Farooq Wani
The recent martyrdom of ten Indian Army soldiers being martyred in separate terror-related incidents in J&K’s Rajouri area on April 20 and May 5 has once again driven home the harsh reality that Pakistan is in no mood to put an end to its proxy war in J&K.
It’s no secret that this sudden spurt of violence in the Poonch-Rajouri Sector purportedly engineered by a group calling itself Peoples Anti-Fascist Front (PAFF) is actually the handiwork of Pakistan based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorist outfit. The timing of these attacks indicates that it could well be an attempt by Pakistan to derail the tourism potential meeting of a G20 group in Srinagar scheduled later this month.
Hence, India’s External Affairs Minister Dr S Jaishankar is justified in referring to his Pakistani counterpart Bilawal Bhutto Zardari as a “promoter, justifier and spokesperson of a terrorism industry” in his media interaction during the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) foreign ministers’ summit in Goa.
India calling out Bhutto-Zardari and Pakistan on a multilateral platform like the SCO was initially not expected as Delhi has consistently observed the norm that bilateral issues need to be addressed and resolved bilaterally. However, when Bilawal brazenly broke this diplomatic convention by raising the Kashmir issue on the side-lines of SCO, the Indian Foreign Minister rightly gave him a curt reply and exposed Bilawal’s pathetic attempt to play the terror victim card.
Former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibbal recently said that, “He (Bhutto-Zardari) had multiple reasons to attend the SCO Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Goa.” The two most important ones were to prevent Islamabad’s further isolation by the international community, and neutralise another attempt by India to indirectly target Pakistan on the terrorism issue.
Statements made by Bhutto-Zardari and Dr Jaishankar offer an interesting contrast to the reader, and offer a choice on which side to support.
An exuberant Bhutto-Zardari indirectly suggested that India is possibly emerging as leader of a group of nations that is “weaponising terrorism for diplomatic point scoring” rather than allowing Pakistan room to join in a global effort to eradicate this menace. This absurd allegation was summarily dismissed by Jaishankar, who pointed out that “Islamabad needs to wake up and smell the coffee”.
On being accused of being too harsh, Jaishankar made it clear that while Zardari-Bhutto was treated “as a foreign minister of an SCO member state… as a promoter, justifier and a spokesperson of a terrorism industry, which is the mainstay of Pakistan, his positions were called out and they were countered including at the SCO meeting itself.”
Jaishankar’s response to Bhutto-Zardari’s suggestion that Islamabad may consider resuming bilateral talks with India’s provided New Delhi restores J&K’s special status, was unambiguous. Negating any rethink on abrogation of Article 370, he made it clear that “(Article) 370 is history” and without naming Pakistan, went on to make it clear that “The sooner people realise it, the better it is.”
Not only this, while on the issue of Kashmir, Jaishankar went on to demand that Pakistan “should answer when they will vacate the illegally occupied territories of Jammu and Kashmir”, and also made clear that “terror and talks cannot go hand-in-hand”.
The body language between the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers was also in focus during the SCO meeting. In Benaulim, Goa, instead of shaking hands, both Jaishankar and Bhutto-Zardari chose to greet each other with a ‘namaste’, which was a clear indication of mutual discomfiture, and while Zardari-Bhutto made no efforts at cordiality, his suave and experienced Indian counterpart rightly maintained an impersonal equation.
India’s long standing position is that there can be no normalcy or bilateral ties till Pakistan stops fuelling terrorism in J&K, and so it’s abundantly clear that New Delhi will not climb down from its principled stand. Moreover, since it’s a cash-strapped Pakistan that will benefit from cordial relations with India, New Delhi is under no pressure to talk with Islamabad as long as it continues playing a double game.
Bhutto-Zardari, on the other hand, chooses to think that he has acquitted himself rather well during his first visit to India as Pakistan’s Foreign Minister. While he’s entitled to his own views, it’s amply clear that by adopting an unnecessarily aggressive approach he’s made a cardinal diplomatic blunder by virtually foreclosing all avenues of engagement with New Delhi.
So, while an Indian television channel rightly commented that Bhutto-Zardari’s “rhetoric and polemics show a continued regression in attitudes towards India rather than an effort to keep doors open,” Dr Jaishankar’s remark that “If I have a guest who is a good guest, I am a good host,” aptly sums up the Pakistani foreign minister’s lack of diplomatic finesse!
The author is Editor Brighter Kashmir, author, TV commentator, political analyst and columnist.
Disclaimer: Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position or policy of Financial Express Online. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.
