A Blueprint of Modi’s Kashmir Policy

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

SmallerDefaultLarger

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Kashmir was uneventful: he returned to New Delhi without making any radical policy announcements, ‘positive or negative’. Indeed, it may be too early to predict his Kashmir policy and one visit may simply be too little to gauge what Modi’s policy towards Kashmir will eventually look like.

That said, what is abundantly clear is that Modi’s visit was nothing more than a ‘business trip’ to Kashmir and an analysis of this may give us some insights into the kind of Kashmir policy that Modi has in mind. His immediate predecessors, UPA’s Manmohan Singh and NDA’s Atal Behari Vajpayee, had also made ‘business trips’ to Kashmir, but what distinguishes them from Modi is that they also had their own political visions for Kashmir, which they articulated during their visits to the Valley. Modi’s just concluded visit did not articulate any political roadmap for Kashmir even as he looked keen on addressing the various economic issues plaguing the state. Modi did refer to his BJP predecessor Vajpayee in his address: “I want to give a message to the people of Jammu and Kashmir that the journey started by Atal Bihari Vajpayee in the state will be taken to its logical conclusion”. But this mention seemed more like an attempt by BJP’s new Prime Minister in claiming the much-eulogised Vajpayee legacy, than adopting the political strategy Vajpayee promised to address Kashmir with, as epitomized in his “insaniyat ke dayirae mein” speech in Kashmir.

But he does seem to have a certain vision for Kashmir, though this may not be to the liking of many Kashmiris. ‘Economic development’ clearly tops the list of to-do things that Modi has vis-à-vis Kashmir: “My objective is to win the hearts of the people of Jammu and Kashmir through development, and this intention for the welfare of the people has nothing to do with politics.” This statement by Modi is spot-on: its development, and not politics that will be the focus. But then, the so-called economic development of J&K was given priority to by all governments in New Delhi, at least in theory. If all this time they were so focused on economically developing J&K, one wonders, how come the state continues to remain so underdeveloped. Unless, of course, it was only a convenient ‘political’ slogan.

The second element of Modi’s evolving Kashmir policy seems to be on de-emphasising the role of ‘Kashmir politics’ in J&K. The major part of this agenda would be to do away with, or at least try to, the special status given to the state through Article 370. Clearly, it affects Kashmir more than Jammu, as Jammuites are mostly unconcerned about Article 370. The second part of this plan would be to make Jammu the focal point of New Delhi’s engagement with Kashmir. There are a number of reasons behind this: New Delhi finds it easier to deal with Jammu than Kashmir; BJP’s influence is stronger than ever in Jammu today; Pak-sponsored militant infiltration into Kashmir is at an all-time low and so the security concerns vis-à-vis Kashmir are bound to recede; and Jammu is likely to play a major role in Srinagar after the State Assembly elections, which is likely to see BJP gaining massively in Jammu, and so there is a need to promote Jammu region’s interests.

The third element of Modi government’s Kashmir policy is likely to revolve around the return of Kashmiri Pandits (KPs). For sure, KPs must return and they have a right to do so, with respect and honour. But merely focusing on the return of KPs to their rightful home in Kashmir without any talk whatsoever about doing justice to Kashmiris is an exercise in selective justice.  More so, New Delhi must be very careful about its plans for creating separate settlements/rehabilitation zones for KPs in Kashmir as doing so could potentially create social tensions. Ideally, KPs must be given their homes and lands and not rehabilitation zones, which, in all likelihood, will eventually have habitats worse than those in Jammu’s Muthi camp where thousands of Kashmiri Pandits live in squalor. To start with, New Delhi should make the living conditions of such camps more humane.  In the long term, Kashmiri Muslim leadership should be engaged to ensure that KPs return to their homes without any fears and concerns. In other words, resettlement of KPs should be a joint effort of the government and the civil society in Kashmir. Any attempt by New Delhi to bring back the KPs through the use of rehabilitation zones will not be a lasting solution.

In New Delhi’s political imagination, under the new Prime Minister, Kashmir issue is a thing of the past. New Delhi will continue to play the waiting game, which it has been doing for a long time; but now with increased confidence, to finally normalize and win back Kashmir. New Delhi realizes that the time is ripe for changing the discourse in Kashmir. In the 1990s and early 2000s, high profile visits from New Delhi to Kashmir would be welcomed with terror attacks or bomb blasts. Today, such visits meet shutdowns. This is a huge change, whether or not we realize it.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, July 7, 2014. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2014/jul/6/a-blueprint-of-modi-s-kashmir-policy-25.asp)

When nationality becomes a burden

Statecraft
HAPPYMON JACOB

However detached we may be from the state – its policies, politics, objectives, deeds, elites etc. – we are often defined by what our states are, what they represent and what they do, even if we have nothing to do with them. Clearly, we can’t exist without them, not only because sometimes states are our last refuge, but also because, as political scientist RBJ Walker so rightly reminds us, modern states have monopolized our political imagination. We simply are incapable of imagining ourselves, as political entities, outside the confines of the modern state. By defining our politics, states define who we are. Of course, we identify ourselves with states, more often than not, for a variety of reasons ranging from our upbringing and socialization to instrumental ones. 

