In fact, some stories are interpreted in a wrong way. Especially the story of King Bruce and the Spider. Inspired by repetitive attempts by the spider to weave the web in a cave, Bruce fights with and defeat the English. Point is whether to attempt the same way forever, to achieve one’s goal or change the tactics. Spider, given its limitations of size, nature and intelligence has no other option but to climb and stick the silk at one end of the wall and move to the other end to stick the thread again, to finish one strand of the web. If the spider is bigger in size, would it weave the web and wait for the pray to come and stick to it? Or will it search for the pray and pounce upon? The story of spider is good, if there are no other options but try the same time tested one. Adapting practices without considering its limitations and suitability may not yield results always.
The group that vouched for the ‘Aman’ between India and Pakistan is a bit nervous. Perhaps, for the first time in a long period Pakistan is willing to talk to India, without any prerequisites. Of course, there were some Indian politicians who felt India was getting isolated in the aftermath of surgical strikes, which were seen primarily a ‘reaction’ to the cross border terrorism. It dawned after a while on these peace mongers that it was Pakistan that was isolated. When the chief spokesman of Pakistan on Indian affairs, Sartaj Aziz declared that Pakistan government has created a panel to counter ‘Indian propaganda’ to isolate Pakistan internationally, all those who questioned Pakistani isolation had to eat their words.
The self-denial mode in which this group lives was forced to acknowledge that current government’s way of handling Pakistan is at the least, a shade better than the way earlier government used to; when the SAARC conference scheduled in Islamabad was cancelled when majority members pulled out in support of India.
Of course, if one expects that cross border terrorism cease to exist just after one surgical strike by the Indian Army, it is akin to living in dreams. Pakistan’s well-oiled terror infrastructure established over decades would be rendered jobless and create internal strife, if they are not allowed to strike India across LoC. So, Pakistan is not in a position to respond to the call by India to shut down its terror factories before any talks is practically not an option for them to consider. Jobless across border, they create mayhem internally and civilian establishment knows it fully. At the same time, Pakistan’s government cannot stop talking of Kashmir, even if only to maintain popularity amongst its citizens. In a nutshell, Pakistan is in deep hole it dug since inception.
However, India has moved on discounting the views of Pakistan. Only change being giving befitting replies to the continuing attacks on the border posts and army camps.
Perhaps, Pakistan is really feeling the pressure and hence the decision to participate in the ‘Heart of Asia’ conference. Pakistan offered to have unconditional bilateral talks on the side lines of the conference. India however is non-committal on talking to Pakistan, much to the dismay of the Aman group of peaceniks.
Most vocal representative of the group Mani Shankar Aiyar feels India would be losing advantage as major countries in the world want India to talk to Pakistan. He explains how not talking to Pakistan may serve the purpose of Pakistan in projecting itself as a nation that wants to talk and India being rude in denying the opportunity.
However, the two and half year policy of NDA government with many flip-flops on Pakistan can be summarized into a sort of achievement for India.
For two years, when Modi was touring the world entire Indian opposition had ridiculed him as a globe-trotter at tax payers expense. [I really wonder why nobody cried foul when Pratibha Patil toured the world with kith and kin]. It was only after India executed surgical strikes post attack on army camp at Uri, the fruits of Modi’s visits could be seen in the form of global support India received resulting into isolating Pakistan worldwide.
Mr. Aiyar sees Russia conducting military exercises after Uri attack and Putin’s refusal to use strong words against Pakistan at BRICS summit, as a strain in the ‘time-tested friendship’ with India. Wait! Was India not a non-aligned nation that treats all nations equally with what so ever friendship or enmity? Or India one of satellite nations controlled by the erstwhile communist world leader? Of course, all countries asked India and Pakistan to talk with one another, while they condemned the attack on Uri. If their suggestion on having talks is bound on India, is it not bound on Pak to stop terrorism?
Maybe it is easy to sit an air conditioned room and suggest to talk to the neighbouring country, which has a separate wing to plan and execute terrorist attacks across LoC and IB. If Modi’s strategy of not talking to Pak is not going to succeed, how can the proven method of talking to Pakistan is going to be successful? Was this not what UPA government did for ten long years? Even after the Mumbai attacks, Congress gave in to the demand of talking to Pakistan. Pakistan wanted to discuss Kashmir, while India insisted on talking on terrorism, even during UPA regime. What did it achieve? Nothing. Absolute nothing.
Even as the talks with China could at least ensure relative peace at border and LaC while issues remaining unsolved, Pakistan border and LoC are a constant irritation to India distracting it unnecessarily. In the garb of talks all that happened was provoking Kashmiris to agitate that would lead to loss of many lives.
Perhaps current strategy of international isolation of Pakistan coupled with lack of money to agitators in Kashmir had troubled many. Even Farooq Abdullah now questioned right of India on PoK in much coarse language – “Kashmir tumhara baap ka hai kya”? Well, he may be reminded that Kashmir is not even of his fathers. Whether he considers Kashmir belongs to Pakistanis is much evident in his statement that Pakistan is a legitimate participant on discussions over Kashmir. The irritation in his voice is the result of seven decades of pampering by Congress.
Anyway, what would be discussed with Pakistan? Can anyone from the Aman group including MSA explain the agenda of the meeting? Well, none of them could. It is the business interests of some people that would be affected if cross border trade is affected. As such, trade is going normal.
Pakistani terrorists attacked another army camp in Nagrota. So, what purpose it would serve to hold talks with Pakistan, except another flip flop?
Unlike Mr Aiyar, I see Modi giving ample opportunities to Pakistani establishment for two long years to stop terror attacks so that there can be somewhat meaningful relations with the neighbouring country. He kept to himself when people ridiculed him for being soft on Pakistan contrary to his election speeches that were fiery. After two years, he emerged victorious when the world took note of India’s efforts to normalise relations with Pakistan and the obstinacy of Pakistani establishment in containing home grown terrorist factions.
It is a point to note that only the liaison with the world nations that pushed Pakistan to the brink apart from displaying the military might. Of course, India may finally grant a brief talk with Sartaj Aziz when he will be at Amritsar. But, would there be anything substantial in such a meeting? Considering lives of soldiers being lost at LoC on a regular basis, what the message the government would be sending to the army and to family members of martyred soldiers and to ordinary citizens? Either India talks to Pakistan or doesn’t, it is not going to change anything on the ground. The talks, even if happen would only serve to consume some air time of prime time news.
Maybe, India let Pakistan feel the heat for a while. Meanwhile, Modi has a lot on his hands – settling the dust rose due to Demonetisation.