Pragmatic Euphony  

The calls for recommencing talks with Pakistan do not stand to logic and are not grounded in reality.

There are periods in history in which it isn’t enough to say you’ve done your best, when the only test is whether you have done what is necessary.~Churchill

It seems that the wonderfully efficient marketing machinery at an Indian newspaper has been able to achieve what even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh couldn’t achieve after Sharm-el-Sheikh — convince the Indian mainstream media commentators that India had no option but to resume peace talks with Pakistan. The usual candle-lighting suspects have persevered at this for years — in locations as diverse as Delhi, Singapore, Dubai and Kabul. Now it is the turn of  journalists like Suhasini Haider and Maya Mirchandani to advocate resumption of Indo-Pak talks. Supporting voices have come in from certain unexpected quarters, including a strident ex-General whose views about Pakistan have suddenly gone soft; now he wants India to extend the hand of friendship towards Pakistan.

Let us look at the broad arguments being proffered by these commentators. A caveat, though may be in order. While the nuances of the arguments may vary from one commentator to other, the essence of their arguments remains unaltered.

First and foremost, all the commentators display a clear sign of fatigue with the current state of affairs. Their premise: how long can we in India continue with this stalemate? They perhaps forget that old cliché: all movement is not progress. Furthermore, it seems that in the eyes of these commentators,  the onus is solely on India to initiate recommencement of talks. Pakistan wants India to start the talks status quo ante; India wants Pakistan to show some substantive progress on the trials of those accused of plotting the Mumbai terror attack of November 2008 before starting talks. In fact, it is natural that both the sides should be willing to move  some way forward before such proposals can be considered seriously.

A related argument is that the Law of Diminishing Returns for this coercive Indian diplomacy of past one year has already set in. A continuation of the same wouldn’t achieve more from Pakistan and thus TINA — there is no alternative — but to talk to Pakistan. Firstly, process by itself is not a substitute for substance. Secondly, there could be alternatives, only if we were willing to look at them. Seriously debating the merits of other alternatives — a greater Indian military presence in Afghanistan for one — could be the way ahead. If coercive diplomacy [although it is hard to classify Indian stance as coercive in the first place] is not paying dividends now and status quo is not acceptable, the coercion need not necessarily be scaled down. It could even be scaled up to achieve Indian long-term strategic goals.

Then there is the laundry list of usual arguments about strengthening democracy and engaging the moderate civil society in Pakistan. It is a fanciful notion that has been proved wrong time and again over the last six decades. Needless to add, history has shown that actors and institutions deriving their strength from a radicalised society and a powerful military in Pakistan will always prevail over the so-called moderates when it comes to national security, an euphemism for India-centric policies. Such people-to-people contact, in fact, tends to camouflage the sinister designs of the Pakistani military-jehadi establishment by providing a soft sheen of normalcy. The lack of such “friendly people-to-people” activity, though unpleasant, helps the nation and the international community in sustaining its focus on the doings of the Pakistani military-jehadi complex.

As for the saintly argument that India — being a liberal and democratic society besides being the larger country — must display its commitment to humanity by talking to Pakistan, there is no answer. Because such blithe concern can lead India to transfer Jammu & Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagadh to Pakistan even now.

There is a common thread running through all these exhortations for recommencing peace talks with Pakistan. It is a false premise that underpins the arguments: equating talks with peace. The road of Indo-Pak peace talks, traversed in the past, is littered with the debris of Kargil, Kandahar hijacking, Parliament attack, Kaluchak massacre, Hyderabad blasts, Mumbai train blasts, Jaipur blasts, Delhi blasts and finally the spectacular Mumbai terror attack of November 2008. India, with a combination of fortuity and enhanced internal security measures, has had no major jehadi terror attack — bar a few in Jammu & Kashmir — after November 2008, a peaceful span co-terminus with the No Talks period of Indo-Pak relations. If the proof is in the pudding, then talks do not mean peace. Peace for Indian citizens that is.

Meanwhile the status quo on ceasefire on the Line of Control or annual exchange of list of nuclear installations has been maintained between the two countries even in the absence of any peace talks.

Perhaps this kind of containment and tactical deterrence can ensure peace for Indian citizens from Pakistan only in the short-term and it may give away soon. As the Reaganites are fond of saying, “True peace is not the absence of war, it is the absence of evil.” For a permanent peace between India and Pakistan, which is in the interest of ‘humanity’ of South Asia and the world at large, there is thus no option but to destroy Pakistan’s military-jehadi complex.

There are certainly some people who hope that things might be different this time and thus we must talk to Pakistan now. But then hope cannot be a substitute for policy.

Finally, if all the experts — or an overwhelming majority of them — are publicly suggesting that India should initiate peace talks with Pakistan, then the Indian leadership has to heed and follow their advice. Or maybe it will instead pay heed to Henry Kissinger’s word of advice:

It is, after all, the responsibility of the expert to operate the familiar and that of the leader to transcend it.

P.S. — It seems that Indian media and experts are perhaps tired of having nothing new to report on on the Indo-Pak impasse. Another big Indo-Pak peace talks drama means more photo-ops, more chatter, more drafting of joint statements, more backroom gossip passed as authentic information attributed to ’sources’, dollops of controversy — all that the Indian mainstream media currently thrives on. Maybe the marketing managers of a particular Indian newspaper can then even claim bonuses from their own employers (and other media houses) for a successful marketing campaign to boost circulation (and TRPs)!