New Delhi's new red line on dialogue

[Tronic]

New Delhi's new red line on dialogue

By calling off a scheduled meeting between India's and Pakistan's foreign secretaries, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government has placed an onus of good diplomatic behaviour on Pakistan. New Delhi's new red line is - if Islamabad wishes to talk to New Delhi, it must not talk to the Hurriyat Conference.

The ministry of external affairs (MEA) has confirmed to Business Standard that the ban on talking to the Hurriyat includes the spectrum of Kashmiri separatist parties. This includes non-Hurriyat leaders like Yasin Malik of the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front; and newer leaders like Masarat Alam, who emerged from three years of violent street protests in Kashmir from 2008-2010.

This impasse was triggered on Monday, when Pakistan's high commissioner to India, Abdul Basit, insisted on meeting Hurriyat leader Shabir Shah, the first of three consultations with Kashmiri separatists scheduled for this week. The MEA responded swiftly by cancelling the foreign secretaries' meeting scheduled in Islamabad on August 25. An MEA press statement said: "(T)he invitation to so-called leaders of the Hurriyat by Pakistan's High Commissioner does indeed raise questions about Pakistan's sincerity, and shows that its negative approaches and attempts to interfere in India's internal affairs continue unabated."

New Delhi has never before formally objected to Pakistani leaders and diplomats meeting with Kashmiri separatist leaders. Numerous such meetings have taken place during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) decade in government. In 2001, when the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government invited President Pervez Musharraf for the Agra Summit, he met Kashmiri separatists at a reception hosted by the Pakistan High Commission.

New Delhi has itself facilitated meetings between the Hurriyat and Pakistani leaders, recognising the Hurriyat's utility in anchoring any India-Pakistan settlement on Kashmir. In the mid-2000s, when back-channel negotiations between India and Pakistan were close to sealing a deal on Kashmir, New Delhi encouraged Hurriyat leaders to travel several times to Pakistan. The Hurriyat leaders met Pakistan's then foreign minister, Khursheed Kasuri, and foreign secretary, Riaz Khokhar, in 2004; President Musharraf the next year; and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz in 2007, with New Delhi's silent approval.

There is irony in Pakistani leaders meeting Kashmiri separatists before discussions with India, since any Indo-Pak settlement on Kashmir would be at the cost of the Hurriyat's demands. India's former high commissioner to Pakistan, Satyabrata Pal, says: "The Pakistani High Commissioner meeting the Hurriyat before talks is like the cook consulting the chickens before a banquet."

Indian diplomats in Islamabad, too, have met separatist leaders from Baluchistan. Mani Shankar Aiyar, who was posted in Islamabad during Zia-ul-Haq's rule, recounts that he met numerous Baluchi separatist leaders, including Ghaus Bux Bizenjo, Ahmed Nawaz Bugti and Akbar Bugti (who was killed in 2006 by the Pakistani military in an operation in Baluchistan).

The current impasse underlines the need for clarity about India's Red Lines, since it is unclear what Pakistani actions would invite a cessation of dialogue. Going by recent precedence, it would appear that the death of Indian soldiers in firing on the Line of Control is acceptable but a Red Line get infringed when a soldier's body is mutilated. Similarly, terror attacks in Srinagar will not prevent talks from going ahead but an attack in Delhi or Mumbai would trigger reprisals, even war. Indian diplomats accept that New Delhi's reactions have been inconsistent and that Red Lines must be demarcated with greater clarity.

While the need for firmness with Pakistan is undisputed, every unfriendly act cannot be allowed to interrupt dialogue. If peace talks are called off for every minor reason, New Delhi may find it can negotiate only with close allies. As the adage goes, one negotiates peace with ones enemies, not with ones friends.

Effectively, New Delhi has decided that Pakistan cannot talk to Hurriyat leaders because they are Indian citizens; and that would be tantamount to interfering in India's internal affairs. Yet, New Delhi itself has failed to initiate a dialogue with its own disaffected people, the Kashmiri separatists.

New Delhi's latest Red Line becomes viable only if it implements an open, new holistic approach to internal dialogue. It must boldly declare that the Kashmiri people are Indians and New Delhi, not Islamabad, will deal with their grievances. With the latest interruption of dialogue, New Delhi has only half a strategy - flexing its muscles at Islamabad but not reaching out to Kashmir.

