Finding a pathfinder in Kasuri

If I were to choose between a dove and a hawk, I would prefer to be a humanist-pragmatist a la Mian Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri whose recently launched book, ‘Neither a hawk nor a dove’ has proved that he can verily be conferred the epithet of a pathfinder at least in the context of his near-success in arriving at the (near) solution for the oft-trumpeted intractable Indo-Pak acrimony.
His revelations have surprised millions of people in the subcontinent over the disclosure that Foreign Office (FO) under Kasuri and some personages in the higher echelons of those times had come close to a (near) solution of burning Pak-India disputes, especially the Kashmir issue.
Indeed this is one of the most startling disclosures in the history of two warring nations whose mutual acrimony would be deemed to be intractable for decades so much so that these ill feelings (for each other) had almost assumed the form of second nature of the policy-makers and establishment on both sides of the divide. And it was on the edifice of this ‘second nature’ that solutions would be formulated and negotiations carried out with the end result being total fiasco and no forward movement (not even an inch), despite the strong desire of millions of Pakistani and Indian masses to live with peace and tolerance for one another.
Here, the leadership on both sides of the fence too has remained carried away by this acrimonious second nature although the basic quality and role of leadership is to play the pathfinder by breaking the impasse and by finding ways leading to solutions.
In this area, if a Foreign Office shows results, it is by all means an accomplishment, particularly in countries like Pakistan where diplomacy has remained at a low ebb for most of the times barring one or few instances like that of facilitating the revival of US-China ties. For most part of the year, our diplomats are picnicking and are on recreation.
My take is that FO under Mian Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri might have remained on its toes throughout his tenure since according to the erstwhile Foreign Minister, things used to be done quite practically on a constant footing with focus on threadbare and thorough discussions described as “point by point, coma by coma” by Kasuri. And it comes as a pleasant surprise to everyone that all these incessant activities were aimed at finding workable solutions, that too for the deadliest of the deadlocks (Kashmir etc) that had plunged the two countries in war hysteria ever since partition (division of undivided India).
It is after a long time that I’ve started reading (and analysing) books of this genre and scale. It is somewhat reminiscent of the good old days when I got an opportunity to go through another sagacious foreign minister’s book. I’m referring to ‘White House Years’ by Henry Kissinger. While no comparison between the two is intended (for the primary reason of my limited intellect), the one written by Mian Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri, is no small an endeavour on the canvas of relations between two states that remained hostage to hard-line standpoints, even violence for decades.
And if Kasuri managed to do some measure of fire-fighting in this hostility-laden ambience, it is a remarkable feat in the realm of diplomacy particularly because nowadays securing peace without invoking the leverage of global powers or militarily strong states is improbable. It is rather one and only such example in the recent history of diplomacy.
I fully agree with FM Kasuri that personalised ties among leaders and diplomats do have a role to play in softening the hardened standpoints. It is just akin to the Informal and Formal Organization or Governance that is taught in high-class administrative science academies of the world. The path-finding undertaken by Kasuri during his tenure with an air of autonomy and independence (of the FM that too under a military ruler) surely exemplifies this Informal, Path-finding Diplomacy (IPD). Try this IPD elsewhere and rid the country of IEDs of different intensities and ranges.
[mianrehman1@gmail.com]