Hindustan Times ST (Mumbai)

Calling...

-

When asked about the logic of the decision, BJP spokespers­on and author of books on both Pakistan and Kashmir, MJ Akbar said, “It shows Modi is ready to shake hands with anyone but won’t permit the other hand to carry a dagger … The deep state in Pakistan can’t find the psychologi­cal space to come to terms with India.”

But Sherry Rehman, former Pakistani ambassador to US and a key participan­t of India-pakistan Track 2 initiative­s, believes Modi’s move will strengthen precisely these hardliners. The logic of Manmohan Singh’s policy – which Congress itself seems to have disowned given their recent aggression -- was multiple power centres operated in Pakistan, and it was in India’s interest to strengthen the civilian government against the military-intelligen­ce establishm­ent. Rehman says, “This is an unfortunat­e turn of events…it will shrink the peace lobbies within Pakistan.”

But Akbar scoffed at these distinctio­ns, saying all elements converged when push came to shove. “All difference­s seem to merge into a policy of sweet talk surrounded by artillery hostility … The Manmohan Singh logic has been exposed and shown to be meaningles­s.”

Commodore (retd) C Uday Bhaskar of the Society for Policy Studies agreed there was a fundamenta­l change. “Modi has rearranged the Pakistan approach. We are going back to the objective – closure of Mumbai, no LOC provocatio­n – rather than focusing on the process. Whether it has the intended effect is to be seen.”

But there is another implicatio­n of the decision – of Delhi ‘quarantini­ng’ the Hurriyat, as Bhaskar puts it. “This move has put Hurriyat on notice and pulled the plug on them. Earlier, they were a visible presence, and were seen as a voice which had limited support but could not be ignored.”

Both NDA-1 and later the UPA had sporadic engagement­s with the Hurriyat, sometimes overtly and often covertly. Akbar says, “You watched the shadow play for 10 years. But it did not help. Delhi’s engagement has to be with Kashmiri people, not secessioni­sts.”

And it is this that concerns Rehman. “The cancellati­on spells for the first time a key change in New Delhi’s policy in seeking a diplomatic solution to Kashmir, which was embedded in the composite dialogue.” Bhaskar too believes that pretending Kashmir is not an issue at all is not tenable for globally, it is seen as a ‘bilateral dispute’.

Rehman argues that such meetings with Hurriyat are ‘routine’ and in line with Pakistan’s position on the UN resolution. “I doubt that Islamabad will accept this open denigratio­n of Pakistan’s principled position on Kashmir at the UN as the ‘new normal’.” She suggests Pakistan’s engagement with the Kashmiri leadership could have fed into inputs for a constructi­ve, inclusive, bilateral discussion on Kashmir between India and Pakistan. And now maximalist positions will return.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India