New Delhi's new red line on dialogue | Business Standard News

I wonder how well thought out this new policy is. While I can see how such a move will pay political dividends to Modi, helping him maintain his image as a hardliner on Pakistan, I wonder if the intelligence community was consulted on this new approach. The Kashmiri separatists do not only talk overtly with the Pakistani government but have had strong links with both the ISI and RAW. It gives them a semblance of political freedom on the issue. These links have been influential in steering some of the separatist leaders and their dialogue India's way, even resulting in the ISI carrying out assassination attempts on some of these separatists. Politically isolating the separatists could, in my view, have two effects; it could either force the separatists into mainstream politics, or, push them into a greater backroom dialogue with Pakistan's army, through the ISI.

[Oracle]

I am all for complete co-operation with the Pakistanis (provided they address India's concerns on terrorism first) or India should shut down every and all levels of communication and business with them. Pakistan in the near term won't budge from it's unofficial policy of supporting and aiding terrorists as a complete US withdrawal from Afg is near. This gives them room to shift their attention and mercenaries on their east as obvious to all.

IMV, Mr. Narendra Modi has done exactly what was needed. More needs to be done. Shut off Indian diplomatic centres in Pakistan. Expel their diplomats from India. Send a strong message that business now won't be 'as usual'. Send out a diplomatic warning that any terrorist attack in India, if traced back to Pakistan would be considered as an act of war and would be dealt as such. Keep tabs on the separatists in Kashmir, any act from their side to contact the ISI or engage with Pakistan needs to be treated as treason and laws invoked accordingly.

Nothing substantial has resulted in the so called bilateral talks so far. Nothing substantial would have come out now, anyway. There is no use talking with the Pakistanis as they would never change their policy of supporting terrorists, and this takes away precious time from the Indian Government and bureaucrats to deal with other important issues like defence co-operation with US/West, FTA with Europe, infrastructure issues in India and a whole lot of etcetera's. Engage the Chinese in India's infrastructure development and try and resolve the border dispute with them within a fixed period of time. It would do good for the Indian Government to understand the Pakistani bogey of creating Kashmir as a flashpoint and indulging us in talks has resulting in nothing. We've been sitting on the border for the last 68 years, let's sit there for another 20-30 years. Economically we have been bleeding, a little, but we can nurse our wounds better by creating better financial policies and opening our markets.

Some more blunt talk - Blunt talk by India’s Afghanistan envoy riles Pakistan

Btw, is this meeting of Hurriyat leaders with their Pakistani handlers got to do anything with the J&K election later this year?

[antimony]

I think this is a needlessly hard line.

It is giving importance to a group that is not really important in J&K while simultaneously depriving the Pakistani side of a symbolic safety valve. Pakistan is not going to abandon its public position on Kashmir all of a sudden. Regardless of any actual concessions on the ground, their regular conversations with APHC at least provided the facade that they were doing something about the "Kashmir problem".

[cirrrocco]

from a strategy point of view, I do not want this charade of indian givt giving breathing space to "civilian" govts. I want an implicit takeover by pak Army so that any prodding in India can be traced back to them.

[antimony]

from a strategy point of view, I do not want this charade of indian givt giving breathing space to "civilian" govts. I want an implicit takeover by pak Army so that any prodding in India can be traced back to them.

Given the current events in Pakistan, I don't think that would happen.

Why would the PA want to come in the forefront, when they can continue to noodle around from the backseat?

[cataphract]

I wonder how well thought out this new policy is. While I can see how such a move will pay political dividends to Modi, helping him maintain his image as a hardliner on Pakistan, I wonder if the intelligence community was consulted on this new approach. The Kashmiri separatists do not only talk overtly with the Pakistani government but have had strong links with both the ISI and RAW. It gives them a semblance of political freedom on the issue. These links have been influential in steering some of the separatist leaders and their dialogue India's way, even resulting in the ISI carrying out assassination attempts on some of these separatists. Politically isolating the separatists could, in my view, have two effects; it could either force the separatists into mainstream politics, or, push them into a greater backroom dialogue with Pakistan's army, through the ISI.