But there are times even when we do not want to have anything to do with what a state does – due to lack of interest, living on the periphery, or want to actively disassociate with the state – and yet what the state does on our behalf continues to haunt us. In other words, whether or not we like it, we get identified with what our states do because the state acts on our behalf in whatever it does. I often get that feeling when I visit Kashmir – when I am asked to explain and atone for what the Indian state has done to Kashmir. Often, my explanation, that I have nothing to do with it, has no impact on my listeners. That’s because others’ political imagination of us does not extend beyond the state we come from. 

Innocent civilians are often persecuted for what their states do or assumed to be doing in the political imagination of others. This is the tragic dilemma of modern statehood and citizenship: while on the one hand we are politically condemned to identify with the state (as we really don’t have a choice), our states’ misdeeds (or perceived misdeeds) have far reaching implications for our daily existence because the state acts on our behalf, and others politically identify us with our states. 

I was reminded of this dilemma when I was traveling from Thailand to the US via Hong Kong last week. My Cathay Pacific flight from Bangkok, which was supposed to depart in the morning, was rescheduled to the previous night leaving me with a stopover time of about 14 hours in Hong Kong.  The Cathay flight had originated from Karachi and there were a number of Pakistanis on the flight some of whom were transiting via Hong Kong to other destinations and had similar layovers like me. I went to the Cathay counter along with some of the Pakistanis who I had befriended on the flight and requested to be accommodated in the airport lounge or a hotel outside the airport given that the layover time was very long.  The staff at the counter called up the lounge but were informed that the lounge was full. When the Pakistanis insisted that they be given the night’s accommodation outside the airport, they were told that Pakistani citizens did not have the privilege of visa on arrival in Hong Kong (even though Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China which is an “all-weather friend” of Pakistan) and hence they could not stay in a hotel outside the airport even if the airline provided it. A large number of Pakistanis, including women, young kids and elderly, were told to stay in the airport for 10 to 14 hours. I was told that Hong Kong gives Indians visa on arrival (even though China is not India’s friend or ally!) and was given visa assistance, hotel accommodation in Hong Kong and cab fare by the airline. 

Most of the Pakistanis who spent the long, probably sleepless, night at the Hong Kong airport were denied the services they were entitled to, one could argue, just because they belonged to a state whose polices have been disapproved of by a number of other countries even though the hapless Pakistani travellers had nothing to do with those policies.  They were caught in the politics among nations and the burden of their identities (I am not suggesting that the national identity per se is a burden but that it certainly was in this case). The Cathy Pacific staff in Hong Kong airport could not look beyond the nationality of those passengers whose comfort they were paid to look after. 
I was reminded of it again when I saw a tweet from Husain Haqqani, the former Pakistani Ambassador to the United States, two days ago: “North Koreans can travel to 9 more countries visa free than ones travelling on #Pakistan passport”. Haqqani was referring to the recent index on visa restrictions published by “The Henley & Partners” (https://www.henleyglobal.com/files/download/hvri/VISA_Index_2014_04_11_Web.pdf) that ranks Pakistan below North Korea. 

A friend of mine here in the US tells me that many Pakistanis in the US often introduce themselves as Indians given that Indians are seen in better light than Pakistanis. This confirmed a Times Of India story that I saw a few years ago ‘Pakistanis are posing as Indians to escape discrimination' (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Pakistanis-are-posing-as-Indians-to-escape-discrimination/articleshow/5907956.cms). I have also heard of stories of Pakistanis in Europe and America naming their restaurants “Indian Restaurant”. 

Clearly, such experiences are not a preserve of the Pakistanis alone. Many of us face this in one form or another at some point of time in our interactions with the ‘others’. This is perhaps one very good reason why we should, at least from time to time, think beyond the state, why our political imaginations should be able to break out of the narrow confines imposed by the state and why, as citizens, should call into question what our states do on our behalf for if we don’t we will suffer on their behalf.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, 29 June, 2014. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2014/Jun/29/when-nationality-becomes-a-burden-5.asp) 

Three Ts and an evolving dialogue process

STATECRAFT

HAPPYMON JACOB

The Pakistani establishment’s worst ‘Modi’ fear is not that he might be militarily tough with it - which in any case they expect and hence may even be prepared to deal with - but that the Modi government may actually choose a minimalist agenda in dealing with Pakistan bereft of the usual political grand gestures, desi symbolism and the usual diplomatic nuances and niceties. New Delhi, under the new regime, might very well mean ‘just business’ with Islamabad and that really is what is worrying the Pakistani establishment at this juncture. This is one sharp message that was evident at least to me in the latest (14th) edition of the Chaophraya India-Pakistan track-2 dialogue in Chiang Mai.  

