Opinion

India’s only option: talks

India has to talk because it is in its interest. Not talking does not stop terrorism

Aakar Patel January 09, 2016

The writer is the editor and translator of Why I write: Essays by Saadat Hasan Manto, published by Westland in 2014. His book, India, Low Trust Society, will be published by Random House. He is Executive Director of Amnesty International India. The views expressed here are his own aakar.patel@tribune.com.pk

How should Prime Minister Narendra Modi manage his Pakistan policy? Let's look at it without emotion.

Foreign policy usually is the domain of a handful of experts. Neither you nor I really know what the contours are of India's policy with New Zealand, Norway or Nigeria, nor do we care.

This lack of public interest gives those handful of experts and the politicians they report to flexibility and space. If there is a tweak or change needed in the way India deals with such nations, it is easy to bring about.

Sometimes, however, foreign policy comes into the popular domain. It forced itself into the American electoral space through the attacks of September 11. Nations that America had ignored for years needed to be aggressively engaged because of public pressure.

The country went to war because the population demanded retribution. Those politicians who may have otherwise counselled caution (like Hillary Clinton) were unable to resist. The fallout of those actions is still with us, and that is a different matter.

On Pakistan, India’s policy is, at the moment, in the popular domain. Two things have brought it there. The mischief in India by elements of the Pakistani state and the militias they have worked with for three decades is the first. This is episodic and the public interest in this (as represented by the number of television debates) waxes and wanes.
On the face of it, terror is not that big an issue for India. Leaving aside the conflict areas of Kashmir, the northeast and the Naxal belt, total terrorism fatalities in 2015 were 13, in 2014 they were four, in 2013 they were 25 and the year before that one. These numbers include those killed as terrorists. By any measure, terrorism is not a primary concern for Indians as the data show. Five lakh Indian children die each year of malnutrition, to put the numbers in perspective.
But we must accept that because at least some of it is deliberately exported to India, there will always be more anger associated with such events. Now there is a second aspect that has brought terrorism and our Pakistan policy into the public domain. That is the BJP's and particularly the Indian prime minister's insistence that previous governments were soft. A stronger posture (which the BJP will provide) will put an end to India’s problems.

Can it? The events have shown that the answer is no, and this was predictable. India’s options in dealing with Pakistan, or any other nation for that matter, are only three no matter what party rules the country: discussions, arbitration or war.

India can force Pakistan to submit through war, it can ask a third party or court to mediate its dispute or it can talk. There is no fourth option. The BJP convinced itself that not-talking was a kind of policy. It is not. It is merely a show of anger and irritation. It doesn't get India what it wants. Saying the 'ball is in Pakistan's court' after the Pathankot attack doesn’t really address anything.

India needs to engage with Pakistan because it needs something very specific from that country: ensuring that Pakistani nationals do not kill Indian nationals. There are other things it needs; for instance, access to and from Afghanistan and Iran and Central Asia. But these are secondary.

Of the three options available to India, war is out of question because of its mistake at Pokhran. Before 1998, we had a conventional weapons advantage over Pakistan which we squandered. We forced Nawaz Sharif to weaponise Pakistan's nuclear programme, and allowed it to advertise its deterrence at Chagai. Even if India wants to, it can no longer punish Pakistan with a short, sharp raid.

Those who say limited strikes are an option cannot guarantee that there will be no escalation. And it will take a particularly unhinged leader who will gamble with the lives of Indian citizens to secure a little military prestige.

India is against mediation by third parties and so that leaves only one option: to talk. India has to talk even when there are clear violations, as happened in Mumbai and Pathankot. India has to talk because it is in its interest. Not talking does not stop terrorism. Talking to Pakistan has many advantages including lessening the mindless artillery exchanges the two countries engage in all the time, costing civilian lives.

The idea of 'strong posture' was successfully sold by Modi to the Indian media and general population. This is now a liability for him, as he has discovered. If he clearly frames the problem and explains India’s options to the public directly, he will be able to reverse the prevailing opinion that the country has a fourth option when it comes to dealing with Pakistan. He retains immense credibility among Indians. He will have no problem successfully selling the reversal.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 10^th, 2016.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS (14)

Rangoonwala | 8 years ago | Reply @observer: A thousand pardons! There is a long list of invaders. Abject apologies, Took it for granted that you will understand Babar started the Mughal Empire. A dynasty. The others were invaders. They pillaged looted and took it back. Or, simply, did not have the staying power.

observer | 8 years ago | Reply @Rangoonwala: A. If you take a mule, glue a horn on it’s forehead,will it pass as a unicorn? And if you take a Tribal Arab and stick a book in his hand, can you call him civilised? B.It is a typical Indian character fault, to try to pass themselves as something they are not. But the ex-Hindus trying to pass as Arabs are now known as Pakistanis. C.The three defeats at the hands of a nation less than one third it’s size is for the world to see. Yes. The World can plainly see East and West Pakistan as Pakistan and Bangladesh. What is more, both have separate seats in the U.N. too. D.Babar the Mughal knew that, the day he stepped into Bharat. All he needed was a handful of loyal janissaries and he conquered a sub continent. Come to think of it, he could have done it with one hand tied behind his back and blindfolded. Ah. As usual short on facts, long on falsehood. Babar defeated a Biradar Musalman called Ibrahim Lodhi. E.They are peace loving docile, singing, dancing, race of a happy people. Yes. The exact opposite of murderous marauders from the desert.How many of the Rashidun died a natural death? Or for that matter what happened to MbQ? Or closer home the East Pakistanis? Moderator ET- If the original post can go through so can the rebuttal.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