What's in it for us? ISI influencing the Hurriyat one way or the other doesn't really matter anymore, Kashmir is ours for keeping.

[Firestorm]

A good article about the situation.

Let’s face some hard truths about Pakistan

Exasperation and mild amusement: these are the two primary feelings I get as I watch the hullabaloo over India cancelling foreign secretary level talks with Pakistan in the wake of the Pakistani high commissioner meeting separatist Hurriyat leaders in spite of being warned by the Indian foreign secretary. The amusement went from mild to high this morning when I read Congress Rajya Sabha MP and former Indian foreign service officer Mani Shankar Aiyer in The Indian Express newspaper. Even for a known peacenik and alarmist as far as any aggressive Indian move on India-Pakistan affairs go, Aiyer outdoes himself. His essay ends with the following sentence: “We stand warned that whimsicality and bullying are going to characterize our relations with Pakistan over the next five years; exactly the kind of whimsicality and bullying that led to the Austro-Hungarian Empire attacking Serbia a hundred years ago, leading to the devastation of the two world wars.” Is this guy for real?

In any case, it’s probably time to state some plain facts that we in India are too polite to articulate, at least most of the time. These are the following:

• Pakistan’s raison d’etre is hatred and fear of India. Indeed, it is a country which defines itself in terms of India. If there was no India to feel bitter about, Pakistan would have no reason to exist. Its dismemberment in 1971 into two parts aggravated this mindset even more. (Thirty years later, at the breakfast meeting with Indian editors during the Agra summit, Pervez Musharraf brought up 1971. He accused India of being a wanton aggressor—an utterly delusional and repulsive statement that denied the shameful rejection of national election results; an inhuman genocide (codenamed Operation Searchlight) that left three million people dead—including all doctors, engineers, teachers, intellectuals the Pakistani army could find—and hundreds of thousands of women raped (perhaps the first time in the 20th century that rape was used systematically as war strategy); and India overwhelmed with 10 million helpless refugees from what would soon be Bangladesh.) In the fullness of time, Pakistan may develop its own self-image with no India angle to it, but that day seems distant indeed. We should acknowledge this unfortunate fact and make that the basis of our policy towards Pakistan. Because other than some parts of northern India and the media, we are not obsessed with Pakistan in any way. People in east India are not, nor in west or south India. This gives India a much freer and stronger hand in dealing with Pakistan.

• Pakistan is obsessed with Kashmir, and can rarely think beyond that. But the vast majority of Indians do not lose their sleep over the valley. When I was working in a weekly news magazine in 2004, we sent two journalists to Pakistan to cover the India-Pakistan test series. Whichever city they travelled to, they were hosted for an evening by the local Press Club, and the first question they were asked was: “What do you think about Kashmir?” One of our journalists was a Keralite and the other a Bengali. They would reply, quite honestly, that they did not think about Kashmir. The reaction of the Pakistani press ranged from astonishment to “Hey, come on, we are all brothers of the media here, you needn’t be diplomatic” to hostility towards the two “Indian liars”. Even most Pakistani leaders have no idea about the vastness and diversity of India. While Musharraf was ranting about 1971 to the editors, he was struggling with the main course of the breakfast: an uttapam. He had never seen anything like it before, and after a few futile attempts to make sense of it, set it aside (doubtless convinced that this was another sly Indian put-down gesture.). But the fact is that India is massive, complex and has many other issues to focus on, of greater importance than Kashmir. Pakistan will never understand that, because it is a prisoner in that cage of a resentful world view it has built for itself.

• Pakistan wants Kashmir and India will never give up Kashmir. Territorial integrity is of course paramount, and the Kashmir issue actually even goes beyond that. If India gives up the valley because it is a Muslim majority area, it loses the moral right to call itself a secular nation. This seems like weird logic, and certainly counter-intuitive, but I’d request you to think about it.