If what India’s Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh told the media after Modi’s meeting with Nawaz Shariff in New Delhi is an indication of the things to come, Pakistan’s worst fears may indeed come true. Ms. Singh declared before the media that “it was conveyed that Pakistan must abide by its commitment to prevent its territory and territory under its control from being used for terrorism against India”. She also informed the media that India is keen on improving trade ties with Pakistan. 

New Delhi might also, in the days to come, keep insisting on a transit route to Afghanistan via Pakistan. To the Pakistani interlocutors in Ching Mai, all this looked that New Delhi’s future engagement with Islamabad would center around three key agenda items: terrorism, trade and transit, or the ‘Three Ts’. Lets examine what this means for the future of Indo-Pak dialogue process. 

Trade between rival countries is certainly not a bad idea. There is indeed a need to focus on trade. India and Pakistan need to take steps to do away with the thriving unofficial/informal bilateral trade through the Middle East. In fact, there is an entire parallel structure in Dubai and other Middle Eastern locations of the bankers and Hawala agents who thrive on sending Indian goods to Pakistan via Middle East and vice versa. New Delhi may also think of selling power to Pakistan which the Modi government may be keen on. Eventually even a Free Trade Agreement could be signed between the two sides once the current roadblocks such as the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status and Non-Tariff Barrier issues are sorted out by the two sides. Modi government is likely to give a great deal of political push to the Indo-Pak trade negotiations which its predecessor government was conducting with Islamabad. Moreover, the intra-Kashmir trade may also be given a new lease of life by the NDA government by taking it beyond the current symbolism. 

Apart from trade, as pointed out above, there will also be focus on the issue of terrorism (26/11 trials etc.) and the demand for a transit route to Afghanistan. New Delhi will continue to insist that Islamabad delivers on these. 

So why are the Pakistanis uneasy about this? Pakistani track-two interlocutors are uncomfortable with this deal because they have been feeling, for some time now, that the ongoing dialogue process is being conducted on New Delhi’s terms without being cognizant of Islamabad’s concerns and demands. But does Islamabad really have a choice? Given the kind of support that Modi seems to be attracting from around the world, from Asian and European capitals alike, including Beijing, it is likely that they will put pressure on Islamabad to accept the ‘Three Ts’ focus. With diminishing interest among the international community on non-T issues between India and Pakistan, Pakistan may have to accept this deal. 

So what does this mean? For one, it means that the talk about a grand reconciliation between India and Pakistan is practically over. We will no longer be talking about Indo-Pak dialogue process throwing up any ‘all-in-one package deals’. We will hereon be focusing on very specific outputs and the delivery of which will determine the success or failure of Indo-Pak dialogue process. Secondly, it will also lead to a certain depoliticisation of Indo-Pak relations –, there are hardly any deep political contexts to the three Ts except the terror question on which I assume there won’t be much progress. 

Thirdly, Kashmir will continue to be avoided by the Modi government from future Indo-Pak parleys. Kashmir issue will at best be seen by New Delhi as an internal issue and intra-Kashmir trade, as pointed out above, and LoC tensions are likely to be the only Kashmir-related issues that will capture New Delhi’s attention. There will be a desire to address the insurgency within Kashmir. Even on this, the efforts are unlikely to be political in nature. This may not be a good strategy in the long term for a variety of reasons, as I have argued many times in the past in my GK columns. You simply can’t hide away contentious political issues. 

Siachen standoff will most likely be pushed to the backburner as well. Not only because the Indian army is not keen on any deal whatsoever on Siachen but also because of the increasing Indian concerns about the Chinese presence in the Karakhoram region. Sir Creek, again, is unlikely to figure in the Indian strategic imagination as a priority issue as far as Indo-Pak conflict resolution is concerned. In short, you are looking at an extremely limited Indo-Pak dialogue process. 

(Source: Greater Kashmir, June 22, 2014. URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2014/Jun/22/three-ts-and-an-evolving-dialogue-process-18.asp) 

NRI Deshbhakts and cyber patriotism

Statecraft

HAPPYMON JACOB

This is the golden age of desh bhakti in the modern history of India, with even the hitherto neutral among our liberal intelligentsia showcasing increased signs of their true love for the motherland. I can stand the newly minted cyber patriots based out of India, as I have done all my academic life. But the ones that irritate me way beyond my high levels of patience are the Non Resident Indian (NRI) deshbhakts who burn the midnight oil running amok on the internet masquerading as patriotic Indian nationalists. The anonymous, faceless, fictitious Internet trolls come out of nowhere and condescendingly preach their cyber patriotism to the rest of us, the intellectual subalterns left behind in India. They hang out on the facebook, twitter, email as well as the readers’ commentary section of newspapers that do not believe in moderating the reader’s comments. Anonymity, immediacy and access have given them such a potent weapon that our newspapers are full of their comments (read advice, expletives and sermons) even before they hit our front lawns, and not a day passes without my facebook ‘Home’ page overflowing with advice to fellow Indians how to clean up their third world country. 

