Bang Galore
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 10,685
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Pakistan's magnificent obsession
An enlightened diplomat reflects on Pakistan's difficult ties with India with disarming candour and clarity of thought.
Natwar Singh | October 7, 2015 | UPDATED 11:19 IST
This is a whale of a book. Absorbing, controversial, stimulating and utterly sincere. It combines disarming candour with clarity of thought. When Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri looks inwards and reflects on the dark clouds that so often appear on the India-Pakistan skies, he does not get discouraged. Neither do I. However, diplomacy offers hope, not salvation.
"This book is largely about Pakistan's difficult relations with India," says the author. He devotes 340 pages to India (read Kashmir). The chapters on the US, China and Russia, although important, are beyond the scope of this review.
Since our first meeting in 2004 in Dalian in north China we have got on well. He is among the outstanding foreign ministers Pakistan has produced. Our discussions have been cordial and civilised. I discerned no cerebral inadequacy in Kasuri. His urbanity and engaging personality helped. At the time we were only too conscious of the hazards and complexities of the issues, none of which could be neglected. There could be no cheerful bonhomie, but rancour was kept out of the conference. Compatibility of temperament was an unexpected asset. We both liked living dangerously.
Neither a Hawk Nor a Dove is loaded with too many details. Even an author with a freakish memory could not have recalled discussions, bilateral, multilateral and strictly confidential conversations. Nor recall the contents of top secret deliberations. He has, I imagine with the approval of his government, had access to top secret and confidential files, documents and sensitive reports. He has been fortunate. In India, this could not happen.
Kasuri somewhat disingenuously writes, "This book is not about Pakistan politics, but its foreign policy." They are two sides of the coin. If the domestic scene is incohesive and replete with avoidable fault lines, that country cannot have an influential, creative or meaningful foreign policy.
Those dealing with India-Pakistan relations should keep the following in mind:
- Indo-Pak relations are accident-prone. One must keep a hawk eye on the diplomatic pressure cooker.
- The future of our bilateral relations lies in the past. Kasuri concedes that both sides carry baggage of the past.
- Pakistan is obsessed with Kashmir. Its diplomats spend much time on raking up Kashmir at the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is not an inspiring organisation. The Islamic world is divided right down the middle. Kasuri astoundingly asserts that Pakistan's army does not interfere in civilian, non-army matters. History says otherwise.
Democracy has not taken root in Pakistan. The coups of Field Marshal Ayub Khan, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq and General Pervez Musharraf were to get rid of the civilian governments. Bangladesh 1971 is a horrific example of the Pakistani army's genocidal activities. One only has to read the book, The Blood Telegram, by Gary J. Bass to learn about the horrendous tragedy. The lamentable Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger did not even condemn the actions of their trusted ally and friend. The events of 1971 were recalled by Zia-ul-Haq to me in angry and passionate terms: "Kanwar Sahib we can never forget what India did to break up Pakistan." An answer was easy but I refrained from bandying words with the president.
When it comes to Kashmir, the Pakistani army calls the shots in close collaboration with the ubiquitous ISI. Pakistan's policy on Kashmir is that it is a trilateral issue-India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir-and the wishes of the third party must be ascertained. Surprisingly, Kasuri agrees with this approach.
For India, Kashmir is a bilateral issue. It is also a symbol of our secularism. Only once, during Lal Bahadur Shastri's time, did it become trilateral. The Soviets got into the act. A trilateral meeting was held in Tashkent in January 1966, Soviet prime minister Alexei Kosygin was the presiding deity (with apologies to Marx).
I have since the early 1980s kept myself up to date on this vital relationship. We have fought three major wars and two minor ones. All five proved that 10 Pakistani soldiers were not equal to one Indian soldier. This kind of bombastic boastfulness is unseemly. I am second to none in promoting cordial and good neighbourly relations with Pakistan. After mature consideration I have come to the demoralising conclusion that Kashmir is a case of what cannot be cured has to be endured.
I am not enthusiastic about back-channel India-Pakistan diplomacy. The example Kasuri gives of the back-channel talks between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho during the Vietnam War does not obviously apply to Indian and Pakistani back channels. That was a one-time exercise. No 'Joint Mechanism' can work if the "Kashmiris on both sides could cooperate in specific areas of mutual interest and where Indians and Pakistanis would also be present in one form or other". Kasuri, if I am not mistaken, goes along with this.