• Some commentators have observed that by calling off the foreign secretary talks, India has weakened Nawaz Sharif and played into the hands of the hard-liners, from the army to that born-again messiah of fundamentalism Imran Khan (who, according to Salman Rushdie, was known as “Im the Dim” in his Oxford days). Things, apparently, can only get worse from here on. But surely, we have been hearing these Cassandra predictions for decades now? In the 1980s and early 1990s, we were told that if Benazir Bhutto goes, all hell would break loose. We were then told that if Nawaz Sharif goes, there will be anarchy. Post 9/11, the US insisted that if the Musharraf regime fell, the region would be plunged into dangerous chaos. Even Asif Ali Zardari—a man who escaped conviction in a London court by producing a medical document certifying him as mentally unsound—was thought to be necessary for Pakistan’s stability. All have gone their way (other than Sharif), and the situation remains exactly the same. Islamist fundamentalists roam, rant and raise funds at will; large tracts of the country are outside the control of the government; Mullah Omar is possibly still directing the Taliban from inside a well-protected and comfortable base in Pakistan; the Inter-Services-Intelligence (ISI), Pakistan’s military intelligence agency, continues to pursue its own agenda; prime ministers serve out their terms at the pleasure of the army chief; terrorist attacks on Indian soil continue to be planned; the ceasefire at the Line of Control is violated regularly. Let’s face it. Pakistan, by most definitions, is a failed state. The leadership may change, but the problems will remain just as they are, because of the contradictions inherent in the very concept of Pakistan. Unless India recognizes those contradictions very clearly, it will never be able to deal boldly and effectively with its neighbour.

• We should stop bothering ourselves about the internal matters of Pakistan—the politics and the power struggles—except for areas that concern us directly, like the terrorist infrastructure. Sharif is no spring chicken, and it is not India’s responsibility in any way to help him solve his problems. We should see Pakistan as a whole, a single entity to be dealt with, keeping our national interest in mind, under the accepted rules and processes of international diplomacy.

• And so what if earlier Indian governments permitted separatist Hurriyat leaders to meet Pakistani officials, and even travel to Pakistan? Surely, India is free to change its policy and lay down new terms of engagement? Especially when these generous liberal gestures achieved nothing at all. Some members of our Punjabi political gerontocracy still suffer from nostalgia for Lahore. Thankfully, they are all out of power now. In its scale of loss of human life, of emotional scars that have still not entirely faded away, in the terrible trauma and havoc it wreaked on millions of people, and in many other no less significant ways, the Partition was one of the greatest tragedies in human history. But it’s 67 years past. We have to accept it. We have to accept that we are two nations, and one of them is still searching for a national identity that is not linked to India in some way. This is certainly not our fault. We must therefore tackle the problem we have with a clarity of vision that has no space either for wishful thinking or a graciousness that is usually misconstrued as timidity.

[Firestorm]

The argument that India helps the "hardliners" and "extremists" in Pakistan by not talking to their civilian government of the day is hackneyed and obsolete. Like the article mentions, we have been fed this pack of lies by the bleeding heart liberals since the 80's despite successive civilian governments starting from Benazir wholeheartedly supporting terrorism against India. The fact remains that nothing changes in Pakistan, especially its attitude toward India and using terrorism and underhanded tactics to achieve what they want. It does not matter who is ruling at the center since the civilian leader whoever he/she is always has very limited power concerning the subjects that India is worried about. They have absolutely no power to afford any control, over the ISI and the PA and their dalliances with various terrorist orgs. Any agreements they sign won't be worth the paper they are written on. The Indian government has no business engaging in any sort of talks with Pakistan till this basic power equation changes there. And no talking with India does not give the civilian govt. more power in Pakistan, it only leads to them being called "pro-India" like Sharif is nowadays which actually weakens it.

The current govt. is too busy trying to save itself from triple threats from Tahir-ul-Qadri, Imran Khan and the PA. Even so, they do not wish to play straight with India and they talk directly with Kashmiri separatists despite being explicitly told that it would lead to the cancellation of Indo-pak talks. We can't possibly achieve anything by talking to such people. Just like we achieved nothing by talking to them in the past.

[Deltacamelately]

67 years and still counting ....

Let the sham end and let them fully understand that we are not fckin interested in any of their matters. Let them also understand that we are deaf and of-course, dangerous.

[Neo]

Modi’s first major mistake
By Aakar Patel
August 24, 2014


After he took charge as prime minister, Narendra Modi did several things that reversed his election propmises. For instance, India’s unique identification system, the biometric capturing of citizens, was something Modi was vehemently opposed to. The fear was that illegals, meaning Bangladeshis, would acquire a sort of legal status or avail of state benefits they were not entitled to through this registry.