They get a certain patriotic relief, I guess, of having done something for the country, the sacred duty, by abusing Indian politicians, officials, government, and analysts who question the country’s defence expenditure, defend Article 370 in Kashmir and propose peace with Pakistan. Except a select few, everyone is a traitor, not fit to be in India, and at least some of them suggest, sitting in San Francisco or London, that a great number of us should be sent to Pakistan or Bangladesh!

I get quite a lot of this through emails, facebook chatter and twitter traffic, on a daily basis. While there are many variants of these cyber patriots, What is characteristic of most of these cyber patriots is their undying ability to express the nuances of their condescending nationalism towards the ones living here in India, that the ones in India are not doing enough for Mother India! 

Typologies of deshbhakti  
Let me bring out the three most exceptional prototypes among the NRI deshbhakts. The first is the ‘more-loyal-than-the-king’ kind of nationalists. They, the most dangerous of all in my opinion, consider India to be the greatest country in the world (one wonders why they went away in the first place then!). They also think that India is going astray from its rightful destiny of being the greatest nation on planet earth simply because it is following the faulty western liberal, democratic and secular values. As Samir saran argued in an article in India Today earlier this year, “there are the Indians who have emigrated abroad and project the loudest voice. This Indian has to be even shriller than those they give their advice to.”

Incidentally, these very same people will also insist that their daughters wear ‘proper cloths’, learn ‘Indian values’, don’t date guys from the host nation who, of course, have no moral values etc. I can understand why they say so: Perhaps they have failed in integrating themselves into the new culture or migrated late in their lives and hence no acculturation was possible. Perhaps their secularism comes from being persecuted for being Hindu there or because since they are a minority in the host nation, they would like a place where they are a majority! Their biggest desire is to see India becoming a Hindu nation, one day. 

They also insist that India needs to be a militarily powerful nation. Perhaps because they get bullied in the host country since they come from an impoverished third world country? So the feeling of having come from a powerful nation could potentially gain them more respect in their adopted homes. A militarily powerful nuclear India that can show Pakistan its place and balance China is the fantasy that they carry deep in their desi hearts.  They left the country because everything is terrible here. And yet they insist that India is a great country and so nobody can criticize it. And if you and I dare criticize this country, they will get angry and call us names.  

The ‘India-can-never-be-saved’ is the second type. These NRIs think that everything is wrong with India - its ideas, ideologies, governance style etc. They are the ones who are ashamed of their country of origin. They bend over backwards to identify with the host nation and in doing so disapprovingly talk about the filth and traffic in India, and imitate the accent most often with such disastrous results. Their advice to you is to leave this country if you want to do something meaningful with your lives.  Fair enough, but what I cannot put up with is how some of them gain an accent in a matter of months! 
Then there are the liberated ones with no hang-ups about traditions, values or destinies. These Indians, in the words of Samir Saran, who are “settled abroad and yet are engaged in writing the country's script”, think that Indian policies are necessarily wrong, and that India should learn to emulate American policies. That’s where India and Indians can find salvation. Make no mistake, they are perceived to be contemporary India’s biggest intellectual capital. I have no problem with bright kids from IITs and IIMs settling in cushy jobs abroad, but I do get a bit agitated when they tell me, after having long-settled in foreign lands, that I am not doing my bit to help India grow! 

Caveat: This article is not written in criticism of every Indian living abroad, or doing such wonderful work in some of the world’s best institutions. In fact, most of them would not even fall into any of the categories I have outlined above.

(Source: Greater Kashmir, June 8, 2014. URL: http://greaterkashmir.com/news/2014/Jun/8/nri-deshbhakts-and-cyber-patriotism-5.asp)

Lessons of the past for the future

HAPPYMON JACOB

COMMENT (23)  

The outgoing United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government’s Pakistan policy can be summed up as a set of missed opportunities, strategic indecisions and its characteristic inability to walk the talk on crucial national security issues. While the Manmohan Singh government can take pride in the fact that it managed to keep its relationship with Islamabad under boiling point, the reality is that it was neither coherent strategy nor enlightened statesmanship that ensured calm between the two sides: we were very lucky that nothing went out of control. The India-Pakistan peace process from 2004 to early 2008 was indeed the most “successful” in the history of India-Pakistan relations, and yet it achieved nothing substantive. While Dr. Singh did have a vision for India-Pakistan reconciliation, he clearly lacked the political wherewithal to take his vision to its logical conclusion.

