What use this bonhomie?

HPrime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi by his decision while in Kabul to visit Lahore and join Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif in the wedding celebration of his granddaughter on December 25, 2015, painted a masterstroke in personal diplomacy. If that was a genuinely spontaneous development, unplanned and un-designed, it was really a genius move. Incidentally, personal diplomacy is a modern development where the head of state or the head of government conducts diplomatic negotiations.

Personal diplomacy is normally built around certain personal or social occasions. The very fact that both the PMs after their successful meeting on the day cautioned the general public not to expect dramatic changes in India’s Pakistan policy or Pakistan’s India policy, shows they expected hurdles.

Lahore visit – gains and losses
Undoubtedly, the dramatic visit led to the growth of personal bonhomie between the leaders of the two adversarial states. Many have hailed Modi for his bold decision to visit Lahore. All those who have hailed it have a stake in lasting peace that could emerge from the success of such personal diplomacy. But has it contributed to improving India-Pakistan bilateral relations? Obviously not; because hatred generated since Partition cannot be wiped off with one act of personal diplomacy, particularly hatred based on religious differences, and not political ideologies. Even then, gains could be found, if unforeseen factors do not disturb the flow of events.

For India, the desperate issue is to find a solution to Pakistan’s promotion of cross-border terrorism. That is directly related to India’s economic development, achieving peaceful political conditions in the country and the region, and promoting social harmony nationally. But Pakistan has linked terrorism to resolving of dispute over Jammu & Kashmir. Earlier, it had the option of starting conventional war by stealthy means. Today that option is ruled out for Pakistan as well as India, because of possession of nuclear weapons. The possession of nuclear weapons has given rise to terrorism as an instrument of foreign policy for Pakistan, a weak nation, as opposed to India, a rising major power.

Hence, pessimists use the failure of similar earlier efforts in search of peace, to argue nothing good could emerge from a repeat of such efforts. Let me limit to experiences gained since former prime minister A.B.Vajpayee’s efforts to improve relations in 1999. His Lahore Yatra generated hopes for good neighbourly relations. But they were frustrated by General Musharraf’s Kargil misadventure. For Manmohan Singh it was a personal one-point goal since 2004; but it was destroyed by the 26/11 sea-borne Lashker-e-Toiba terrorist attack on Mumbai, with the blessings of the Pakistani Army and its ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence).

Yet, those who call it as a mere stunt are wrong, as the meeting at Lahore has come after earlier brief meetings between the two at Modi’s May 2014 swearing-in, at Kathmandu SAARC meet, the meeting at Ufa in Russia, and the follow-up by National Security Advisers (NSAs) of the two countries in 2015.

Members of the main opposition party, the Congress, have crticised PM’s visit by alleging that there is no consistency in Modi’s Pakistan policy or there is a U-turn in it. Consistency is not necessarily a virtue in foreign policymaking; and leaders change their opinions on issues once they come to occupy a responsible position in governance.

Wasn’t it also the characteristic of UPA led by the Congress under Mrs. Sonia Gandhi-Dr.Manmohan Singh rule? Classic example is; soon after 26/11, Manmohan Singh not only suspended the ongoing Composite Dialogue but informed Pakistan that terror and dialogue cannot go together; but as admitted, albeit indirectly, under American pressure, at Sharm el Sheikh the joint statement issued by him with Pakistani PM, Gilani after NAM summit in July 2009 said: “Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process…” One can give many other examples from democracies globally, but one should suffice. Candidate Richard Nixon and his Republican Party too were critical of Lyndon Johnson’s efforts to end the Vietnam War in 1968, but once in office Nixon used the Vietnam peace negotiations to win a second term!

The Congress hasn’t accused the BJP PM, nothing of the kind so far! On the other hand, PM Modi’s hard line in the beginning in refusing to negotiate with Pakistan when it appears to take instructions from the Huriyat leaders, has permanently succeeded in denying an apparent role to them in the Kashmir dispute.

Attack on Pathankot Airbase
However, focus shifted from PM’s personal diplomacy to cross-border terrorist attacks again. This should have been anticipated since there is a set pattern of terror attacks, though actors keep changing. This time it was by Pakistan-based, ISI-created Masood Azhar-presided, Jaish-e-Mohammad attacking Pathankot Airbase. It is in the similar mode of July 2015 Gurudaspur attack by the same terrorist group that occurred soon after two PMs had met for Shanghai Regional Cooperation meet at Ufa in Russia. The government should have been far more alert since in Ufa PMs had met in a foreign country, while in the latest case, the Indian PM visiting Pakistan had drawn considerable regional and international attention for Pakistani terrorists to strike at India to neutralise any impact on Pakistan’s foreign policy.

Pathankot is more than 500 km inside Punjab from the international border. The Indian government made claims that they had intelligence on a likely attack on the airbase. They claimed to have alerted local population to close shops early by 6 pm. Punjab’s deputy chief minister has said that at least 20 hours before the attack the state government had alerted all relevant authorities on the likely attack. Thus, even a layman with rudimentary knowledge would ask: Why didn’t Indian authorities sanitise and increase security rings around the outer periphery of the airbase? India-released terrorist, Azhar, has ridiculed Indian authorities for not knowing how to handle six terrorists for over 85 hours! This only shows that the Indian security establishment has not learnt any lessons after the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks, even after seven years and spending crores on making India more secure!

In the aftermath of the Pathankot terrorist attack, Indian citizens felt that the Indian leadership was struggling to determine its response to terrorism emanating from Pakistan. Finally, it did demand action on the part of Pakistan against Masood Azhar. PM Sharif presented a semblance of unity within the government in Pakistan and announced that the government condemns the Pathankot attack, and reiterated the country’s commitment to try to end terrorism!

Conclusion
Many are not willing to buy that ‘spontaneity’ was behind PM’s visit to Lahore. The two PMs had met at least thrice before. But PM Modi ought to have made it a summit meeting with adequate preparations, rather than a personal diplomatic visit.

The federal government has to take following urgent steps to retrieve lost gains. It is time to make international terrorism an act of war and take all necessary consequential steps to implement it. Since Masood was handed over to Pakistani promoted terrorists responsible for hijacking the Indian Airlines plane in December 1999, India can now ask for him to be handed back to stand trial in India.

Third, an appropriate enquiry has to be instituted into the Pathankot attack. Unlike in the 26/11 investigation, where focus was only on the police role, politicians and bureaucrats have to be made accountable. Fourth, in the aftermath of the airbase attack, it is a good idea to create a Department of National Security. But that alone is not enough. The Indian Army Chief General Dalbir Singh has called for India “to change its security policy towards Pakistan.” The Americans may appreciate resilience of Indian society, but as a state aspiring for major power status, we will only experience global derision.

Finally, such a policy cannot be arrived at by PM Modi deciding it in consultation with his NSA; or Defence Minister visiting arena of terror and Home Minister reiterating his determination to fight against terrorism – all in isolation. Need is for the revival of the National Security Council taking decisions after deliberations based on policy options. These steps are essential if Modi desires to make India a major power.

---