However, Modi changed his mind on this issue, apparently after a single briefing from the system’s architect, Nandan Nilekani, the Infosys billionaire who has quit industry and turned to social work.

I think this reversal was an excellent thing, both for the fact that it kept a good project going and the idea that Modi was pragmatic and supple enough to change his stated position. Governing complex nations requires that one bend a little on principles every now and then. Modi knows this and his record in Gujarat on growth and distribution is a reflection of this pragmatism.

But I have always felt that when it comes to Pakistan, it would be different. The strong sentiment that Modi displayed against our western neighbour during the campaign was deeply felt and irreversible. A dislike, perhaps, the real word is hatred, of Pakistan is not just a part of Modi’s rhetoric or campaign posturing. It is a part of his world view.

The cancelling of the foreign-secretary level talks by India is an aspect of that. It relieves Modi from engaging on friendly terms with a subject that he doesn’t really want to. We should expect that while the flexible Modi will appear again and perhaps often, on other foreign policy issues, including Bangladesh, he will remain unyielding where Pakistan is concerned.
Reports say that the prime minister personally made the decision to pull out of the talks, going over the head of foreign minister Sushma Swaraj. I don’t know if this is true, but it would not be surprising to me if it were. It fits both Modi’s go-it-alone style and his ideology, to have personally-driven policy in this matter.

Though most Indian newspapers supported Modi on pulling out of talks, I think it is a mistake. It is the first major mistake Modi made since coming to power. The decision has been taken on the basis of emotion and irritation.

Not much will come out of it, and India will likely have to reverse its decision unless we expect Pakistan to stop talking to the Hurriyat, which it won’t. Deciding to pull out has given us the temporary illusion of being in charge. However, if Pakistan does not bend on this, then again the pressure to take a decision on resumption will be on India.
The world will not be supportive of India on this move, particularly if tensions rise again. It is difficult to justify the decision Modi took purely on the basis of the background.
A report in The Indian Express captured this aspect perfectly: “Frankly, I can’t see much sense in making a meeting with the Hurriyat a touchstone for India-Pakistan relations,” analyst Ajai Sahni of the Institute for Conflict Management in New Delhi was quoted as saying, “it’s almost as if the government is saying we can live with Pakistan shooting our troops at the Line of Control, but having tea with secessionists — that’s unforgivable”.
We will have to wait to see which country, whether Pakistan or India, will retreat, but like I said, I don’t think Modi is particularly interested in talking to Pakistan. This means that he has to sacrifice the other aspects of our relationship, meaning trade and transit and such things, which are all part of the larger dialogue with Pakistan.
The question is whether he will bring this unbending approach to other sectors, for instance education, genetically modified foods and such things that interest the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. My guess is that in these things he will not be uncompromising, and that is a good thing. It is on Pakistan that his instinct takes over and unfortunately for us, it is the one area where there is always potential for danger, given the history. It would have been more prudent for Modi to have kept the dialogue going.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 24th, 2014.

Modi

[Neo]

Anti Pakistan rants and slogans were a major part of Modi's elections compaign and somehow I have the feeling that he is feeling the pressure from the hardliners from his party and alliances to finally deliver.

[Batista]

The argument that India helps the "hardliners" and "extremists" in Pakistan by not talking to their civilian government of the day is hackneyed and obsolete. Like the article mentions, we have been fed this pack of lies by the bleeding heart liberals since the 80's despite successive civilian governments starting from Benazir wholeheartedly supporting terrorism against India. The fact remains that nothing changes in Pakistan, especially its attitude toward India and using terrorism and underhanded tactics to achieve what they want. It does not matter who is ruling at the center since the civilian leader whoever he/she is always has very limited power concerning the subjects that India is worried about. They have absolutely no power to afford any control, over the ISI and the PA and their dalliances with various terrorist orgs. Any agreements they sign won't be worth the paper they are written on. The Indian government has no business engaging in any sort of talks with Pakistan till this basic power equation changes there. And no talking with India does not give the civilian govt. more power in Pakistan, it only leads to them being called "pro-India" like Sharif is nowadays which actually weakens it.