Crisis management

What is disturbingly typical of India-Pakistan relations is the absence of a properly thought-out crisis management mechanism. Of the 10 years that the UPA was in power, it had at least six years to put together a politico-military structure with Pakistan to deal with crisis situations. How India-Pakistan crises can quickly escalate — to levels that neither side is desirous of — was witnessed in 2001-02, 2008 (26/11 attacks) and 2013 (stand-off on the Line of Control). Being the status quo power in the region, it is in India’s interest to ensure that a certain level of stability is maintained in its bilateral relationship with Pakistan. However, the UPA government did not find it necessary to establish the necessary military or political structures for crisis avoidance or escalation control. Hope, to put it mildly, that things may not escalate uncontrollably, was the UPA’s national security strategy vis-à-vis Pakistan.

For instance, take the case of ceasefire violations along the LoC. Even though it is widely understood that tensions on the LoC can lead to an India-Pakistan military and diplomatic stand-off, the reality is that there is no ceasefire agreement between the two sides. The so-called 2003 ceasefire agreement is nothing but an “understanding” between the two armies, not a document in black and white detailing the rules, norms, dos and don’ts and standard operating procedures that can preserve peace on the LoC and govern the engagement of the two armies. The UPA came to power the year after the two countries had reached an understanding to have a ceasefire, but in the following 10 years it did nothing to draw up a ceasefire agreement with Pakistan, despite the hundreds of ceasefire violations that occur on the LoC every year. It took 14 long years for the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) of the Indian and Pakistani Armies to decide to hold a meeting to sort out issues when things seemed to go out of control last year.

Missing the Kashmir bus

If failing to create crisis avoidance or crisis prevention structures was an example of inept strategic thinking, the inability to settle the Kashmir conflict with Pakistan, and with the Kashmiris, was indeed a missing out on a clear and present opportunity that the UPA had for at least four years during its first term. Dr. Singh, no doubt, was serious about conflict resolution in Kashmir, as rightly pointed out in the article in The Hindu (“Claiming the four-step formula,” May 15, 2014). However, even a charitable account of Dr. Singh’s Kashmir policy would have to recognise that all his government could achieve in these 10 years have been a few Kashmir-specific Confidence Building Measures (CBM) and a subtle change in the discourse in and on Kashmir. The unique opportunity to settle the dispute once and for all was lost in 2007 when New Delhi developed cold feet on the Kashmir formula arrived at through backchannels even though a majority of the Kashmiri leadership was receptive towards the formula. Dr. Singh acknowledged as much in his press conference in January this year: “I have tried to improve relations with all our neighbours to the best of my ability and on one occasion it appeared that important breakthrough was in sight … Events in Pakistan for example that General Pervez Musharraf (former President) had to make way for a different set up. I think that led to the process not moving further ....”

Dr. Singh could have gone down in the history of modern India for having achieved yet another historic breakthrough (apart from inking the India-U.S. nuclear deal) had he shown the courage to make that trip to Islamabad to finalise the Kashmir deal with Gen. Musharraf in 2007.

Ironically, Dr. Singh’s road map to reach out to the Kashmiris, undoubtedly paved with good intentions, also ran out of steam around the same time. The Prime Minister’s Round Table Conferences on Kashmir during 2006-2007, and the excellent working group reports which came out of that initiative, also did not lead us anywhere. Widespread protests in Kashmir in 2008 and 2010 as well as the killings of unarmed Kashmiris led to the appointment of three interlocutors to find a solution to the conflict in Kashmir. The report was apparently given a burial by the Union Home Ministry and no one has heard of it since.

Dealing with nuclear Pakistan

The UPA government also did precious little to stabilise India’s nuclear relationship with Pakistan. Nuclear dangers may not be apparent in the everyday life of Indians and Pakistanis, but from a strategic point of view, they pose the biggest threat to the survival of the two countries. While the need of the hour was to establish, in consultation with Islamabad, Nuclear Risk Reduction Centres (NRRCs) in both countries — like the Cold War nuclear rivals did albeit towards the end of the Cold War to bring about stable nuclear deterrence in the region — some major nuclear CBMs should have been agreed upon by the two states, at the very least. Not only that there is an insufficient amount of nuclear CBMs between the two sides. What is even more troubling is that the “India-Pakistan Expert level Dialogue on Nuclear Confidence Building Measures” has not even taken place since December 2012.

While the blame for this may not lie with New Delhi alone, what needs to be recognised is that it is more in India’s strategic interest to ensure that there is an ongoing result-driven nuclear dialogue with Pakistan as maintaining a certain ambiguity in its nuclear posture is itself part of Islamabad’s India strategy.

