Tuesday, April 26, 2011

BACK CHANNEL WITH PAKISTAN ARMY: A GAMBIT WORTH TRYING

By

SUSHANT SAREEN

    The denial by both the Prime Minister's Office in India and by the military spokesman in Pakistan of the story in The Times of an 'unofficial back channel' that had opened with the de facto ruler of Pakistan, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, isn't entirely unexpected. If indeed there was such a back channel then it is best kept under the wraps, not so much because it would make public what was being discussed or even negotiated – the details of the 'official' back channel negotiations during the Musharraf era are still secret even though the main protagonists claim to have nearly reached a deal – but more because it would be premature to admit the existence of such a back-channel until it had become a regular feature instead of a one-off contact. On the other hand, if there was no such back-channel contact, then the denials are perfectly in order and would end needless speculation on the nature of contact established between the Indian and Pakistani establishments.

    Quite aside the fact that the denials would have come as a dampener for those who believe that there is a dire need for putting in place a channel of communication and dialogue between the establishments of the two countries, the very nature of the contact claimed by The Times – 'unofficial' – raises serious doubts over the efficacy of the so-called back-channel. It is of course entirely possible that some sort of contact, albeit 'unofficial' and perhaps even unauthorised, was made. After all, there are enough busybodies on both sides of the Radcliffe line who use their access to top policy making circles on either side to assume the role of self-appointed messengers. While generally the messages these people carry are either ignored or suffered in silence by the powers that be, there have been rare occasions when these messengers have helped in breaking the ice. Whether or not this is true in the current case is not entirely clear.

Even so, there is still a strong case for some sort of contact – in the preliminary stage perhaps only a military-to-military exchange between the NDC in India and NDU in Pakistan – being made with Pakistan's military establishment and exploring this track to see if a more sustained engagement is possible with the real rulers of Pakistan as opposed to the civilian show-boys that India has been so comfortable in dealing with.

The aversion in India to dealing directly with Pakistan's military establishment is entirely understandable but is also unreal given the power dynamics of Pakistani politics. Pakistan is, in a sense, a schizophrenic society. At one level, there is deep distrust and suspicion of the establishment and a tendency to attribute not only the most bizarre conspiracy theories to it but also hold it capable of, if not responsible for, the most horrible crimes. But at another level, there is an innate, almost blind, trust and faith in ability and capacity of the military establishment to protect the country and put things right. Most Pakistanis are quick to follow the lead of the army on issues of national security, especially when it comes to relations with India. As a result, when the army allows it, people gladly reach out to India (the 2004-2008 period bears witness to this) and when the army shuns it, the very same people pull back on all contact with India.

This remarkable ability and agility of the military establishment in Pakistan to manipulate public opinion must to be taken into account by the Indian establishment before it takes any initiative on mending ties with Pakistan. The bottom line is that while India can have as many 'uninterrupted and uninterruptible' dialogues with the civilians in Pakistan as it wants, unless it manages at least a modus Vivendi with the all-powerful Pakistan army, none of these dialogues will lead to anything at all. Without getting the Pakistan army on board, any dialogue with Pakistan will either be a dialogue of the deaf or one with the meek and powerless, who one daresay are unlikely to inherit Pakistan.

There are essentially two ways that India can approach Pakistan. The first is to engage Pakistani politicians and civil society, promote people-to-people exchanges, trade and what have you, in the hope of creating a constituency of peace that will force the hand of the military establishment to normalise relations with India. But quite frankly, for this strategy to work, India will have to wait till the cows come home. An alternative strategy is to continue with the above strategy but simultaneously open a sustained channel of communication and engagement – to start with, an 'official and empowered' back-channel – with Pakistan's military establishment.

Needless to say, given the power structure realities of the establishments of the two countries, the back channel contact will have to be handled with great care. In a democratic country like India, a back channel naturally tends to evoke suspicion. One way to counter this is to set up a multi-track back-channel – between intelligence agencies to discuss issues like terrorism etc., between the militaries where they discuss purely military matters, and a track in which both top civilian and military officials discuss security and doctrinal issues

If this 'composite' (given the diplomatic and political sensitivities of the Indian government, perhaps the word 'comprehensive' is more appropriate) back-channel shows promise, and in the course of discussing professional matters, creates an opening for discussing the strategic dimensions of the bilateral relationship, the two sides could consider bringing it on the front channel. In other words, they could make the transition to a 'strategic dialogue' in which a working group comprising designated civilian and military officials led by either the National Security Advisor or the External Affairs Minister discuss matters of higher state policy and the future trajectory of bilateral relations.

But even if the back-channel contact remains a desultory track, there is still something to be said for continuing to engage an adversary but without the hype and hoopla that normally accompanies any India-Pakistan engagement. If anything, the one thing that the two countries need to avoid is hyping up the expectations of a breakthrough by indulging in high profile jamborees – Mohali comes to mind. Quiet, serious and sustained diplomacy is perhaps the only way forward, even if this takes a long time and denies the politicians the legacy that they so desperately crave to leave behind.

*********************************************************************

    <975 Words>                    25th April, 2011

*********************************************************************

1 Comments:

Blogger Abhishek Goutam said...

From the last 100 years, If Minister and their name would be analyzed, There name will be related to some Hindu god and Goddess name,
and Even Political Party, news channel Anchor even will follow the same Pattern, Om Birla, Om related to Lord shiv Birla is a Businessmen,
Raghuvar Das, related to Lord Ram, Uma Bharti and Yogi Aditya Nath related to Hindu god and dree, Lal Krishna Advani, in Name Hindu god Krishna Is there,
In Indira Gandhi name , Indra related to Hindu god,Sita Nirmala Raman, In Name Hindu god Lord Ram and Mata Sita drama, GVL Narsimbha Rao , Narsimbha ,
Lalu Prasad Yadav, Published Lalu Chalisa similar to Hanuman Chalisa, Tej Pratap Singh wearing God costume Involved in drama,
In Modi Name, Nar+ indra, Poltical party , Shiv Sena and BJP did the drama of Hindu god,

And Many Leader and people who claimed to be Hindu Scholar, Asha Ram Bapu from Gujarat with help of BJP gain Popularity and Later on caught in crime corruption to defame Hindu, Nirmal Baba and Ram Rahim, also same pattern using Hindu name to defame Hindu God, Sree Sree Ravi Shankar and Minister Ravishankar did drama of Lord Shiv, and Ravi Shankar is Telecommunication minister as per Hindu religion, Yoga, Baba Ram Dev, and Bal Krishna open Bussiness Empire, defaming Hindu God doing Bussiness, Baba Ram dev Patan Jali means Patan(Downfall) + Jali(Burn)
Radhe Maa to do drama of Radha related to Lord Krishna?

There is 100 More drama will citizens of country will analyzed and will try so can be reached to the truth ?

Because Indian citizens not Active and do research and blind beleive , India and Indian suffer and get defame all over the world?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14Vn_Fa4dNEMZyp8qNF9C45oSIfuwH09y/view?usp=sharing

9:48 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home