The missing diplomatic statesmanship

Listen to article

Why is diplomatic statesmanship missing in the case of the prevailing Indo-Pak tension? And how are the two countries bogged down for the last several years in the stand-off over occupied Kashmir? Since August 5, 2019 when India revoked article 370 of its constitution and annexed the disputed region, the two sides have touched their lowest level of diplomatic, security, economic and political interaction.

According to AI overview, "Diplomatic statesmanship involves the skillful and strategic management of a state's foreign policy and international relations, utilizing diplomacy and negotiation to achieve its goals while maintaining peaceful relations. It encompasses the art and science of conducting foreign affairs to safeguard national interests, promote cooperation, and address international challenges".

Nevertheless, diplomatic statesmanship is a fundamental requirement to manage and resolve a crisis by unleashing a process of dialogue. In the past, the leadership of India and Pakistan possessed political will and skills to seek a breakthrough for de-escalating tension and normalise their relations. Liaquat-Nehru pact of 1950, Indus-Water Treaty of 1960, Tashkent Declaration of January 1966, Shimla Pact of July 1972, Lahore Declaration of February 1999 and several military and non-military confidence-building measures under Track-1, Track-II and Track-III diplomacy reached during 1980s and 1990s reflected statesmanship on the part of New Delhi and Islamabad to move forward following different phases of cold war.

In the second decade of 2000 and onwards when India took steps to absorb the occupied Kashmir and blamed Pakistan for terrorism, Islamabad was forced to respond accordingly. Hardcore evidence is available on how the Modi regime is trying to destabilise Pakistan by fanning the fire of terrorism in Balochistan and elsewhere. Diplomacy, which should have been an option to end the Indo-Pak standoff following the August 5, 2019 measures, was not utilised. Downgrading of diplomatic staff in each other high commissions; banning the use of airspace; suspending air, road and rail links; and ending bilateral trade reflect lack of diplomatic statesmanship on the part of the two countries. Post-2019 era is the worst in the context of Indo-Pak diplomacy, as statesmanship which had earliest helped defuse crises, was replaced by warmongering, threats and acts of brinkmanship.

The only area in which diplomatic statesmanship relatively worked is the involvement of foreign powers like the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia and others to urge India and Pakistan for a strategic restraint. President Donald Trump has called upon Islamabad and New Delhi to de-escalate tension. Efforts are being made by external powers to prevent another round of hostilities. It is strange that foreign powers remind India and Pakistan to exercise strategic restraint whereas the two nuclear-armed neighbours lack the wisdom to deal with critical issues by diplomatic means.

When the mindset of BJP and the Modi regime is to use 'Pakistan bashing' and 'terrorism' for domestic consumption and create media hype in the wake of any terrorist incident, the application of diplomatic statesmanship is not possible. For Modi, winning elections in Bihar is more important by exploiting the Pahalgham incident than conducting a transparent investigation into how the terrorists could kill 28 tourists in the occupied region where more than half a million Indian troops have been deployed. From any standpoint, it is certain that the Pahalgham incident was a false-flag operation conducted by the Modi regime itself to use it for winning elections in Bihar and strengthening its anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan rhetoric. The absence of critical thinking in Indian civil society and opposition parties to gauge what actually happened and how tourists were killed in a heavily fortified region reflects the lack of statesmanship on their part. Modi regime is not even innovative while blaming Pakistan for acts of terrorism, using the same old tactics.

Independent voices in India, although muted, are pointing their fingers at the Modi regime. There is no dearth of such voices who believe that the Modi government staged drama in Pahalgham to malign Pakistan. Even the relatives of the tourists who were killed in the attack blame the Indian government for lack of security in Pahalgham to the extent that even relief and rescue operation was conducted quite late and the FIR of the incident was launched only within 10 minutes of the attack. BJP has a track record of letting terrorist incidents take place and then blame Pakistan or Kashmiri resistance groups. This time too, immediately after the Pahalgham incident, Indian Muslims and Kashmiris studying in India were subjected to mistreatment, harassment and attacks. Houses of Kashmiris in the Valley were demolished on the suspicion of involvement in the killing. Taking advantage of the Pahalgham attack, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah and the occupied Kashmir governor started taking measures to harass Kashmiris. More than 2,000 Kashmiris have been arrested on charges of Pahalgham terrorist attack and the lives of Muslims in the held region are being made miserable by the occupying Indian military.

Diplomacy serves as the only option for normalising the Indo-Pak relations and resolving the contentious issues between them. Three steps can be helpful in the context.

First, the Indian leadership, led by Narendra Modi, has acted in an irresponsible manner. They have themselves committed a false-flag operation for domestic political gains. In 2019, BJP won the general election by using Pakistan Card; and in 2025 it wants to win the elections in Bihar by taking advantage of the Pahalgham attack. Modi knows that his party's electoral support is waning, evident from the fact that it failed to win a two-thirds majority in the 2024 general election. Yet, as the world's largest democracy, Indian civil society and opposition parties should have acted in a responsible manner instead of creating war hysteria. India should have opted for diplomatic statecraft rather than threatening Pakistan with dire consequences on the Pahalgham incident without providing any credible evidence.

Second, the United States has used its highest diplomatic channels to prevail over India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and defuse the crisis. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio talked to Pakistan's Prime Minister and India's Minister of External Affairs urging them to launch credible investigation into the April 22 terrorist attack and take strong measures against terrorism.

Third, the UN and EU should also launch diplomatic endeavours to defuse the prevailing Indo-Pak tension. Russia, China and Saudi Arabia have already played their role in this regard.

Remember, failure of diplomacy means the outbreak of hostilities.