The UPA government’s efforts to improve India-Pakistan trade have also been suboptimal. Both the Zardari and Sharif governments in Pakistan have been keen on increasing trade with India but New Delhi did not see it as a priority and hence trade negotiations between the two sides never rose beyond mundane bureaucratic engagements. While there has been a lot of talk about enhancing India-Pakistan trade in the past one year or so, the reality is that the momentum only exists at the bureaucratic level without any clear political guidance or interest.

On the issue of terrorism, the UPA’s risk-averse engagement with Islamabad has produced contrasting results. On the one hand, there has been a radical reduction in cross-LoC infiltration into India which has subsequently reduced terror incidents in Kashmir. On the other hand, there has hardly been any progress in the prosecution of the perpetrators of 26/11, something that the UPA government repeatedly raised as a bottom line for improving relations with Pakistan. On balance, however, the UPA’s patient approach towards Islamabad on the issue of terrorism may indeed prove to be wise especially given the potential impact of the Afghan drawdown on Kashmir.

What about Sir Creek and Siachen? The Indian and Pakistani interlocutors, especially at the Track-2 level, have long considered these to be low hanging fruits, ready to be plucked. But even on these issues there has been no progress in the 10 years of UPA rule. In a sense, Dr. Singh’s inability to achieve anything substantive with Pakistan was also a result of his decision not to visit Pakistan despite being invited by Islamabad on a number of occasions.

The Modi government’s policy?

Will a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government in New Delhi behave differently with Pakistan? While the new government’s peacetime posture toward Islamabad may generally remain the same as that of the UPA, the real test of a government’s character in New Delhi will only take place during a crisis with Pakistan. First of all, the BJP’s articulations on Pakistan have been hawkish while in Opposition. Second, as we have seen in the past, media pressure on the government to act “decisively” during a crisis could be immense. More so, the BJP has for too long been claiming that the UPA regime has not taught Pakistan a lesson for sponsoring terrorism in India and killing Indian soldiers on the LoC. Such a party will have to do exceptionally well to avoid what it has been asking the UPA regime to do — teach Pakistan a lesson! Even if the thinking in New Delhi, while engaging in aggressive rhetoric during a crisis, would be to force Islamabad to back out in a contest of resolve, the reality is that its articulations and postures could potentially govern its crisis behaviour.

Therefore, in order to avoid getting caught in a commitment trap of its own creation, the Modi government will have to create the necessary crisis management structures jointly with Islamabad to begin with.

(Happymon Jacob teaches at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. E-mail: happymon@gmail.com )

(Source: The Hindu, May 27, 2014. URL: http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/lessons-of-the-past-for-the-future/article6051274.ece) 

COMMENTS(23)

SubscribeNews Feed Latest Upvotes Downvotes Oldest 

•  sini RAO  Bolingbrook

  Now Indians young old SPOKEN and showed their MIND that they EXPECT action based on ground realty, leaving everything to the leadership of winning party and now it is time to stop CHEST BEATING of VICTORY and ACT with FIRMNESS, prove to Indians that the winning party means BUSINESS first and last from now on. Now they can hold and talk from a POSITION OF STRENGTH given by the ELECTORATE and FIRMLY resolve every issue within the frame work of Indian Constitution.

  4 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  ChinG  Mumbai

  Good Article

  4 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  Aazar Kund Senior Research Associate at Researcher Fazal

  I wonder how India will proceed with friendly relations even its right hand Shive Sina is willing to bomb Pakistan. 1st of all its very important for India to deal properly with its hawkish mindset. That mindset is real threat for the peace and stability in the region. Both the rivals are nuclear powers and its very crucial to deal all existing issues through diplomatic channels.

  4 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  Mohammad Mirza  Riyadh

  Being a Pakistani, I am well pleased with the constructive nature of comments and taken them by surprise after an Indian colleague, on my complaints of poor quality of TOI and HT, suggested me to read The Hindu. The author has touched the key areas and for a fundamental need to establish various defusing measures if any such thing, like 26/11, happens. Pakistan is going through a strategic (we love that word) shift both in term of maturity in the democratic disposition as well as common people perception of India. Majority of Pakistani do not see India as existential threat anymore except few vested interests, at the same time we are not overwhelmed with awe and would be more responsive to good gestures more than New Delhi expect them. India, however, would need to see Pakistan more than what our Urdu Newspapers tend to portray.

  4 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  Vida  London

  The 'skeleton' in the cupboard will always be the Pakistan army and ISI. Even if the 'Kashmir' issue was resolved, there would still be continued terror from Pakistan for one reason or another. Until the Pakistan army and ISI are 'de-fanged', peace will be very difficult to achieve. Their aim is 'bleed' India by a thousand cuts according to their 'medieval' mentality, but ironically with all the terror groups currenlty operating in Pakistan, that is exactly what is happening to Pakistan.

