Chellaney's critique of India's illfated Pakistan Policy

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
Although old, yet still relevant.



===

Even though India's extended hand has been slapped again and again by Pakistan, right-minded Indians still desire peace and stability on the subcontinent — but with dignity. Instead
of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's one-sided commitment to "go more than half
the way" to make peace with Pakistan, India's correct position
should be that it is ever ready to walk more than half the distance on
cooperation or confrontation, depending on whether Pakistan wants peace or war.

Singh's recent statements in Parliament point to the fallacies
on which he has been reconstructing his Pakistan policy. His personal
imprint on that policy bears at least eight perilous misconceptions.

One,political geography is unalterable. "We
cannot wish away the fact that Pakistan is our neighbor," Singh says. So, "a stable, peaceful and prosperous Pakistan" is in India's "own interest." But political maps are never carved in stone, as the
breaking away of Bangladesh, Eritrea and East Timor showed. In fact,
the most-profound global events in recent history have been the
fragmentation of several states, including the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Pakistan — the world's Terroristan rolled into an Anarchistan — looks increasingly decrepit and combustible.

The redrawing of the "Afpak" political frontiers indeed may
be essential for regional and international security. The British-drawn Durand
Line, in any case, has ceased to exist in effect, making a Pashtunistan no
longer look implausible. The "moth-eaten" Pakistan, as its founder called it,
now resembles a Molotov cocktail waiting for a match.

Two, India and Pakistan are locked by a shared
destiny. Therefore, "our objective must be a permanent peace with Pakistan, where
we are bound together by a shared future and a common prosperity." Despite
Singh's constant harping on a "shared destiny," how can a plural, inclusive and democratic India share a common future with a theocratic, militarized and radicalized Pakistan?
In fact, Pakistan, with its "war of a thousand cuts," poses an existential threat to the very principles and values on which India is founded.

Three, the alternative to a policy seeking to placate a terror-exporting adversary is war. "It is in our vital interest to make sincere efforts to live in peace with Pakistan "¦ There
is no other way unless we go to war." Lest his message not be clearly
understood, Singh repeated: "Unless we want to go to war with Pakistan,
dialogue is the only way out." This draws on the classic argument of appeasers
that the only alternative to appeasement is provocation or conflict. The simple
truth is that between bending backwards and waging aggression lie a hundred
different options.

Yet, by greeting each major cross-border terror strike in
recent years with complete inaction, Singh has speciously suggested to the
nation that the only alternative to such abysmal pusillanimity is war. After 26/11, for example,
Singh exercised not one of the multiple political, economic and diplomatic
options he had —from recalling the high commissioner from Islamabad and
disbanding the farcical Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism to designating Pakistan's Inter-Services
Intelligence as a terrorist organization and invoking trade sanctions. As a result, India ended up not taking the smallest of small steps even as a token expression of outrage over Pakistan's role.

Four, India cannot emerge as a world power without making peace with Pakistan. "I sincerely believe India cannot realize its development ambition or its ambition of being a great power
if our neighborhood remains disturbed "¦ it is in our vital interest, therefore,
to try again to make peace with Pakistan."
To say that the country cannot emerge as a major power without making peace
with an adversary wedded to waging war by terror is to go against the grain of
world history and to encourage the foe to hold India's progress hostage. Does
Singh wish to egg on Pakistan to have its cake and eat it too — wage unconventional war while enjoying the comfort offered by Indian-initiated conciliation and peace talks?

Next-door China has emerged as a global player by building comprehensive national power, not by
coming to terms with Taiwan, which it has kept under a threat of military invasion. Beijing
also has pursued a consistently assertive approach toward India for long.

Singh does not understand that the irredentist Pakistan is locked in mortal combat with the
status quoist India, seeking its salvation in India's unravelling.Even if India
handed Kashmir Valley on a platter, Pakistan's war by terror would not end.

