Sushma’s Pak Visit: Touches a Raw Nerve, Yet Has Few Deliverables

Nothing substantive will emerge after Sushma Swaraj’s much-hyped visit to Pakistan, writes Vivek Katju.

Does the Pakistani army, which finally decides the country’s India policy, share the vision of a peaceful and prosperous region? (Photo: The Quint)

Speaking in Parliament on her visit to Pakistan, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj took the emotional route. She said, “The underlying sentiment on which I am confident that this House concurs fully, was that the continued estrangement of the two neighbours was a hurdle to the realisation of our shared vision of a peaceful and prosperous region.”

No rational person can disagree with this view. However, does the Pakistani army, which finally decides the country’s India policy, share this vision? No. For its thinking is rooted in the idea that India is an eternal threat and, therefore, an enemy forever.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj speaks in the Rajya Sabha during the winter session of Parliament in New Delhi on Monday. (Photo: PTI)

Successive Indian governments have, in their quest for peace with Pakistan, ignored this fundamental reality. This government is going the same way. There is no evidence that the Pakistani generals are changing their negative mindset regarding India.

A General Dilemma

• There is no evidence to suggest that the Pakistani generals are changing their negative mindset regarding India.
  
• The NSA meet in Bangkok seems to be a diversion from the agenda decided at Ufa in July.
  
• Pakistani generals do not interpret flexibility as wise diplomacy; they will look upon Modi as a politician who can be moved away from his stated positions.
  
• Pursuit of terrorism is a basic component of Pakistan’s security doctrine against India; can Pakistan change this approach?
  

Diversion From the Ufa?

Swaraj claimed that India stuck to its guns to demand that the NSA-level talks should precede a bilateral engagement at the foreign ministers’ level with Pakistan. This is obfuscation for India accepting Pakistani insistence, contrary to what Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif agreed at Ufa, Russia in July.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj with Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif during a meeting in Islamabad, December 9, 2015. (Photo: PTI)

It was decided at Ufa that the NSAs would meet in Delhi and that the discussions would be on terror. The NSAs met in Bangkok and discussed issues other than terrorism, including Jammu and Kashmir. In Parliament, Swaraj clarified that J&K was discussed in the context of terrorism. But this is not what the joint statement issued after the NSA talks stated.

The Hurriyat Factor

History shows that Pakistani generals do not interpret flexibility as wise diplomacy but as weakness. They will look upon Modi as a politician who can be moved away from his stated positions. This will make them seek further concessions, especially because they feel that Modi is now interested in peace and will want his visit to Pakistan next year to be path breaking and result-oriented.

Syed Ali Shah Geelani, chairman of the hardline faction of Kashmir’s Hurriyat (Freedom) Conference, speaks during a news conference in Srinagar. (Photo: Reuters)

Modi had correctly departed from past practice in making it clear to Pakistan that its projection of the Hurriyat as a third party to the India-Pakistan dialogue was not acceptable. Pakistan did not agree to give up meeting with Hurriyat leaders before official bilateral talks and, therefore, they could not take place. The NSA talks were not held in Delhi also to bypass this problem. But, it remains. Swaraj has not clarified that India will stick to its view as indeed it should.

Can Pakistan Abandon Terrorism?

The bilateral dialogue will now be resumed with a new name – the Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue (CBD). In essence, it is the same as the Composite Dialogue that was established in 1998. The difference is that the terrorism issue will now be discussed by the NSAs and that there will be a focus on religious tourism. Can Pakistan be expected to abandon terrorism?

The pursuit of terrorism is a basic component of Pakistan’s security doctrine against India. Security doctrines are framed after deep deliberation and operate for decades. Such a doctrine on the part of Pakistan has been in place for more than three decades. It is, therefore, most unlikely that Pakistan will change it. Thus, it will calibrate the use of terror but will not give up its infrastructure. Indian policymakers should not forget this aspect as the country embarks on the CBD.

Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi (2nd row) with other SCO heads of state, heads of observer states and governments and international organisation delegation heads during the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Ufa, Russia, July 10, 2015. (Photo: Reuters)

Wait and Watch

The Siachen issue has been included in the agenda of the CBD. This is a high priority issue for Pakistan. It wants Indian troops to withdraw from the Saltoro ridge. The Indian position has evolved on this matter. For many years now the country’s security thinkers and the army have been adamant that there can be no withdrawal because the Chinese are active in the Northern Areas. Besides, if the Pakistanis renege and occupy positions on the Saltoro ridge, only a full-scale war will be able to dislodge them. It would, therefore, have been preferable not to include Siachen in the CBD menu.

Indian army soldiers muster at the base camp after returning from training at the Siachen glacier. (Photo: Reuters)

The experience of previous dialogues shows that Pakistan is obsessed with the resolution of issues and not the establishment of cooperative ties and addressing humanitarian concerns meaningfully. Will it change its approach? An indication will be its willingness to fully open the trade front and allow transit. Let us wait for these signals.

(The writer is a former Secretary (West), Ministry of External Affairs.)