  4 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  Raja  Chennai

  As rightly said ,Courage/ fear of the party will be exposed only during the crisis . We can witness the valour or cowardness at that time. Till the time all is well.Whether they win the hearts or betray us will be made visible. During the crisis only the chair becomes unbearably hot.

  4 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  jay  Hicksville

  The only thing missing in the writers calculation is a realization that it takes two to make a peace. Even if "the missed opportunities" are retrieved the original sin of allowing the creation of a theocratic State can not be undone. Unless the military regime in Pakistan feels threatened there can be no peace with Pakistan.

  4 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  Devraj Devraj  Kochi

  The main drawback of this article is the concern for the 'past' and the 'future'! All the 'confidence building', 'track two', 'DGMO hotline' stuff will work, or did work, when the case is an 'India-Pak' stand-off. That, unfortunately, is rarely the case of the 'present'. What matters in the 'present' or 'ongoing' situation is the realisation that there is no scope or need for an Indo-Pak skirmish for crises to spurt. Someone, somewhere, with a deviant mind and a little skill, in possession of a handy bagful of fertilizer and a rickety bicycle, can render all those aforementioned stuff practically irrelevant. A few more like this ‘someone’, all working together, can wreak havoc and mayhem manifold, for ‘better effect’. The challenge of the present and the future is to keep these tendencies in check, and desirably, nip them in the blood. That is an entirely different ball game, isn’t it?

  4 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  sami ullah  

  sub continent can only progress as a whole like a body,otherwise every one is trying for decades

  5 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  Tarun Rai  Gurgaon

  When author says that we were lucky that nothing went wrong between India and Pakistan in last 10 years, I guess he exclude those families who lost there loved one in 26/11 , Delhi, Mumbai local, Varanasi ,Jaipur etc that happened in past 10 years. The way we are moving forward and also thanks to media(and this author) that from today I too am feeling lucky (and ashamed) that nothing went wrong. Long live this feeling.

  5 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  Subramanyam  

  The author talks of a non-existent structures between India and Pakistan to manage crises, as though Pakistan is a normal and rational nation-state. Had that been the case, there would never have been an 'enduring hostility' by Pakistan with us. Pakistan does not want to even abide by the existing border management pacts. There is already in place a hot line between the DGMOs of both armies but this has seldom been used. No political decision reached with Pakistan is implementable unless it has the approval of the Army and the LeT which has now become a part of the Pakistani Army. Unless we engage with the Pakistani Army directly, it will be futile to reach any accord with the civilian leadership on any substantive issues. The author also refers to relative peace in the period 2004-2008. This must be attributed to the American influence as they did not want any Pakistani misadventure with India to affect their Afghan campaign and a military man, Musharraf, at the helm.

  5 days ago ·   (7) ·   (3) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed

  Devraj Devraj  Up Voted
•  prakasam  Hyderabad

  Is there anybody in the world who could suggest a solution to the problem in gulf or Pakistan vs India?

  5 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (1) ·  promote to News Feed

  •  Waqar khan  

    That is called statesmanship

    4 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  rajiv Sharma at CCNA and MBA in Telecomunication Fazal

  The essential prerequisite is that there has to be an end to hostility, violence and terrorism; once this happens, it would be important that military forces on both sides of the LoC are kept to the minimum, particularly in populated areas. It would be important to ensure self-governance for internal management in all areas on the same basis on both sides of the LoC. We are undergoing enormous transformation in a world witnessing change and transition on an unprecedented scale. A stable, peaceful, cooperative and connected neighbourhood is essential for us to realise our destiny. Solution of the Kashmir issue will help us on that path.

  5 days ago ·   (3) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  Inderpreet Singh  

  India and Pakistan have shared peculiar relations.Strong govenment in delhi have shown palpable semblance of its leverage in upcoming period and will modify inflection in relations with neighbourhood.The decision to invite SAARC countries at oath ceremony was a prudent one by a shrewd leader.

  5 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  Subramanyam  

  The author talks of a non-existent structures between India and Pakistan to manage crises, as though Pakistan is a normal and rational nation-state. Had that been the case, there would never have been an 'enduring hostility' by Pakistan with us. Pakistan does not want to even abide by the existing border management pacts. There is already in place a hot line between the DGMOs of both armies but this has seldom been used. No political decision reached with Pakistan is implementable unless it has the approval of the Army and the LeT which has now become a part of the Pakistani Army. Unless we engage with the Pakistani Army directly, it will be futile to reach any accord with the civilian leadership on any substantive issues. The author also refers to relative peace in the period 2004-2008. This must be attributed to the American influence as they did not want any Pakistani misadventure with India to affect their Afghan campaign and a military man, Musharraf, at the helm.

