Diplomacy is a subtle art, the delicate subtleties of which are often lost to most regular people. Like the game of chess, it can require those who practice it take what seem in the moment a step or two back in order to take a few more forward. Whether you move at all or not, sound diplomatic strategy demands putting ego aside, be it personal or national. It needs to be dispassionate, unlike the sentiments of the public, and based on cautious foresight as opposed to whims and rush decisions.

Diplomacy is more often than not counter-intuitive. It relies on multiple perspectives and a healthy amount of unpopular thinking, even dissent, to scout opportunities where none seem to exist and to avoid pitfalls that may not be immediately apparent. It involves and builds upon compromise and finding common ground, even when it may seem difficult or uncomfortable – even when it involves a perceived ‘enemy’ so to speak.

Since it may not always produce quick or dramatic results, diplomacy ultimately requires patience, persistence, commitment and understanding. While debate should be welcomed and encouraged, a nation’s diplomacy should never fall prey to internal politicking for petty gains and point-scoring.

Within Pakistan, that has usually not been the case and the people of our nation have suffered worse for it and continue to do so. Like our economic policies, our diplomatic strategies have been used as fodder by leaders to make a case against their opponents and to build political capital. The end result has been decades of inconsistency and policy schizophrenia that have eroded global trust in Pakistan bit by bit.

Our neighbour to the east has traditionally fared better, although it has been blessed by comparatively less difficult circumstances that it takes for granted. Where our own country’s diplomatic efforts have often been reactive and crisis-driven, responding to events rather than proactively shaping them, India’s diplomacy has been more consistent and focused on long-term objectives, regardless of whichever party ruled it. It is one of the main factors that has allowed it to emerge as a major player on the global stage and a partner that all other nations trip over to retain, regardless of its human rights record.

But within India too, a shift in thinking seems to be developing. Taking cue from Narendra Modi’s hardline ideology and inward-facing priorities, Indian diplomacy too appears vulnerable to the same forces that have hindered good strategy in Pakistan. At no time has this been more evident than during Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari’s recent visit to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) moot in Goa last week.

Within Pakistan, attempts were made to paint the visit in controversy even before a decision on it was reached. Piggybacking off certain rumours pertaining to Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK), Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf sought to frame the visit as all but ‘capitulation’. In truth, all stakeholders had decided from the outset that the visit would not in any way compromise Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir or other issues and the only purpose it would serve would be to ensure his participation in the SCO meeting.

Certain voices had attempted to dissuade the foreign minister from the trip, arguing that it would weaken Pakistan’s stance on India’s removal of IIOJK’s autonomy. These same voices had suggested that by not attending the summit in Goa, Islamabad would register a strong protest over IIOJK’s status and the Modi government’s total inflexibility over the issue. Such a move, however, would have been a mistake on several counts and completely ignores the shifting geopolitical realities that are shaping multiple opportunities and risks for all nations of the world.

For starters, as noted in an earlier report published by The Express Tribune ahead of the visit, when Pakistan and India had been admitted as full members of the SCO in 2017, both nations had committed not to undermine the regional forum over bilateral issues that exist between the two. A Foreign Office source in the same report noted as such, saying that there would have been no point in skipping the meeting and sending a wrong message to regional players, particularly China and Russia.

At a time when Pakistan is staring the possibility of default and the threat of terrorism from a resurgent Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan in the face; when China is embroiled in a full-blown trade war with the United States; when even the Taliban-led government of Afghanistan can see the sense in hedging their bets and maintaining positive ties with regional players; boycotting the SCO meeting would have served no purpose other than fulfilling India’s wish of an isolated Pakistan. In Beijing and Moscow, it would have been read as a sign of Islamabad turning its back on regional priorities and possibly even as it picking the side of the West. For that reason alone, the decision to press ahead with Bilawal’s visit was the most prudent one under the circumstances.

Ahead of the SCO meeting, a report in the Indian media that claimed New Delhi had turned down a request by Islamabad for a bilateral meeting added fuel to the controversy that had been building up around the foreign minister’s trip. In truth, no such request had been made and the purpose of the visit was simply to ensure Pakistan’s presence in the SCO summit. The report in question was never endorsed or confirmed by the Indian government either, so any perceived slight on this matter had been unfounded.

What did occur during the visit was uncharacteristic aggressiveness from India’s External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar that further fed a media and public frenzy in the neighbouring country. As the minister welcomed his counterparts from other SCO nations to the meeting, his body language during interaction with Bilawal was seen within India and Pakistan as cold. While that could be excused as a matter of perception, the minister in his opening address invoked the “menace of terrorism… including cross-border terrorism,” in an apparent reference to IIOJK.

Bilawal’s riposte was deft, as he urged SCO member nations to avoid using ‘terrorism’ as a diplomatic instrument without naming India directly. In his speech at the forum, he emphasised a united response to the security threats faced by member countries, reiterated Pakistan’s commitment to peace in the region and highlighted historical losses it has suffered.

The response elicited a spiteful outburst from Jaishankar during a subsequent interaction with newspersons. In a diatribe-laden statement, he referred to the Pakistani foreign minister as a ‘promoter, justifier and spokesperson of a terrorism industry’, appearing more of a ‘political activist’ than his usual measured self, as one Pakistani analyst has pointed out. Bilawal managed a commendable response to a statement that drew criticism from Imran Khan even as the latter rails against the ruling coalition. Reasserting that there would be no talks with India until IIOJK’s status is reversed, Bilawal drew attention to India’s treatment of religious minorities under the Modi government. He explained Jaishankar’s remarks as being spoken out of insecurity that “they feel because of violating the international laws.” The damage, however, appeared done and Jaishankar’s unfair remarks tainted Indian media’s interaction with Bilawal and subsequent framing of his visit.

As mentioned earlier, there should be no debate in Pakistan. Under the circumstances, Bilawal’s visit to attend the SCO meeting in India was absolutely the right move, India’s hostility notwithstanding. It demonstrated Pakistan's commitment to regional cooperation and desire to engage in constructive dialogue, while sending a message that the country is willing to set aside political differences to prioritise regional stability and economic development. The fact that the minister undertook the visit at great cost to the ruling coalition and establishment’s political capital is in itself commendable, even as little else is lately.

For India, the trip represents a missed opportunity and highlights unexpected foreign policy short-sightedness. The last time a Pakistani foreign minister visited the country was over a decade ago, in 2010. The closest visit in terms of profile since – of then prime minister’s advisor Sartaj Aziz – took place as far back as 2015 too. While no breakthrough was planned or expected, and the visit was always going to have a focused agenda centred on the SCO moot, the fact that it occurred at all under the present circumstances is highly significant in itself.

An argument could be made that the Indian government views engagement with the beleaguered government in Pakistan as providing virtually no benefit. Jaishanker has suggested that himself, in some comments. India, meanwhile, despite some mounting criticism over its treatment of minorities, continues to be an indispensible partner for world powers – even those it has regional disputes with.

But there are messages that go beyond government-to-government engagement. Pakistan’s current government may be unpopular and on weak footing. It may not deliver anything tangible to India right now. However, it still represents a nation an estimated 225 million-strong. Even as India dwarfs it in comparison, it ignore its neighbour, the fifth most populous nation in the world, to its own detriment.

A positive interchange at the SCO meeting could have set the stage for productive engagement in the future. For the people of Pakistan, it would has been a small step towards some goodwill. Alas, that opportunity has been squandered for nothing more than potential for limited electoral gain.