Diplomacy with Caution

It is just four days since Imran Khan was sworn in as Prime Minister of Pakistan. There was perhaps every reason for India to hope that relations with Pakistan would undergo a very significant change with Imran Khan at the helm of affairs at Islamabad. Over the years, India has spared no bilateral efforts to improve relations with Pakistan. The response has often been a rejection of such friendly gestures. Worse, Pakistan has long played a major role in what can now be called ‘destructive engagement’ as a sort of antithesis of what Prime Minister Narendra Modi has in mind. There have been quite a few instances of Pakistan’s inimical role in acts of sabotage to Indian interests. India has not retaliated (except in the form of counterattacks on the Pakistan Army in Jammu & Kashmir) possibly in the hope that even if one of the neighbours can evince sustained restraint in the face of belligerent moves, the prospects of a more cordial and peaceful relationship might be forged in the days to come. Unfortunately, such hopes have been betrayed time and again. Even so, there may be some element of pragmatism in the expectation that Pakistan may eventually realize the futility of a senseless conflict that takes it nowhere and hampers useful development activities. After all, the rulers of Pakistan have to realize that they have been able to do precious little for the people except drawing their attention to the manner in which Pakistan’s pointless conflict with India has been sustained over the years. Not surprisingly, Pakistan’s development over the last seven decades has been negligible compared to what India has managed to achieve.

Over the years, it was imperative for India to evaluate the tenor of Pakistan’s relationship with India and to discount all formal gestures of pretence that could not camouflage its belligerent intentions. And that is why it is pertinent to question the need for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s enthusiasm in losing no time in writing to his Pakistan counterpart about India’s desire for cordial relations with Pakistan. Prime Minister Modi’s letter to Imran Khan expresses India’s commitment to build good neighbourly relations and to pursue meaningful and constructive engagement with Islamabad. He also talked about a shared vision to bring peace to make the subcontinent free of terror and violence. He expressed the belief that the smooth transition of government in Pakistan would strengthen people’s belief in democracy. And despite Modi’s belief that peace, security and prosperity in the subcontinent would make the region free of terror and violence, the common belief is that any regime in Pakistan would have to make certain concessions to terrorists for at least a few more years for the regime to survive. Naturally, most of the concessions would have to be overseen by the armed forces of Pakistan, and things would now be that much easier with a Prime Minister who enjoys the full support of the Pakistan Army.

How has Islamabad reacted to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s gesture as reflected in his letter to Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan? In Islamabad, the Foreign Ministry denied that Pakistan’s new Foreign Minister Shah Mohammad Qureshi had stated that Modi had made an offer of a dialogue. A statement of Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry said, “In response to a query regarding the controversy being unnecessarily created by sections of the Indian media, the Foreign Minister had not stated that the Indian Prime Minister had made an offer of a dialogue.” There was no need at all for a thoroughly confusing statement of this kind because the controversy being referred to was really the one created by the Foreign Ministry of Pakistan. Apparently, on Monday, Shah Mohammad Qureshi had said that there was need for “continued and uninterrupted” dialogue with India, which was the only way forward for the two neighbours to resolve outstanding issues. No one is likely to deny the importance of dialogue in resolving disputes, but the problem with Pakistan has been that dialogue is often seen more as a convenient ritual to delay decisions than as a civilized means of resolving disputes. There is need for a radical change in attitudes for meaningful changes to happen.