  5 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  sherya  Fazal

  We look into the history from present to gather lessons for the future. There is a sheer dichotomy which always prevails between India and Pakistan. Not only share the common border and cultural traits, there are certain socio economic dilemmas which people of both sides are suffering. The nontraditional threats in shapes of diseases, environmental degradation, illegal human trafficking etc are the points where statesmen of both sides confronted. Apart from this, it is a time to realize that it is better to say good bye to long standing lingering issues and open areas of cooperation. Kashmir should be settled down at least in this tenure of government as huge capital and energies of armed forces been invested in this disputed territory. Regarding crisis situation, there is a dire need to devise crisis management measures for each of the side as any escalation can endanger states with nuclear weapons.

  5 days ago ·   (4) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed

  sini RAO  Up Voted
•  Manjit Sahota  Hereford

  The author does injustice to UPA. He should have included NDA's response to the Air India flight hijack to Kandhar as well. The author is right in criticising UPA for failures in Kashmir after talks with Kashmiris through interlocuters. Something should have come off it but UPA simply got cold feet because it did not have numbers in Parliament. The crux of India-Pak problems is of course Kashmir. India will not( and should not) give up what it has got and Pak wants it all. It is indeed the reason for existence of such a large Pakistani army. What will Modi do in a 26/11 like situation is not likely to be a significant strike on Pakistan. That will put both countries on an escalation ladder. Just remember, which nation wants to commit suicide more? If Sharif is too good to India, crisis will come soon.

  5 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  Kamaya Chauhan  Islamabad

  Pakistan and India are the two potential Asian rivals, there rivalry is deep rooted and cannot be ended over the night but peace initiatives have always been welcomed by both nations just to maintain the regional peace and stability. There have been number of incidents where both states came at point where nuclear weapons can be used by either of the side but somehow they managed not to involved in nuclear crisis. Very true past has taught us many lessons and the next government in India must also take the initiatives where peace can be promoted, issues can get resolved while not making any of the state to compromise over its national security interest.

  5 days ago ·   (1) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  jagannath mishra  Kolkata

  It is a well thought out articulation of prospective relationship in the days ahead with pakistan.UPA has been too soft on contentious issues regarding terrorism,infiltration etc.Ad-hoc and stand by measures do not bear fruit during need testimonise the conscience of the writer.There should be an innovative approach to deal with such contentious issues. Sucessive governments might have missed backchannel opportunities .But as a majority government is taking over reins,expectations are sky high.Recent visit of pakistan's premier clearly indicates the mood of pakistan to maintain a cordial relatiionship in days ahead.Whether there it bears fruit and maintains status-quo ,remains to be seen.

  5 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  R. Sridhar  Folsom

  I Think it is not a matter of "If", but "when" Pakistani military esblishment (with Lashkar et al) will test Modi & sharif. So would be prudent on both of them to establish crisis management structure. Nevertheless, unless Pakistani military establishment is clearly under the control of civilian administration, these issues are bound to occur.

  5 days ago ·   (1) ·   (0) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed
•  RS Vatsan  New Rochelle

  The author while touching on all the negative side of the argument has not touched on the aspect that if you are economically strong and you talk from pont of strength than abject knee jerkness as done by UPA at least will rceive the due respect it desereves. So Modi's objective of Trade improvement before sustantiative engagement is the right approach. Even from Pakistan we constantly hear macho statements but what does it real mean in the ground reality is question to be posed. Evry body is aware of ISI role in Pakistan and given that basic fact ,you have to work arround it as best as you can.Our best wishes to Modi for having invited all SAARC leaders including Pakistan and SriLanka inspite of negative sentiments regarding Sri Lamkan president in TN.

  5 days ago ·   (0) ·   (0) ·  reply (1) ·  promote to News Feed

  •  Asoka  Dubai

    India's Congress Government made two mistakes and India never ever repair that two mistakes. One is Indira Gandhi separated East Pakistan from Pakistan (that time Pakistan not having Nuclear Weapons) and Indira Gandhi made LTTE. Due to double standard of Farsi Ex-Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi received world's best guard of honor and last respect from Tamil LTTE. Still India inter-fearing internal problem of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka is not under India or Tamil Nadu. Sri Lanka belongs to Sinhalese and Tamil Nadu belongs to Tamils. Pakistan wants Kashmir (90% Muslims living) as a separate country this is tit for tat because India help to create Bangladesh. The hidden hate of these two countries never ever repair by India. Whole Pakistanis and Sinhalese 100% against India. This well visible and India knows that. India can't play with Pakistan now , because Pakistan is now Nuclear Powered country. Sri Lanka now towards the China due to double standard of India's foreign policy.

    5 days ago ·   (4) ·   (12) ·  reply (0) ·  promote to News Feed

    Ram  Up Voted

    Sundaram · Indra  Down Voted