The Islamabad Security Dialogue — an appraisal

Last week the linkage of the first-ever Islamabad Security Dialogue (ISD) was established with the United States thinking about the Indo-Pakistan region, in my Op-ed, “The Islamabad Security Dialogue: Perspective and Potential”. Before an appraisal of the ISD, let us encapsulate the essence of the prevailing global environment that is likely to impact the regional milieu. Whether the recent bonhomie between India and Pakistan, as evidenced by the positive steps taken by either side, is a spur of the moment re-orientation; a long-awaited outcome of the Track-II and other parleys; result of India-Pakistan’s own security calculus; or a subtle nudging by the Biden administration… the jury is still out. However, one hopes that the reflected positivity is genuine and irreversible.

Serious-minded policy analysts in India have always recommended a détente in Indo-Pakistan relations. The argument — succinctly put across in a 2017 publication, “Dragon on Our Doorstep”, goes like this. India cannot militarily prevail against a China-Pakistan combine; and without normalising relations with Pakistan, India cannot realise its full potential, and concentrate its efforts towards a rising China. And that India has traditionally followed an appeasement policy towards China’s land incursions in Ladakh and elsewhere. And while Pakistan and China have remained focused on building a “military power”, India has been collecting merely “military war-withal”.

These observers also point out that, whereas, the Pakistani military has a “strategic” outlook, not supplemented by its political class, having a “tactical” outlook; the Indian military has a tactical outlook, as opposed to the strategic outlook of its politicians/civilian leaders. And given the strategic importance of the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative (with CPEC as its flagship project) — that has catapulted China under President Xi Jinping to world eminence — Sino-Pakistan ties have morphed into what the US-Israel relationship is. Pakistan is to China what Israel is to America.

The ISD was prominent by China’s absence except Dr Hu Shisheng, an academic, and the agenda was ‘ostensibly’ set by Dr Moeed Yusuf, Pakistan’s national security adviser. An academic by training, Dr Yusuf’s deep involvement with US academia and think tanks, like the US Institute of Peace in Washington (he was an associate vice-president for Asia); and some past iterations on social media, raise some concerns in the nationalistic circles. Phrases like General Bajwa’s “hand of peace in all directions” and “burying the past” — metaphorically at least — are significant strands of our future policy outlook. One hopes that the policy calibration stems from deep introspection and analysis, keeping our ‘selfish national interest’ uppermost. Dr Yusuf may or may not be our Jared Kushner.

Rapprochement on Kashmir, while bold and out of the box; has to vector in the aspirations of the Kashmiri people including the diaspora, and the trichotomy of the India-Pakistan-China relationship, given the border entanglement in the region. The recent statement by China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian encouraging bilateral amity between India and Pakistan notwithstanding, the binary of Indo-Pakistan rapprochement, leaving China out has implications.

Likewise, the option of keeping Kashmir on the back burner while moving forward on ‘other issues’, also is a slippery notion. Kashmir remains a ‘vital/core interest’ for Pakistan, given its emotional, religious, psychological and historic significance. The religious right without due confidence building parleys would rock the PTI boat like no PDM can.

Sometimes intractable and complex issues are resolved by time itself. Having said that, it is not intended to not defreeze the Kashmir issue, and find a solution acceptable to all sides. However, for the general public to be supportive, both the governments (India in particular) shall have to prepare grounds through confidence building measures (CBMs) in a sustained manner over time with all external agents working in harmony especially the deep states and political vigilantes (on the Indian side). And these measures should be started “from and within Kashmir” to have an impact. An immediate measure is the undoing of Article 370. Whether the RSS/Modi-led Hindutva-inspired Indian establishment can spring such a coup, remains to be seen… but seems tough at present. So, raising expectations from the very early and mostly cosmetic CBMs would be naive.

If the western analysts and their faithful local cabal are to be believed, the US is hell-bent upon propping up India as a bulwark against China. The truth is far from this truism. The US wishes notwithstanding, India has steadfastly refused the US bait during the 2020 Ladakh stand-off with China; dithered on military cooperation (with the potential of antagonising China); and avoided military pacts with the US, in an effort to charter a course — as far as possible — closer to its non-alignment credentials. Yes, India has tried to maximise its economic and diplomatic potential from its ‘perceived’ closeness to the US.

There are indicators that India might balance against China without a closer partnership with America. It has avoided the repeat of its reckless ‘forward policy’ that led to the Sino-India war in 1962 over Aksai Chin/Arunachal Pradesh, that the Chinese call ‘’South Tibet”.

Overall, India understands the transactional nature of the Indo-US relationship and the short span of US attention. India, under south wing bureaucracy and Chanakya Kautilya (375-283 BC) statecraft, is too clever and illusive for the mandarins of US State Department, sitting thousands of miles away.

The related argument floated around concerns China’s interest in Pakistan not having peace with India. China has always advised Pakistan to remain peacefully engaged with India concerning “all” issues. It understands the implications of a nuclear war in its backyard and the economic potential of the region, where it can sell its wares after the US/European markets are denied to it. Add to it China’s ability to harvest economic/mineral benefits of Afghanistan and Central Asia if the region is stable. In this game of thrones, the Indian military establishment seems unnecessarily gung-ho and myopic.

The world is effectively in a new cold war between China and the US. China’s reference to its past humiliation by European powers and its present self-confidence and national power potential, foretells new force alignments. By contrast, the US policy prescriptions towards South Asia are less developed and betray a confusion. With the global pivot shifting towards Asia in general and China in particular, more countries (Germany a first case in point) are hedging their bets.

Therefore, South Asia needs to embrace the “trichotomy of India-Pakistan-China” allowing time and sincere efforts to resolve issues, rather than playing proxies for the US, that remains embroiled in intractable problems domestically.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 1^st, 2021.

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