India-Pakistan relations: The political dance of dialogue and discord

Dipak Kurmi

(The writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com.)

Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently capitalised on remarks made by veteran politician and former diplomat Mani Shankar Aiyar, aiming to portray the Congress as consistently adopting a hesitant, if not timid, stance on Pakistan. Aiyar’s statements were drawn from an extensive 83-minute interview he granted to a video channel last month. During the interview, he extensively discussed his perspectives on India-Pakistan relations, expressing criticism of the Modi government’s approach to Pakistan. Aiyar could have refrained from directly mentioning strategic weaponry, thus potentially denying PM Modi political leverage and sparing the Congress from embarrassment. However, Aiyar’s character wouldn’t be true to itself if it didn’t occasionally make such missteps.

At an election rally in Odisha on May 11, Prime Minister Narendra Modi indirectly targeted the Congress, accusing its members of undermining the nation’s self-assurance by stoking fears about Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities. Without explicitly naming anyone, Modi suggested that those within the Congress who spoke of Pakistan’s possession of atomic weapons were ignorant of the fact that Pakistan lacked the capability to “manage” such arms and sought to sell them, albeit unsuccessfully due to their inferior quality. Modi then shifted focus to criticising the Congress for its perceived “weak” stance against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Following Modi’s lead, other BJP leaders joined in lambasting the Congress for what they deemed a consistently soft approach towards Pakistan. In response, the Congress distanced itself from the contentious remarks, with spokesperson Pawan Khera emphasising that the individual in question did not represent the party in any capacity. Khera further highlighted historical events, such as the dismemberment of Pakistan in December 1971 during then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s tenure, as well as India’s peaceful nuclear test in 1974, conducted under the same leadership.

Since the initiation of the election process on April 19, the BJP has been actively attempting to draw the Congress into a debate on nationalism, evident in its persistent references to the remarks made by Aiyar, a figure of limited current political relevance. Despite these efforts, the Congress has displayed strategic restraint by largely avoiding direct engagement on these issues. Instead, its senior leaders have chosen to redirect the narrative towards pressing economic concerns such as unemployment and widening income inequality. Additionally, they have emphasised the perceived risks to constitutional values should the BJP maintain power. This deliberate shift in focus underscores the Congress’s tactical approach to the electoral discourse.

During elections, it’s natural for the BJP to bring up the Congress’s stance on Pakistan, and it’s equally within the Congress’s prerogative to respond as it sees fit. This back-and-forth is inherent to the election process. However, it’s crucial for top political figures, whether in government or opposition, to exercise responsibility and restraint when discussing strategic matters. These issues are too delicate to be dragged into the rough and tumble of campaigning. It’s worth remembering that leaders from all parties have contributed to India’s security, including the development of strategic assets. This should be kept in mind amidst the fervour of election campaigns.

Aiyar has long advocated for continuous dialogue between India and Pakistan. However, proponents of this approach often overlook the fact that no Indian government has been able to sustain bilateral talks following a significant terror attack linked to Pakistan. Thus, the notion that terrorism and dialogue cannot coexist holds merit. In both his interview and a subsequent newspaper article addressing the controversy, Aiyar’s recollection of Modi’s Pakistan policy appears selective. It could be argued that Modi took political risks by pursuing engagement with Pakistan. A pivotal moment came during his meeting with then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in July 2015 in Ufa, Russia, on the sidelines of the SCO summit. Despite the UFA joint statement omitting a specific mention of the Jammu and Kashmir issue, Pakistani generals reacted vehemently. Nonetheless, Modi demonstrated flexibility by allowing for subsequent discussions between the National Security Advisors and Foreign Secretaries of both nations in Bangkok in December of the same year, addressing various issues, including the resumption of the India-Pakistan dialogue.

Just two days following the Bangkok meeting, then-External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj embarked on a trip to Islamabad for a multilateral gathering on Afghanistan. During this event, Swaraj and her Pakistani counterpart, Sartaj Aziz, reached an agreement to initiate a comprehensive bilateral dialogue process, termed the Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue. Shortly thereafter, Modi’s surprise visit to Lahore occurred. Despite these positive developments, the Pakistani military establishment, opposed to further engagement, orchestrated the Pathankot airbase terror attack in January 2016. Despite this setback, Modi persisted in his efforts to salvage the dialogue process. He even permitted a Pakistani delegation, including an ISI officer, to visit India, specifically the Pathankot airbase. It was only after the Uri terror attack in September 2016 that Modi’s approach shifted. Nevertheless, he refrained from severing ties altogether. Furthermore, with Imran Khan assuming office as Pakistan’s Prime Minister in 2018, there was speculation about a potential improvement in bilateral relations.

The relationship between India and Pakistan took a significant downturn following the Pulwama terror attack in February 2019 and the constitutional amendments in Jammu and Kashmir in August of the same year. Pakistan’s decision to downgrade diplomatic ties with India in response to these changes further exacerbated the situation. Subsequently, Pakistan has maintained that a dialogue cannot commence until India reverses its decisions regarding Jammu and Kashmir. It is evident that Aiyar would be wise to reflect on the irrationality of Pakistan’s current approach towards India, although it seems unlikely that he will do so.