Such an unrealistic solution would be used to score points for home consumption. Musharraf in his book, In the Line of Fire, writes, "...most important, have joint management mechanism with a membership consisting of Pakistanis, Indians and Kashmiris?" A non-starter. The late Brajesh Mishra, the then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's principal secretary and national security adviser, was dedicated to back-channel diplomacy, which would find a mutually accepted solution. I told him that any solution envisaging an alteration in the geography of the Valley would never be accepted by the Congress or Parliament. Musharraf was no General Charles de Gaulle, and Vajpayee no Abraham Lincoln. Worse still, Vajpayee headed a coalition government. I told Brajesh, make the LoC the international border. Farooq Abdullah had publicly said so. This practical solution has been rejected. Hence, a solution appears a receding target.
Terrorism is another issue on which the two countries differ vehemently. Pakistan exports terrorism. Non- state terrorists are free to act. Mumbai is a glaring example. No apology is forthcoming from Islamabad.
During the ill-fated Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in December 1979, Pakistan became a frontline state and Zia-ul-Haq became diplomatic legal tender. After the execution of Z.A. Bhutto in April 1979, Zia-ul-Haq was an international persona non grata. The Americans poured dollars and armaments into Afghanistan, created the Mujahideen and encouraged the Taliban. President Zia-ul-Haq was not far behind. The Americans and the Pakistanis sowed the wind and are reaping the whirlwind in Afghanistan. Barack Obama has "cut and run". George Bush destroyed Iraq, a secular non-aligned country. Pakistan resents Indian presence in Afghanistan. This is amazing. India's relations with Afghanistan go back to at least five centuries. We not only have an embassy in Kabul, India has consulates in Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif and Herat. They are assisting the Afghan people and government in all possible ways. A senior Indian diplomat was killed in a bomb attack on our embassy in Kabul by the Taliban.
I wholeheartedly congratulate Kasuri, an enlightened diplomat, for the dedication with which he has worked to improve India-Pakistan relations, against all odds. Pakistani hawks in the competent and all pervasive army make his task immensely difficult. War is no longer an option. Both countries are nuclear powers. Kasuri did reduce tensions, made the composite dialogue move forward. It was his duty to present his country's foreign policy with resolution and vigour. I did the same for my country.
I doubt if Manmohan Singh will thank me for quoting him. This is what he said in Amritsar on January 8, 2007. "I dream of a day, while retaining our respective national identities, one can have breakfast in Amritsar, lunch in Lahore and dinner in Kabul." You can't argue with that.
Natwar Singh is former external affairs minister
Pakistan's magnificent obsession : Books - India Today
An enlightened diplomat reflects on Pakistan's difficult ties with India with disarming candour and clarity of thought.
Natwar Singh | October 7, 2015 | UPDATED 11:19 IST
This is a whale of a book. Absorbing, controversial, stimulating and utterly sincere. It combines disarming candour with clarity of thought. When Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri looks inwards and reflects on the dark clouds that so often appear on the India-Pakistan skies, he does not get discouraged. Neither do I. However, diplomacy offers hope, not salvation.
"This book is largely about Pakistan's difficult relations with India," says the author. He devotes 340 pages to India (read Kashmir). The chapters on the US, China and Russia, although important, are beyond the scope of this review.
Since our first meeting in 2004 in Dalian in north China we have got on well. He is among the outstanding foreign ministers Pakistan has produced. Our discussions have been cordial and civilised. I discerned no cerebral inadequacy in Kasuri. His urbanity and engaging personality helped. At the time we were only too conscious of the hazards and complexities of the issues, none of which could be neglected. There could be no cheerful bonhomie, but rancour was kept out of the conference. Compatibility of temperament was an unexpected asset. We both liked living dangerously.
Neither a Hawk Nor a Dove is loaded with too many details. Even an author with a freakish memory could not have recalled discussions, bilateral, multilateral and strictly confidential conversations. Nor recall the contents of top secret deliberations. He has, I imagine with the approval of his government, had access to top secret and confidential files, documents and sensitive reports. He has been fortunate. In India, this could not happen.
Kasuri somewhat disingenuously writes, "This book is not about Pakistan politics, but its foreign policy." They are two sides of the coin. If the domestic scene is incohesive and replete with avoidable fault lines, that country cannot have an influential, creative or meaningful foreign policy.
Those dealing with India-Pakistan relations should keep the following in mind:
- Indo-Pak relations are accident-prone. One must keep a hawk eye on the diplomatic pressure cooker.
- The future of our bilateral relations lies in the past. Kasuri concedes that both sides carry baggage of the past.
- Pakistan is obsessed with Kashmir. Its diplomats spend much time on raking up Kashmir at the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which is not an inspiring organisation. The Islamic world is divided right down the middle. Kasuri astoundingly asserts that Pakistan's army does not interfere in civilian, non-army matters. History says otherwise.
