what the implications of playing alternately with fire and ice, and that too without a discernible plan, can be. The ruling party will eventually have to deal with the consequences of this hare-and-hound dichotomy. Election rhetoric or core vote compulsions that rile up and poke at settled issues cannot easily reconcile with a desire to appear as a genial colossus on the world stage.

The challenge for the Centre is to decide what kind of politics it wants to stand for. There is a huge middle ground between “go to Pakistan” and former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah’s memorable call last year for Modi-voters to go jump “in the sea”. Does the Centre want to meaningfully, and in a sustained way, stake a claim for that no man’s land?

 

[ArsalanKhan21]

New opening to Pakistan

Posted at: Dec 12 2015 12:45
AMS Nihal Singh
New opening to Pakistan
Modi’s recognition of reality

PRIME Minister Narendra Modi’s approach to relations with Pakistan has been one of trial and error — more error than trial, it would seem. After a spectacular start by inviting his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif to his swearing-in, it has been a downhill journey punctuated by the Ufa meeting on the sidelines of a conference which led to a stalemate. Mr Modi bears the primary responsibility because he called off the two countries’ August discourse at the last minute by imposing a new pre-condition. He has now learned the hard way that not talking to Pakistan is not a viable option and he had to row back by utilising the Paris climate change meeting to buttonhole Mr Sharif to revive talks. So now we are to have a “comprehensive” dialogue, instead of a “composite” one of the Congress variety. So far so good. What then does the future hold for the impending exercise, to be defined by the foreign secretaries? The fact that the two countries’ national advisers meeting was held in Bangkok away from media glare implies that Mr Modi has learned his first lesson in Indo-Pakistani diplomacy. It is that it is a long hard drill that yields results intermittently, one problem at a time, and is not susceptible to dramatic outcomes. Now that the Modi government has reinvented the wheel by promising to hold “comprehensive” talks on terror and Kashmir among other subjects, where will it lead us? The Bharatiya Janata Party has its own constituency fed on anti-Pakistan rhetoric to cope with. But beyond camouflaging the new line by clever word play, the new men and women in power will find that the problems are both endemic and overlaid with the bloody history of the subcontinent’s Partition. Neither India nor Pakistan (or now Bangladesh) can get away from the manner in which independence came to the two countries. It was no coincidence that the nearest the two countries came to an agreement was during the reign of Gen Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan by liberally using the official and deniable route of empowered emissaries to throw up ideas and digest them. The assumption was, and remains valid, that only in a secret environment can the two sides’ representatives throw up new ideas and digest them yielding innovative routes to an acceptable compromise. It needs hardly stressing that for Pakistan the Kashmir issue is central to the relationship. The essential compromise mooted was to have open borders between the two Kashmirs while leaving the border lines unchanged. But New Delhi must realise that Pakistanis have been fed a propaganda line since the Partition and the new Indian effort in indoctrination gathered speed after the coming to power of Mr Modi. For India, the Pakistani-inspired and directed massacre in Mumbai is an open sore which cannot be cured until Islamabad can bring the guilty to book. The Pakistani attempt to equate Mumbai with the killings of Pakistanis on the Samjhauta Express simply does not wash. Some reports on the talks Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj held in Pakistan suggest that her hosts are conscious of Indian feelings on this score. The logic of Indo-Pakistani relations is that it swings from the sentimentality of a dying out pre-Partition generation and the realpolitik of hard-headed men on both sides seeking to get the better of the other. Simply put, India for Pakistan is its enemy number one while most Indians see Pakistan as an adversary, although with the Bharatiya Janata Party now in power, the perception of Islamabad could harden. The problem cannot be resolved by the two countries’ peoples coming together and meeting more often. At the personal level, they are the best of friends when they meet. It is at two other levels: the policy-making elites on either side and for Pakistanis the historical wrongs they believe were done to them, which they unsuccessfully sought to wrest through military force. This frustration has led to Pakistani efforts to keep Kashmir simmering through sending militants across the border and taking the guerrilla pinpricks across the country. In dealing with Pakistan, Mr Modi will have to reinvent himself up to a point for the simple reason that the relationship is overlaid with so much emotion and angst that even the simplest problem takes on unusual overtones. We must remember that for decades the Pakistani leaders have framed their polical and security policies with the single objective of checkmating India until settling on China as its main guardian angel. In India’s worldview, Pakistan represents one of its two often hostile neighbours. Nepal cannot be more than a passing problem, despite the prevailing sneezes, and after coming to power of the present dispensation in Bangladesh, it is a friendly neighbour. China represents a problem of another dimension since it is being accepted as a virtual superpower. A rapprochement with Beijing will take time because many factors, some extraneous to the two countries’ bilateral equation, are involved, including the state of the Sino-US relations. The imperatives of seeking friendship with Pakistan are obvious. We are in essence the same people and remain deeply connected with each other through geography and many other associations. A thaw in relations between the two countries can only benefit both sides, particularly at a time when terrorism is threatening the entire world, with Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in India a mere side show. It is just as well that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has reversed course in picking up the threads again in connecting with Pakistan. Engagement between the two countries is proverbially hazardous and susceptible to rupture in the face of hostile winds that blow across the subcontinent fiercely. For Mr Modi there is the domestic problem of keeping his Sangh Parivar flock in line. He therefore must resist the temptation of overplaying his hand. Mr Sharif faces an even more difficult problem of subduing the hardliners fed on decades of India-hating jargon while keeping the army on his side. He seems to have struck the happy compromise of getting a retired general to act as his new national security adviser.

