Article source: The Pioneer

Pakistan has kept the Kashmir question alive… Its Army is sworn to avenge the humiliation of 1971 and the vivisection of India is on the top of its strategic objectives… It is in this context that we should read Modi’s expression of solidarity with the people of Baluchistan and Gilgit-Baltistan… India may be fast coming to the conclusion that it has no further interest in a stable, united Pakistan.

Unless it is a commentary on the company he may be keeping of late, it is more than likely that Congress leader Digvijay Singh’s reference to “Indian-occupied Kashmir” was an unfortunate slip of the tongue that he should have unhesitatingly corrected. The Congress may have its shortcomings but a lack of faith in the territorial integrity of India isn’t one of them. Indeed, as the debates in Parliament clearly showed, on the issue of Jammu & Kashmir being an integral and inseparable part of India, there is no real dispute. Even the mainstream Communist parties that are alas burdened by the undivided CPI’s support for the Pakistan movement in the 1940s no longer parrot the dodgy “right of self-determination” principle.

The consensus over the status of Jammu & Kashmir in the Indian Union does not, however, extend to the vexed issue of dealing with Pakistan. Despite all the talk of a bipartisan foreign policy, the inescapable reality is that there are important differences when it comes to dealing with Islamabad.

The faultlines aren’t new and, more important don’t always correspond with party lines. There are the proverbial hawks in the BJP, Congress and among the followers of Ram Manohar Lohia. And there are the dripping wets in all three camps. The third category are numerically insignificant but punch above their weight, particularly in international circles.

The overall Government position since the post-1972 Pakistan launched its jihad of a “thousand cuts” on India has veered from explicit hostility to convivial but purposeless engagement. Indian policy makers have always tried to maintain a distinction between the “bad” military (and ISI), the “weak” politicians and the “good” people of Pakistan. We have thus celebrated the high points of Pakistani democracy, lamented the inevitable regression to military rule; we have promoted the belief that life would be hunky-dory if more cricket teams, Urdu poets, qawali singers and smart, US-educated individuals with a public profile became frequent cross-border travellers; and the approach that we are ‘estranged brothers’ has always secured the blessings of a minusculity that can understand (or pretend to understand) non-subtitled Urdu. But, when the occasion so demanded, the official position has reversed to cross-border abuse. Indian diplomacy has been adept at pursuing a twin track simultaneously.

The second position, once encapsulated in the disastrous Gujral doctrine of asymmetry has enjoyed the backing of dissident intellectuals, liberal journalists and those with deep connections with international ‘human rights’ agencies. Their position is that ‘elder brother’ India must walk a few extra steps to accommodate Pakistani concerns. This spirit of accommodation extends to proposing schemes such as visa-less travel, joint sovereignty over Jammu & Kashmir and, maybe, even granting PIO cards to Pakistani citizens. In the brief period the Gujral doctrine was operational, India unilaterally wound up its network of ‘assets’ inside Pakistan — a gesture that was gleefully reciprocated by the ISI strengthening its fifth column in India.

There is a third fringe position that believes India should magnanimously hand over the Kashmir Valley to Pakistan in return for peace. This lot has no real faith in the very existence of India and wouldn’t even mind if secessionist movements began flowering in the rest of India.

On the face of it, the three positions are distinct. Yet there is one principle that seems common: The belief that India stands for a united and stable Pakistan. Having facilitated the formation of Bangladesh — a process that began around 1968-69 and culminated with the Pakistani surrender in Dhaka in December 1971 — India suddenly (and inexplicably) became over-magnanimous towards Pakistan. Egged on by her pro-Soviet advisers, Indira Gandhi shied away from demanding the proverbial pound of flesh at the 1972 Simla. Otherwise hard-headed, Indira Gandhi was persuaded that India should not demand a Treaty of Versailles-type victor’s justice.

The magnanimity never worked. Pakistan has kept the Kashmir question alive and internationalised. Its Army is sworn to avenge the humiliation of 1971 and the vivisection of India is on the top of its strategic objectives. There may be ‘good’ politicians who realise that Pakistan should move away from the path of neighbourly confrontation but they are quite easily subdued by the so-called ‘deep State.’ More to the point, the military in Pakistan is also the guardian of a national sentiment that enjoys widespread popular backing. The Pakistan military has made a transition from being a professional Army to being the instrument of an Islamic jihad against India. Today, it reflects many of the ugly facets of the Islamist radicalism that is sweeping across the world.

It is in this context that we should read Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s expression of solidarity with the people of Baluchistan and Gilgit-Baltistan who are waging their own battles with the Pakistani State. Although an expression of solidarity does not really amount to much, the move is highly significant. It constitutes the first tentative step towards reviewing an earlier doctrine. India may be fast coming to the conclusion that it has no further interest in a stable, united Pakistan.

Article also available on http://bit.ly/2beI9Fj

The post MODI’S BALOCH RIGHTS PUSH PARADIGM SHIFT IN STRATEGY appeared first on Education Blog for Students.