Democracy has not taken root in Pakistan. The coups of Field Marshal Ayub Khan, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq and General Pervez Musharraf were to get rid of the civilian governments. Bangladesh 1971 is a horrific example of the Pakistani army's genocidal activities. One only has to read the book, The Blood Telegram, by Gary J. Bass to learn about the horrendous tragedy. The lamentable Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger did not even condemn the actions of their trusted ally and friend. The events of 1971 were recalled by Zia-ul-Haq to me in angry and passionate terms: "Kanwar Sahib we can never forget what India did to break up Pakistan." An answer was easy but I refrained from bandying words with the president.
When it comes to Kashmir, the Pakistani army calls the shots in close collaboration with the ubiquitous ISI. Pakistan's policy on Kashmir is that it is a trilateral issue-India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir-and the wishes of the third party must be ascertained. Surprisingly, Kasuri agrees with this approach.
For India, Kashmir is a bilateral issue. It is also a symbol of our secularism. Only once, during Lal Bahadur Shastri's time, did it become trilateral. The Soviets got into the act. A trilateral meeting was held in Tashkent in January 1966, Soviet prime minister Alexei Kosygin was the presiding deity (with apologies to Marx).
I have since the early 1980s kept myself up to date on this vital relationship. We have fought three major wars and two minor ones. All five proved that 10 Pakistani soldiers were not equal to one Indian soldier. This kind of bombastic boastfulness is unseemly. I am second to none in promoting cordial and good neighbourly relations with Pakistan. After mature consideration I have come to the demoralising conclusion that Kashmir is a case of what cannot be cured has to be endured.
I am not enthusiastic about back-channel India-Pakistan diplomacy. The example Kasuri gives of the back-channel talks between Kissinger and Le Duc Tho during the Vietnam War does not obviously apply to Indian and Pakistani back channels. That was a one-time exercise. No 'Joint Mechanism' can work if the "Kashmiris on both sides could cooperate in specific areas of mutual interest and where Indians and Pakistanis would also be present in one form or other". Kasuri, if I am not mistaken, goes along with this.
Such an unrealistic solution would be used to score points for home consumption. Musharraf in his book, In the Line of Fire, writes, "...most important, have joint management mechanism with a membership consisting of Pakistanis, Indians and Kashmiris?" A non-starter. The late Brajesh Mishra, the then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's principal secretary and national security adviser, was dedicated to back-channel diplomacy, which would find a mutually accepted solution. I told him that any solution envisaging an alteration in the geography of the Valley would never be accepted by the Congress or Parliament. Musharraf was no General Charles de Gaulle, and Vajpayee no Abraham Lincoln. Worse still, Vajpayee headed a coalition government. I told Brajesh, make the LoC the international border. Farooq Abdullah had publicly said so. This practical solution has been rejected. Hence, a solution appears a receding target.
Terrorism is another issue on which the two countries differ vehemently. Pakistan exports terrorism. Non- state terrorists are free to act. Mumbai is a glaring example. No apology is forthcoming from Islamabad.
During the ill-fated Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in December 1979, Pakistan became a frontline state and Zia-ul-Haq became diplomatic legal tender. After the execution of Z.A. Bhutto in April 1979, Zia-ul-Haq was an international persona non grata. The Americans poured dollars and armaments into Afghanistan, created the Mujahideen and encouraged the Taliban. President Zia-ul-Haq was not far behind. The Americans and the Pakistanis sowed the wind and are reaping the whirlwind in Afghanistan. Barack Obama has "cut and run". George Bush destroyed Iraq, a secular non-aligned country. Pakistan resents Indian presence in Afghanistan. This is amazing. India's relations with Afghanistan go back to at least five centuries. We not only have an embassy in Kabul, India has consulates in Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif and Herat. They are assisting the Afghan people and government in all possible ways. A senior Indian diplomat was killed in a bomb attack on our embassy in Kabul by the Taliban.
I wholeheartedly congratulate Kasuri, an enlightened diplomat, for the dedication with which he has worked to improve India-Pakistan relations, against all odds. Pakistani hawks in the competent and all pervasive army make his task immensely difficult. War is no longer an option. Both countries are nuclear powers. Kasuri did reduce tensions, made the composite dialogue move forward. It was his duty to present his country's foreign policy with resolution and vigour. I did the same for my country.
I doubt if Manmohan Singh will thank me for quoting him. This is what he said in Amritsar on January 8, 2007. "I dream of a day, while retaining our respective national identities, one can have breakfast in Amritsar, lunch in Lahore and dinner in Kabul." You can't argue with that.
Natwar Singh is former external affairs minister
Pakistan's magnificent obsession : Books - India Today