Modi's India-Pakistan formula is a rehash of an old agreement

Modi's India-Pakistan formula is a rehash of an old agreement
The points listed in Islamabad-2015 in the joint statement are no different from the 1997 agreement.
POLITICS
| 5-minute read | 11-12-2015

Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay
@NilanjanUdwin
So India and Pakistan are going to start samagra vaarta! When India's foreign minitster Sushma Swaraj made this disclosure in Islamabad earlier this week, a howl of protests went up from assembled Pakistani journalists because they did not get the klisht or pure Hindi. Swaraj then elaborated in English: "What was being done as composite dialogue, and was later called resumed dialogue, will now be called the comprehensive bilateral dialogue."

The elaboration betrayed the misinformation that is often spread when events are described in different languages. In Hindi she had claimed: "Hum dono deshon ne samagra vaarta prarambh karney ka faisla le liya hai." Anyone with even a meagre knowledge of India's not so "national language" will know that this does not mean what Swaraj elaborated in English. Yet, an impression has been spread that this government has initiated a new dialogue process with Islamabad. Is there any truth in this claim?

Though the story of Indo-Pak dialogue begins in January 1949 when ceasefire was declared between the two countries after the undeclared war of 1948, structured negotiations between the two started in March 1997 when they sat down across the table after a gap of three years. The meeting began in the backdrop of Pakistan foreign secretary Shamshad Ahmed declaring that Kashmir would be the core issue.

But by the end of the meeting he climbed down. Over the next few months, the negotiations were choreographed from the Indian side by IK Gujral, first as foreign minister in the HD Deve Gowda ministry and later as prime minister and conducted in committee rooms by Salman Haider as India's Foreign Secretary. In June 1997, the two nations listed "eight issues" on which dialogue would be restricted.

Probably, this was the most brilliant move made by Indian diplomacy as far as negotiations with Islamabad were concerned. The eight issues listed were:

(a) Peace and security, including Confidence Building Measures (CBMs)

(b) Jammu and Kashmir

(c) Siachen

(d) Wullar Barrage Project / Tulbul Navigation Project

(e) Sir Creek

(f) Terrorism and drug-trafficking

(g) Economic and Commercial Cooperation

(h) Promotion of friendly exchanges in various fields.