The current govt. is too busy trying to save itself from triple threats from Tahir-ul-Qadri, Imran Khan and the PA. Even so, they do not wish to play straight with India and they talk directly with Kashmiri separatists despite being explicitly told that it would lead to the cancellation of Indo-pak talks. We can't possibly achieve anything by talking to such people. Just like we achieved nothing by talking to them in the past.

It was again decided in 71 that LoC is International Border then why reviving the same thing again and again.They have more than half of Kashmir which is ILLEGAL but we are not wasting our energy to get it back.India even gave back the territories it won in 71 war thinking getting goodwill and friendship from Pakistan.

Pakistan was doing repeated ceasefire violations specially for last few months sending Terrorists to kill Kashmiris.Just before the normal Secretary level talks Pakistan invited Separatist/Extremist groups for talks who do not officially represent the people of Kashmir.The same way India SHOULD invite Baloch+Sindh Separatist groups +Shias of Gilgit Baltistan. .

Pakistan is going through serious internal conflicts due to it's own wrong policies towards it's own people and not to mention support to International terrorists like OBL. Whenever Civilian govt tries to do something good for it's people or to have friendly relations with India the ISI/Army spoils the plan by repeated Coups.Pakistan has no identity since culturally/historically they related to Indians but assume themselves as Arabian just because they have Arabic religion.

Pakistan killed 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 Bangladeshis and raped 200,000 women which was the biggest genocide of modern times.Now they are doing Genocide of Baloch.They did Genocide of Kashmiri Hindus and Sikhs.Now Pakistan is executing Shias/Hazaras/Ahmedis/Hindus/Christians or all minorities so it becomes a Sunni majority.About 60,000 Pakistanis have died since WOT.This is because they didn't agree the way ISI/Army treated them like a second class citizens, even though Bangladeshis are mostly Muslims.Pakistan tried direct wars to take Kashmir forcefully many times and when it was thrashed badly in 71 it understood a direct war has no use so it started Proxy wars by supporting Khalisthan,Kashmir,Maoist,NE groups. Pakistan openly said it would bleed India by 1000 cuts but now it's bleeding itself.

All this frustration has lead Pakistan to do more and more harm to India and now #1 Terrorist supporting nation on Earth and a most of the terrorism acts are traced back to Pakistan.Even it's close friend China is now starting to be annoyed since Xianjing has links with Pak based terrorist groups.

[Batista]

Anti Pakistan rants and slogans were a major part of Modi's elections compaign and somehow I have the feeling that he is feeling the pressure from the hardliners from his party and alliances to finally deliver.

Not really... unlike Pakistan we don't vote for Anti-Pakistani stance or slogan and it's not a major slogan by parties either.

We had too much of issues thanks to previous govt.

Don't spread lies on each forum.

[antimony]

Anti Pakistan rants and slogans were a major part of Modi's elections compaign and somehow I have the feeling that he is feeling the pressure from the hardliners from his party and alliances to finally deliver.

Neo

If you follow the other threads on Modi, many point out how he is in own man, rather than an RSS pet.

Regardless of that, it is difficult to understand especially who is in charge of Pakistan these days and who one should really talk to. Your generals and journalists have been coming to the Indian talk shows for the past few days to insist (vehemently) that India should talk to the Pakistani PM only and the the Army is a subordinate entity.

Recent events show why everyone is skeptical of that.

[antimony]

Pakistan was doing repeated ceasefire violations specially for last few months sending Terrorists to kill Kashmiris.Just before the normal Secretary level talks Pakistan invited Separatist/Extremist groups for talks who do not officially represent the people of Kashmir.The same way India SHOULD invite Baloch+Sindh Separatist groups +Shias of Gilgit Baltistan. .

I think India wants to avoid the association with these groups or fear of being linked to anti-state activities over there.

Experts can decide if this is the right approach or not, but I think India should at least start talking to any anti-Pakistani groups (if they exist) in POK. Also, I don't know why Indians have no response when Pakistanis bring up the UN resolution. The resolution says that Pakistan has to demilitarize first. Let Pakistan do that.

we should also change the demographic mix back to what it was back in 1947. Relocate every family back to Kashmir, throw out anyone else who came later. That is easy for us because of Article 370, lets see how they do that. Then we can talk about the next steps