Mangoes with a message

Despite the fact that India’s overconfident rulers continue to speak the language of war and conflict, there is little or no serious conversation here in Pakistan about how to deal with an increasingly menacing Delhi. The national leadership mostly remains confined to the four-walls of daily politics. They don’t show any evidence of having agitated their minds about this goliath across the border straining the leash of reason, inching towards madness.
This is typical of our response. For years and decades those in power have taken a short-term, incremental view of India. They have either left the complex task of handling it to the forces of militancy or to the probability of the rare chance that things might – just might – improve on their own. Or there has been an over-reliance on ‘external mediation.’
Alongside this, we have been nurturing fake dreams of two-track diplomacy yielding results or people-to-people interaction and cultural interface bringing the two adversaries together for a better tomorrow. Even Wilsonian idealism looks totally realistic against the wooliness of such thoughts. If peace were such a common commodity that a few retired men and civil society activists could pick it up while walking hand-in-hand in a park then by now South Asia would have resembled Europe.
Today we pretty much continue along the same useless lines that have in effect encouraged India to become overbearing to the point of attempting to impose a slow war upon us.
It is not as if there has not been a response from Pakistan to India’s recent beating of the war drums. Elected representatives, some ministers, and the army high command have all spoken harsh words. There are references of everyone ‘standing together’ and ‘rejection of the hegemonic mindset’. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has expressed disappointment because the environment for peace has been vitiated. Our diplomats have exhorted the international community to take notice of Premier Narendra Modi’s boasts of his country’s role in the creation of Bangladesh by supporting, funding and training what was then an insurgency. There has been some debate in the media as well on the subject of Indian moves.
In effect this is sound and fury, which signifies indignation and anger but not policy. It does not underline any concerted effort to create a national perspective on a Delhi that is misreading Pakistan’s situation and whose leaders are creating a bubble of opinion back home that they can browbeat their neighbour and nothing of consequence would happen to them. We need to fill this policy and perception gap. By making use of the situation that has emerged from foul-mouthed Indian ministers, we can lay down some lasting parameters of engagement with India.
The most important rule of engagement has to be equality of response: that nothing that gets done or said by India would remain unresponded to. It is sad to hear the argument (even on a belligerent social media where you get torn apart for merely pointing to the political leadership’s follies but which has remained subdued and calm as India has whipped up a storm of hate) that Pakistan should not ‘walk into the Indian trap’ by talking back at Delhi. An extension of the same pointless pacifism is that we should retain ‘high moral ground’ even as India falls low and behaves like a bully.
Such niceties are best served on a table whose etiquettes are respected by all, but on evenings when a drunk hooligan tries to turn everything upside down promising him – in public – a bloody nose is not a bad strategy. This would certainly work far more effectively than saying ‘kindly don’t do this, please’.
We have not done any plain-talking with Delhi. Or have not done it with enough consistency to create the desired effect. In the past two years India’s actions on the Working Boundary, across the Line of Control and even on the international border have been nothing but a mini war against us; this is how the DG Punjab Rangers had described it then. Other than responding through guns and mortars our policy remained quite friendly in our other interaction with India – almost as if the Indians were attacking not our borders but some distant planet that bore little relevance to our universe. Politics of dharna remained top news and a power-struggle involving some members of the establishment to oust a sitting government the real behind-the-scene activity.
Even before their aggression on the border, signals from the BJP brigade were clear and unambiguous: during elections campaigns led by Modi Pakistan-bashing was a favourite topic. He left nothing to imagination about what his agenda would be towards Islamabad after coming to power. However, except for a few voices pointing to these evil designs, the top leadership in Pakistan remained by and large hopeful that he would mend his ways under the compulsion of ruling a complex country with a complex neighbourhood. Against sound advice Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif went to India to see the man with declared nasty intentions take the seat of power that he was sure to use, in all respects and aspects, against Islamabad. The gesture was lost. Obviously! This was casting pearls before swine.
We haven’t done too well on other fronts too. The most glaring act of omission has been India’s sponsoring of terrorism inside Pakistan. For some strange reason the whole narrative has been built half-heartedly. In private all military and diplomatic officials speak with impressive clarity about the high level of Indian activity inside Pakistan’s territory.
They come up with valuable information on areas of action, money trails, local contacts, conversations, characters – in other words a robust case proving that RAW is at work inside Pakistan. Yet in public other than an occasional reference to a ‘neighbouring country’ trying to destabilise Pakistan hardly any charge-sheet is ever presented. Some call it ‘restraint’. In fact this is stupidity. India plays the victim of terrorism while promoting terrorism in Pakistan. Also this ‘restraint’ does nothing for us when we try to make a case to the international community about Delhi’s actual designs.
Let us all bear in the mind the irreducible bottom-line: states protect their interests; leaders speak for their nations. Even between known friends and allies when breach of trust or clash of interest takes place nothing is held back. Consider Germany’s reaction to US spying on its leaders. Recall the Italian court prosecuting in absentia CIA agents including the station head, for kidnapping terrorism suspects from Milan. Think of the real risk of war and possibility of complete breakdown of diplomatic ties Turkey took when it locked horns with Israel over the killing of its citizens abroad Mavi Marmara in the freedom flotilla episode. Keep in view how China and Japan – two countries that want a peaceful regional environment for steady economic growth – are jostling in a tense environment creating fears of instability across the Asia Pacific and beyond.
There are endless examples of national leadership jealously guarding sovereignty in the remotest corners and responding unequivocally to the faintest signs of its violation. This they do so in words and in deeds. There is nothing seasonal about it. It is not personal choice nor is it a matter of individual inclination. It is non-negotiable.
India needs to be told consistently that its misdemeanour incurs a cost. Modi must know that the larger he expands his chest – he is fond of talking about his 56-inch ‘chaati’ – the wider the target he creates for Pakistan to hit back at. Our signals must state this position clearly. We should seriously consider sending the Indian high commissioner back to Delhi for some rest and reflection with his bosses. We can dispatch a few packs of mangoes with him just to show that we can talk peace whenever Delhi has recovered from its current fit.
The writer is former executive editor of The News and a senior journalist with Geo TV.
Email: syedtalathussain@gmail.com
Twitter: @TalatHussain12