In one stroke, the June 1997 agreement equated Jammu and Kashmir with peace, security, terrorism and drug trafficking - all major Indian concerns that Pakistan didn't wish to talk about.

The fact that the eight issues - formally named composite dialogue process was carried on by the Vajpayee regime and the UPA government till the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack demonstrates how the crafty move kept Pakistan diplomacy on a leash and did not allow them the liberty to declare "no talks unless Kashmir was given primacy".

No single "core issue" remained as every issue was the central part. The Mumbai terror attack put the composite dialogue process in cold storage till 2011 and even though for some quaint reason it is now referred as resumed dialogue, the basic tenet of simultaneously talking about the eight issues was followed.

The Modi's government's Pakistan policy has been flawed for two reasons. Firstly, there have been conflicting signals from the top regarding when to blow hot and when to blow cold.

Secondly, fault lines within government at the top have often sought to apportion blame on Sushma Swaraj for being belligerent when it was necessary to have a nuanced stance and vice versa. Prime Minister Narendra Modi appears to have taken the bull by its horns and the Paris guftagu with Nawaz Sharif followed by the Bangkok meets of the two national security advisers without prior public - and maybe even private - disclosure, point to the fact that at this point he wishes to soften his posture.

But why call it a new process? After all, the points listed in Islamabad in the joint statement are no different. The twelve issues on which comprehensive bilateral dialogue will he conducted are:

Peace & Security; CBMs (these two points are in fact split from the first issue listed in 1997); Jammu and Kashmir; Siachen; Sir Creek; Wullar Barrage; economic and commercial cooperation; counter-terrorism (worded differently from the 1997 agreement but meaning the same); narcotics control (also worded differently from the 1997 agreement); humanitarian Issues (new issue but hardly a contentious matter that holds up resumption of negotiations) ; people to people exchanges (also worded differently from the 1997 agreement); and religious tourism (almost the same as the previous point but understandable given the Indian government's emphasis on matters religious!).

The process too is likely to be the same - foreign secretaries will meet and then each issue will be tackled by sub-groups like before. Eventually if there is progress, talks will be elevated to the foreign minister level and then eventually to a summit level.

If there is no repeat of events that marred the progress of talks previously, Modi will have a crowning glory well in time for the next parliamentary polls. On the other hand, if fresh terror strikes occur, things will be back to square one. For the moment, the immediate need is to resume dialogue because it will be tough for Modi to visit Pakistan for the SAARC Summit next year if hostility continues.

After all, Modi would like to declare from Pakistani soil that he is the first prime minister to visit the country after more than a decade (Manmohan Singh never visited Pakistan during his tenure) like he has done from various quaint ports of halt he has made. If for fulfilling this ambition, it will have to old wine in new bottle or a rehash of an old agreement, so be it!

 

[ArsalanKhan21]

Now ‘go to Pakistan’ is not an abuse | Free Press Journal

Now ‘go to Pakistan’ is not an abuse
— By Anil Sharma | Dec 14, 2015 12:06 am

Hopefully when External Affairs minister Sushma Swaraj makes a statement in Parliament about her visit to Pakistan, her cabinet colleague Giriraj Singh would be there to applaud her and concede that “go to Pakistan” is no longer an abuse. May be, it would be too much to expect her party president Amit Shah to concede that his statement about celebrations in Pakistan over a BJP defeat in Bihar was also uncalled for. But it is surely time that Giriraj Singh makes that amendment, or else Prime Minister Narendra Modi would find it more embarrassing to be in Islamabad next year for the SAARC summit.

The fact remains that India has no option but to engage with Pakistan in a diplomatic dialogue. This is something that has been known to anyone who has even an iota of understanding about the dealing between two sovereign countries. Even after a bloody war, there comes a time for talks. We have had four wars and countless skirmishes across the border without moving an inch in terms of dispute resolution with Pakistan. We are both nuclear armed countries with firepower to ensure the destruction of every soul several times over. There is no way we can just not talk. Thus it makes more sense when Swaraj uses the term maturity in the context of the Indian Pakistan relations and agrees that the process has to proceed at a pace at which Pakistan is comfortable.

