A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Sunday, June 9, 2019
Tango With Pakistan
Even though Modi has raised the bar for peace talks with Islamabad, he must seize the opportunity to pull aside Khan at Bishkek to break the ice. We cannot ignore Pakistan
Last October, I took a bet that Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan would
be invited for the swearing-in of the new Indian Prime Minister in May
2019. This was based on the assumption that terrorist groups based in
Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Pakistan would not raise the ante and they
would not act autonomously — without sanction from the Inter-Services
Intelligence (ISI). Second, that Narendra Modi would be re-elected as
Prime Minister but probably with a smaller majority in Parliament. I was
proved wrong on both counts. A local Kashmiri, Adil Dar, trained by
Jaish-e-Mohammad as a suicide bomber, carried out Kashmir’s first
genuine suicide attack against a CRPF convoy (Pulwama) killing 40
troopers; and Modi was re-elected with a huge margin.
The electoral success of the retributive Balakot airstrikes in Pakistan
was a game-changer, which led the BJP to shift the focus of its
electoral campaign from the success of its elaborate welfare schemes to
imperatives of national security, counter-terrorism and Pakistan
bashing. So, under the altered post-election scenario, inviting Khan
became a non-starter. Had Pulwama not happened, it is conceivable,
indeed possible, that Khan would have been in the forecourt of the
Rashtrapati Bhavan last week. The so-called snub to Pakistan was
delivered using the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral
Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) to sideline South Asian
Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), which is like cutting your
nose to spite your face.
From day one of his election, the khaki Prime Minister Khan has kept
talks with India his primary foreign policy goal. He has not missed any
opportunity to urge India to resolve all outstanding issues, including
Kashmir, through dialogue. Even at the height of the Balakot conflict,
he requested Modi for talks and released Wing Commander Abhinandan
Varthaman as a peace gesture. The Modi threat of launching 12 ballistic
missiles on Pakistani cities is as big a fantasy as his avowed intention
to use nuclear weapons — in reality, dangerous election rhetoric.
After the terrorist attack on the Parliament in 2001 and India’s tepid
response with Operation Parakram, the Vajpayee Government paved the way
for a backchannel dialogue to be started in 2004 between two civilian
interlocutors, which culminated in the 4/5-point Kashmir formula, the
closest the two countries have reached on a political settlement on
Pakistan’s core issue. India’s core concern of terrorism was addressed
by Gen Pervez Musharraf, who was then Pakistan’s Army Chief and head of
the civilian Government by putting curbs on infiltration, which
according to the then Indian Army Chief, Gen S Padmanabhan, reduced by
an all-time high of 53 per cent. Only after Musharraf lost both his jobs
in 2007-08, did Mumbai happen. But both sides had missed an opportunity
which emerged from talks.
The third BJP-led NDA Government holds the dubious record of not
engaging Pakistan in any structured dialogue in all its five years in
office. Not for want of trying but due to imposing avoidable
conditionalities such as Pakistan interlocutors not meeting the
Hurriyat. The last recorded official conversation with Pakistan was in
mid-2012 as the engagement process was derailed by the beheading of an
Indian soldier on the Line of Control (LoC) in January 2013. Till then,
three rounds of talks were held under the new Resumed Dialogue, started
in 2011 following the India-Pakistan summit at Sharm El-Sheikh in 2009.
Barbarity on LoC became the red line for disrupting talks under the UPA
regime even if it was one soldier lost —public opinion had become so
powerful.
When Modi tried to befriend Nawaz Sharif in 2015, it led to Pathankot
and despite it, Modi allowed an ISI-led team to investigate the Jaish-e
Mohammad attack. Uri and Pulwama sealed the fate of any structured
dialogue; though three rounds of Kartarpur corridor have taken place.
Given the international opprobrium arising from Pulwama, Pakistan’s
greylisting at FATF, its dire state of economy and even China yielding
to pressure on listing of Masood Azhar on UN’s 1267 sanctions list, it
is fair to believe that ISI has put on leash its strategic assets, as it
had done following Mumbai, against conducting any high casualty
terrorist attacks in Jammu & Kashmir and elsewhere in India. Mumbai
happened seven years after Operation Parakram and Pulwama 10 years after
Mumbai. The average ‘leash-cycle’ of terrorists is eight years.
Unlike Nawaz Sharif, Khan is untested in his zeal and devotion to the
peace process. The Pakistan Army’s readiness to overcome its need for an
existential threat from India holds the key to longevity of any
outcome-related dialogue process. That is why it is vital to engage the
Pakistan Army through a creative backchannel. Khan was right in echoing a
long-held view that a Right-wing BJP-led Hindu nationalist Government
in India was ‘better’ for peace talks. Now that the BJP has replaced the
Congress as India’s natural ruling party, that scenario may have come
to stay for the foreseeable future. But that is only one side of the
story. In Pakistan, you will need a military-led Government or at the
very least, a military Government with a civilian face like the present
Khan-led dispensation. When these two conditions meet, the two can
tango.
It was a tad disingenuous to keep Khan out of the Modi swearing-in by
saying it was inviting only BIMSTEC leaders and leaders of Mauritius and
Kyrgyzstan, the latter holding the chair of SCO, which Modi will be
attending next week and where he is likely to meet Khan. The snub for
Pakistan is a snub for SAARC, which is the South Asian regional
organisation; whereas Bimstec is the Bay of Bengal sub-regional grouping
comprising five SAARC countries — India, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka,
Bangladesh and two members of Asean — Myanmar and Thailand.
BIMSTEC is no alternative to SAARC — it can never be. It excludes
Muslim-majority countries Pakistan, Afghanistan and Maldives which are
part of SAARC. It is described as complementing Neighbourhood First with
Act East policies. While India is the dominant country, China’s shadow
is over both. In SAARC, China has an observer status and its string of
pearls connects every Saarc country except India and Bhutan. BRI does
the same. Similarly, China’s primacy is writ large over Myanmar and
Thailand. Both BIMSTEC and SAARC cannot escape China’s outreach.
Last month, India’s Ambassador to the US, Harsh V Shringla, said in
Washington after Modi was re-elected Prime Minister that India will not
hold talks with Pakistan until it gives up its state policy of
supporting terrorism. Even though Modi has raised the bar for talks, he
must seize the opportunity to pull aside Khan at Bishkek to break the
ice. You cannot ignore Pakistan.
(The writer is a retired Major General of the Indian Army and
founder member of the Defence Planning Staff, currently the revamped
Integrated Defence Staff)


