Low Cunning in Cloak of High Diplomacy

Even before Nawaz Sharif addressed the UN General Assembly, the Pakistanis had let it be known that he would be bad-mouthing India on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. There was, therefore, no real surprise in India when Nawaz Sharif raked up the Kashmir issue from the UNGA podium. Although the speech was aimed more at his domestic audience – Nawaz Sharif was trying to undo the damage caused to his political standing after Ufa – he tried to sound statesmanlike before a very sceptical international community by proposing a self-serving four-point ‘peace initiative’ to an even more sceptical India. Asides of the fact that it was neither an ‘initiative’ nor had any message of ‘peace’, the Pakistanis seem to have convinced themselves that the snake oil Nawaz Sharif was selling in the form of a ‘four point plan’ was the way forward with India, and appear surprised that it hasn’t received the any traction from any quarter outside Pakistan. Given that the Pakistani conception of the real world is vastly different from what the world really is, this plan was always going to be a non-starter.

Cut through the clap-trap and it is clear that the four points of Nawaz Sharif is old but sour wine in a badly packaged bottle which isn’t even new and hence can only be drained in the sink, not drunk. The four points given by Nawaz Sharif are: 1) restore ceasefire along the international border and Line of Control and expand the UN Military Observers Group for India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) to monitor the ceasefire; 2) abjure all use of force and refrain from any threat of use of force under any circumstance; 3) take steps to demilitarize Kashmir; and 4) agree on unconditional mutual withdrawal from Siachen glacier.

In essence, what Pakistan hasn’t managed to get through the front door of diplomacy, jihad and war, it is now trying to get through the back door by deploying disingenuity, dissemble and deception. Had India been a defeated country, on the ropes and desperate for a face-saver, these four points could have been seen as statesmanship. But given that none of these conditions exist, for Pakistan to put forward this surreal proposal only suggests a degree of delusion that is dangerously out of sync with ground realities. Not surprisingly, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs contemptuously rubbished these proposals. While the spokesman of the ministry said the solution lay in ‘de-terrorizing’ Pakistan, the minister Sushma Swaraj dismissed the Nawaz Sharif’s four point by coming up with her one-point proposal – end terrorism and get back on the talks table according to the roadmap decided in Ufa.

Between 2003 and the better part of 2009, a mutually agreed ceasefire along the LoC was scrupulously observed by both countries. But since 2009, there has been an exponential rise in ceasefire violations. Incidentally, there was no Modi Sarkar in power in Delhi when these violations started. The moot point is that if India and Pakistan didn’t need UNMOGIP to monitor the ceasefire between 2003 and 2009, they don’t need it now. If Pakistan is genuinely sincere about observing the ceasefire then there is no reason why the ceasefire won’t hold. UNMOGIP is, in any case, an anachronism and has outlived its usefulness. The Pakistanis know very well that there is no question of India allowing UNMOGIP to play any role in this region. India considers Kashmir a bilateral issue and will be loath to accepting any role, forget expansion, of UNMOGIP. And, the Pakistanis are seeking an expansion of UNMOGIP, not so much for monitoring the ceasefire but more to re-involve the UN on Kashmir and thus internationalise the issue, something India will never accept. Nawaz Sharif has therefore only exposed his insincerity by making a reference to UNMOGIP knowing full well that this is a deal-breaker.

Abjuring use of force is once again a sly ploy to bring on table the old Pakistani proposal of No-War Pact, which India had rejected in the 1980s because it would deprive India the option of using coercive instruments to fight Pakistani-sponsored terror. That India hasn’t used these coercive instruments isn’t any reason to surrender the option. If Pakistan was to give up its unremitting hostility towards India, and stop using terror as an instrument of state policy, there would be no reason to resort to use of force by India against Pakistan. Similarly, if Pakistan is serious about stopping the hurling of threats of use of force, then they should first start behaving responsibly and stop threatening the use of nuclear weapons against India.

Demilitarizing Kashmir is once again a non-starter as long as Pakistan continues to export terrorism and makes irredentist claims over the Indian state. J&K was a demilitarized state until the eruption of terrorist violence. As long as the spectre of violence hangs over the state, the military’s continuing presence is a no-brainer. For its part, both the government and the Indian Army would be more than happy to send the troops back to the barracks if the security situation permitted this.

Finally, there is no question of unconditional withdrawal from Siachen. In fact, whatever chance there was of troops from both sides withdrawing after authentication of the Actual Ground Position Line is now pretty much history. There is zero trust on Pakistan actually respecting the AGPL and not surreptitiously occupying the positions India vacates, a la Kargil. The window of opportunity on an agreement over Siachen that had opened during the Manmohan Singh years is now practically closed. Therefore, Nawaz Sharif’s Siachen proposal has no takers.

Clearly, Nawaz Sharif was neither serious nor sincere about his so-called ‘peace initiative’. But the Pakistanis will flog it with all the mendacity and obliquity at their command to show India as an unreasonable country. Whether they will manage to fool anyone in the international community is another matter.

---

Published Date: 13^th October 2015, Image Source: http://www.dawn.com [3]
(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Vivekananda International Foundation)