Five, as India has nothing to hide and indeed "our
conduct is an open book," it can let Pakistan include any issue in the
bilateral agenda. "We are not afraid of discussing any issue of concern
between the two countries. If there are any misgivings, we are willing to
discuss them and remove them." It was such logic that permitted Pakistan to turn its terror target, India, into an accused on Baluchistan.

Singh's attempt to rationalize that blunder, though, threatens
to exacerbate matters. Not "afraid of discussing any issue" extends an invitation to Pakistan
to place on the bilateral agenda any subject it wants, including a matter
internal to India.

Six, if Pakistan merely acknowledges what is
incontrovertible, that is enough for India to change policy course. "This
is the first time that Pakistan has "¦ admitted that their nationals and a terrorist organization based in Pakistan carried out a ghastly terrorist act in India." That prompted the policy change at Sharm-el-Sheikh, Singh divulged.

That it took Pakistan more six months even to submit a
detailed response to India's dossier of evidence, that its response states
upfront that the state-sponsored group involved in the Mumbai attacks — the
Lashkar-e-Taiba — is a "defunct" organization against which no action thus is
possible, that Islamabad has publicly discredited Indian evidence against the No.
1 mastermind, Hafiz Saeed, as "propaganda" and freed him, that the Pakistani
terrorist-training camps along the India border remain operational, and that
Pakistan has rubbished India's demand to hand over 42 fugitives like Dawood
Ibrahim, Tiger Memon, Chota Shakeel and Lakhbir Singh — all that doesn't
matter. What matters is an admission of what no longer is deniable.

Seven, high-level dialogue and "meaningful" dialogue can be optically delinked. Those not paying attention to Singh's word play would have missed the distinction he drew
in his July 29 speech: "We can have a meaningful
dialogue with Pakistan only if they fulfill their commitment, in letter and spirit, not to allow their
territory to be used in any manner for terrorist activities against India."
However, at the level of prime minister, foreign minister and foreign
secretary, India will continue its dialogue with Pakistan on "all outstanding
issues," irrespective of whether Pakistan demonstrates its anti-terror bona fides
or not. Such casuistry is designed to carve space for the misbegotten
approach.

Eight, diplomacy of hope and prayer makes sense. "I hope and pray that the leadership in Pakistan will have the strength and the courage to defeat those who want to destroy, not just peace between India and Pakistan, but the future of South Asia." Wishful
thinking has long hobbled Indian foreign policy. Now, in the glaring absence of
holistic, institutionalized decision-making, prayers are being added to the
wishes.

Yet, even God cannot help those praying for Pakistan to kick its terrorism habit. A state that has employed armed proxies against India virtually from its inception cannot do without them. A de-terrorized Pakistan will become an extinct Pakistan.

The fallacies behind India’s Pakistan policy | Stagecraft and Statecraft
 

parijataka

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2011
Messages
4,916
Likes
3,751
Country flag
Sometimes being too intelligent is a drawback [that was meant for MMS not Chellaney]
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
Sometimes being too intelligent is a drawback [that was meant for MMS not Chellaney]
Intelligent? Intelligent man makes a mistake and rectifies it and does not make the same one again. I doubt is MMS has intelligence to understand this.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
An interesting article that seems to address the malaise.

However, one gets the feeling that Manmohan is being guided by international powers that be to maintain a strategic equilibrium in the region.

An economist is no strategist. They are what the Punjabis say 'Bai Khata' (educated in a sneering way) types or what Bengalis say "Pordua Patha" (Educated Goat) type.

Or is Manmohan being a real sharp cookie who is disarming all to strike when the iron is hot?

If that is so, he has got all fooled, including most Indians too!!
 
Last edited:

rock127

Maulana Rockullah
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
10,569
Likes
25,230
Country flag
MMS is a economist and not a Politician/Strategist.... and even being a economist India has so much corruption/inflation.

India lacks strategist and visionary leaders. India's softie approach is responsible for Pakis jumping so much.

The image of MMS is like "I am sorry, I am a kathputli, mujhe maaf karon bharatwasion"
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top