Abdul Basit: 'Pakistan should appoint a special envoy on Jammu and Kashmir'
Geo Tv
March 12,
2019
Q. You were Pakistan’s high commissioner to India at the time of the Uri attack of 2016. How do you see last month’s standoff, between the two adversaries, in comparison to the one in the aftermath of Uri?
A. Unlike Mumbai and Pathankot, both Uri and Pulwama are
a part of Indian-occupied Kashmir. The Uri attack occurred in the run-up to
elections in Uttar Pradesh, the most populous Indian state, in which the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was able to clinch an unprecedented victory. While,
the Pulwama attack happened just two months before the Lok SabHa elections in
India. It remains to be seen how this plays out for the BJP in upcoming
elections.
In 2016, New Delhi responded to Uri with the so-called
surgical strikes, allegedly deep into our side of the Line of Control (LoC),
which we denied. Such low-level military actions are commonplace on both sides
along the LoC. The difference this time is that the BJP government went public
and exaggerated what it achieved after the Balakot strike in Pakistan. India
crossed the red-lines by violating Pakistan's air space, making it absolutely
imperative for the country to react in kind, to re-establish the credibility of
its nuclear deterrence. Hence, Pulwama, because of India's irresponsible
reaction - unworthy of a nuclear power - created a far more serious situation
than Uri. It was the release of the captured Indian pilot by Pakistan that
helped defuse the situation.
Q.
Why, in your opinion, were Pakistan’s repeated calls for reconciliation,
dialogue and its peace gesture to release the captured Indian pilot, rebuffed
by Narendra Modi’s government?
A. As general elections
are fast approaching; Modi cannot afford to be seen as conciliatory toward
Pakistan. Once the elections conclude in India, will we have a better idea of
whether dialogue is resumed between the two countries.
I
do not expect India to engage in any meaningful talks on Jammu and Kashmir no
matter who forms the government in New Delhi. India will continue using the
terrorism mantra to keep Pakistan under pressure. I have often said this, and I
strongly believe that India does not even want the Mumbai attack trial to
conclude. There is a serious lack of cooperation from the Indian side since the
trial started. It wants this irritant to remain there so that it keeps using it
as an alibi to avoid constructive talks on Kashmir.
Q. Soon after the Pulwama attack, and then the Balakot
strikes, very few international powers condemned the Indian aggression and
violation. Why do you think that is?
A.
It is true that the Indian narrative seems to have been gaining more traction
around the world. Except Turkey, no other country in its official statement on
Pulwama mentioned Kashmir. Even the Organisation of Islamic Council (OIC), in
its Abu Dhabi Declaration, conveniently omitted the traditional, anodyne
reference to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
Two variables appear to be
working in India's favour. One, its growing economic clout. Two, international
community's general nonchalance to freedom struggles, and the penchant to paint
all types of violence with the broad brush of terrorism. This warrants serious
introspection. We cannot expect to be effective in countering India
diplomatically through half-hearted approaches and by making only rhetorical
statements. We must have a well-calibrated strategy in place. After all
diplomacy as someone said is all about "accepting the feasible in order to
advance the desirable".
Q.
Since this past week, in keeping with the National Action Plan (NAP), Pakistan
has listed Jamaat ud Dawa (JuD) and its charitable wing as proscribed
organizations. Separately, officials have seized assets of the JuD and
Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). How will these measures be viewed internationally?
A. As of now, we have two
immediate challenges to face. First, in the UN Security Council, India is
actively pursuing China to not put "technical hold" on designating
Masood Azhar as a "global terrorist". The outcome of which will only
be clear on March 12. Second, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is
scheduled to review Pakistan's compliance with international terror financing
and money laundering regimes in May. Through it, we will find out whether the
international community is convinced of the credibility and effectiveness of
our measures.
India wants Pakistan to be
put on the Black List, or at least not removed from the Grey List. We must
reach out to all FATF members. Hopefully, we can count on our friends like
China, Turkey, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Indonesia to resolutely stand by us.
Q. What can the two neighbours do now to prevent any such
future nuclear brinkmanship?
A. There is always a way
forward, but it takes two to tango. India must respond positively to Pakistan's
1998 proposal for a Strategic Restraint Regime. The proposal seeks three
inter-locking objectives, namely, nuclear stability, conventional balance and
the resolution of Jammu and Kashmir. However, I am not very optimistic the way
things are in India. You cannot expect sanity to come from extremism and
hubris.
Q. Lastly, how can Pakistan bring the focus back to the
brutalities in Indian-occupied Kashmir?
A. We need to inject
energy and purpose into our lackadaisical Kashmir diplomacy. To begin with,
Pakistan needs to appoint a Special Envoy for Jammu and Kashmir with a mandate
to coordinate all diplomatic activities on Kashmir. This one step, I assure
you, can make a huge difference on the external front, provided we appoint a
person whose credentials are well established and beyond reproach.
Comments
Post a Comment