Aiyoji | 8 years ago | Reply @ Motiwala/Rangoonwala/Patel whichever name you write under All I can say is: What an idiot all one of you. Please grow up hatred can get you nowhere. it just shows your upbringbringing.

Last Word | 8 years ago | Reply In fact the author who is an Indian should penned an article on the subject 'Pakistan's only option: talks not terrorism'

Rex Minor | 8 years ago | Reply India’s options in dealing with Pakistan, or any other nation for that matter, are only three no matter what party rules the country: discussions, arbitration or war. The author has by design or neglect ignored the history that India has used all three options before and in the process snatched away more territory from former docile Pakistan, turning the remaining enclave into a Monster per se ready for the next round. Unfortunately, he has not elaborated on the fourth option which is to allow the Kashmiris complete independece. This act should pave the way for a peace treaty with Pakistan and allow Moti Sarkar to fullfill his promise to Indians for providing enough toiletry in the country. Rex Minor

Parvez | 8 years ago | Reply Excellent sensible writing........the thing with talks is that ' talks for talks sake ' makes no sense and in the past that has been proved true. Both must talk keeping in mind that both will have to give something to the other.....otherwise it will be an exercise in ' blah ' once again.

Rangoonwala | 8 years ago | Reply @Aiyoji: Thank you so much for the comparison. And your kind hate filled words. The author, Mr. Patel's eloquence, cannot be captured or duplicated by anyone. He is in a category, made for him. Once again, your kind words prove an age old axiom, Hindustanis have a severe time acknowledging their shortcomings, their failures, their aberrations and their jingoistic attitude.....karma.

Motiwala | 8 years ago | Reply @Aiyoji: You are dead wrong. He has not sunk to your level. But then again, hate is paramount in India. You being a prime example. Of a conquered race, that invented plastic surgery and flew to far off places like Fiji Islands. All 5000 years ago.

Iqbal | 8 years ago | Reply Sir please come to Pakistan, we need advice from intellectuals like you rather than these Indians who keep calling you our agent for the excellent advises you provide.

Intrepid | 8 years ago | Reply Not knowing much about Modi's working style before the elections and after observing him closely over the past 1 1/2 years, it is a surprise to see that Modi is a consummate politician. He is willing to talk to anyone and form alliances with even those he wouldn't approve of otherwise such as PDP or Manjhi in Bihar. But make no mistake that he will control the agenda and empty talk with him will yield no results as can be seen by the fact that Imran Khan only got a smile in return for his request to have an Indo-Pak series.

Rangoonwala | 8 years ago | Reply True. And true. But again true. If you take a mule, glue a horn on it's forehead, will it pass as a unicorn? That's what the Hindustanis have been attempting, for generations now. It is a typical Indian character fault, to try to pass themselves as something they are not. You see it even to this day. Where ever Hindus are found. It is a national trait. Albeit a sad sorry one. But it is there. No denying it. The three defeats at the hands of a nation less than one third it's size is for the world to see. Babar the Mughal knew that, the day he stepped into Bharat. All he needed was a handful of loyal janissaries and he conquered a sub continent. Come to think of it, he could have done it with one hand tied behind his back and blindfolded. Bluster, seething rhetoric, chest thumping, pawing the ground, are not for Bharati Janata. They are peace loving docile, singing, dancing, race of a happy people. Not martial, or with any military traditions. They never were, never will be. May all their Gods and godlike avatars watch over the great Hindu nation.

Indian | 8 years ago | Reply The author should be settled in pakistan and write many anti india columns as they want.M. Aakar patel is living in india,take all facility from Indian Govt, but write in against of india,although pakistan writer not write such harsh language against india as Mr. Patel is writing. But Not problem ,Such type of black sheeps are existed in all times

Mayuresh | 8 years ago | Reply Myth1: Pakistan became nuclear due to Pokhran. It did not. No one detonates in a few months by making last minute production. Israel has never detonated anything but its neighbors know what it has. So let's not make excuses here Myth2: Talks is the only option. No, talks legitimizes and invites more attacks as the actors have figured out they can work with impunity. Stop talking. Only talks should be military to military regarding border management. The civilians in Pakistan are irrelevant. On the sidelines keep working on coalitions in international bodies to keep ratcheting up costs of doing mischief, while it won't yield results today, over next decade when Indian economy strengthens, it will matter

Aiyoji | 8 years ago | Reply The author will also comment on his own article under the pseudonym Rangoonwalaand Motiwalla. His anti Indian bias is clearly apparent in all his articles.

Replying to X