One hopes that the last 18 months have been a good learning curve for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, though he must be primarily abhorring the idea that someone in the world can impart him lessons in anything. But then his actions have shown that even an ‘unscripted 120 seconds’ meeting on the side lines of the Climate Change summit in Paris takes a lot of preparatory work, and that he is prepared to do the needful instead of making gestures that ‘no Indian prime minister has made in the last 60 years’ and hoping that these would deliver the goods. This is hardly the way forward in diplomatic matters. In some respects, there is no other way than the time tested and tried method of talks, talks and more talks in diplomacy.

It has to be remembered that the peace process requires more daring and courage than the act of war. For the former prime minister India Gandhi sending the troops across the border in 1971 was much easier than negotiating peace with Bhutto and agreeing to give back the 93,000 Pakistani troops held as prisoners of war. The jingoists are always there to allege a sell-out, and more so in the case of prime minister Modi who has to liberate himself from his campaign rhetoric of 56 inch chest and “doob maro” invectives that he used to hurl at the UPA leaders when they showed ‘softness’ in dealing with Pakistan. Sure, he needs all the machismo at his disposal but to make peace with Pakistan on the best possible terms, that is not an easy talk. Yes, no Indian prime minister has achieved it so far, and it is here that Modi has the chance of rewriting history.

In the context of India and Pakistan progress in the relationship is not measured in terms of deals signed or milestones achieved. That is a far cry. We have been too uncivilised to come up to these terms. We cannot even play cricket in a neutral country. We mull for weeks over the idea itself and still are not able to come to a decision. We do not allow a ghazal singer from Pakistan to come to our shores, and we blacken the face of a journalist who dares to play host to a Pakistani writer/diplomat. We may dismiss this as the fringe, but then can we ignore that this dominates our reality. More so when we have a lot to learn about ourselves from our neighbours.

For instance, it would be akin to blasphemy to suggest that Gavaskar is greater than Tendulkar, but the irony is that there is a world cup winning Pakistani captain Imran Khan who tells us that a Sunil Gavaskar is a better batsman than a Sachin Tendulkar because old man Sunny played against the most fearsome and hostile pace quartet (without a helmet) from West Indies whereas by contrast the young lad Sachin had hardly a pacer like Johnson to endure.

There is no room for sentimentality in international relations and the decisions must indeed be based on realpolitik but the overwhelming contribution of the people to people contacts and trade relations cannot be overlooked. No one is arguing that Pakistan is about to drop all its hostility toward India or that just one visit by the external affairs minister has changed all the history of the last 68 years. All the usual caveats will always apply with redoubled vigour, especially when there is an attempt to create a sense of peace security by the other side. At the same time, engaging with Pakistan without any roadmap for the sake of mere photo-ops or better optics is not a luxury that can be enjoyed by the country.

There can be durable peace only if a peace constituency is created in both the countries. Right now there are too many vested interests in both the countries that have profited from the troubled relations across the borders. The only way the two Germanys united were when the Berlin wall fall. True there is no Berlin between India and Pakistan, but there is a deep wall of distrust. The only known antidote to this distrust is sustained people to people contacts. Giriraj Singh does keep issuing the Go to Pakistan diktats, but then he does not know perhaps that it is tough for an Indian to cross the Wagah border – no one from the Indian side lets one go, and no one from the Pakistani side allows you in. Modi and Sharif have to make travel between India-Pakistan easier before they do anything else. That is the first step they need to take action soon.

 

[Cyberian]

It's not been that long since India's democratically elected Hindu Extremist Prime Minister Narendra Modi was giving triumphant speeches in Bangladesh.

So, why has India's democratically elected Hindu regime buckled to Pakistani pressure so easily?