HOW INDIA DROPPED THE DIPLOMACY BALL
Mani Shankar Aiyar
Having met, worked with, and worked against Pakistani diplomats for most of my octogenarian life, the only reason I have found to favour Partition is that without it, I would probably not have made it to the Foreign Service! So able were my Pakistani peers.
Pakistan’s dexterity in diplomacy has been much in evidence after the dastardly Pahalgam terrorist attack. If you throw your mind back to the beginning of this year, you will remember a Pakistan that was on the brink of bankruptcy, politically unstable, consumed by internal terrorism and terrorist attacks from Afghanistan—almost an outcaste in the world.
India, on the other hand, was riding high. US President Donald Trump, with whom our Prime Minister had a “great” relationship, had just been sworn in for a second term. The close mutual embrace of India and the US was highlighted when Narendra Modi became the first of the Global South leaders to be invited to the White House.
A trade deal with India was expected to be concluded swiftly with the commercial interests of both sides protected and promoted. Russian oil was not mentioned anywhere. The story of a “Viksit Bharat” marching inexorably towards developed country status by the centenary of our Independence was being bought by the international order.
Pakistan down, but not out
Pakistan, in sharp contrast, was on the brink of being blacklisted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for its egregious involvement with terrorism. The World Bank/IMF were on the edge of punishing Pakistan for its financial profligacy by either denying loans or hedging their financial accommodation with harsh “conditionalities”.
Worst of all, from Pakistan’s perspective, its geographical leverage as the country abutting Afghanistan was fast losing lustre following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. And it was rumoured that as the first phase of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) was coming to an end, the Chinese were breathing down Pakistan’s neck for repayment of their massive debt.
Internally, Pakistan’s democracy had become a farce. Balochistan was in virtual revolt; Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, overrun by Afghan refugees, was slipping into the hands of the Tehrik Taliban-e-Pakistan (TTP); Sindh, as ever, was simmering over losing out to the marauding Urdu-speaking mohajir; leaving Punjab alone faithful to the idea of Pakistan. Pakistani diplomats must have had a hard time projecting anything positive about their country to their foreign counterparts.
Then came the ghastly terrorist attack on Pahalgam, Pakistan’s hand being all too evident in the massacre. That should have been the final nail in the coffin of Pakistani diplomacy. Realising this, Pakistani diplomats at the UN were quick on their feet. As a non-permanent elected member of the UN Security Council (UNSC), Pakistan scrambled to immediately contact all 14 of the fellow Security Council members. China, Pakistan’s “all-weather” friend, must have been among the first to be sounded.
India, Pakistan, and the UNSC
Meanwhile, the capitals of all 14 member-States, permanent and non-permanent, must have been similarly contacted. In a classic case of chor machaye shor (thief creating ruckus), Pakistan astounded everyone with its chutzpah by condemning the Pahalgam outrage.
Indian diplomats must have been almost as quick on their feet as the Pakistanis. To each of the Permanent Representatives (Ambassadors) in New York, and in each of the UNSC member-State capitals, the Indians, hot on the heels of the Pakistanis and in some cases ahead of them, must have made their representations, which could be boiled down to a single statement: Pakistan is the obvious culprit.
A world grown weary of India-Pakistan quarrels over matters they could barely understand (and, in any case, do little about) found to their surprise that Pakistan, the accused, was as keen on a Security Council discussion on Pahalgam as any of the others and as vigorous in unequivocally condemning the outrage. And China, they found, was as strenuous in condemning terrorism as Pakistan.
Thus, all members of the UNSC were on the same page in deploring the deplorable—a rare alignment indeed. And knowing my Pakistani counterparts, I can well see them in my mind’s eye scurrying to write up the condemnation in their best English. The key phrase was the one demanding that all those who “perpetrated, sponsored, financed, armed, or supported” the terrorists must be brought to book and punished.
However, either by oversight or more probably by deliberate neglect, the press statement made no mention of Pakistan as the “perpetrator, sponsor, financier, arms supplier, and supporter” of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam. The smirk on the faces of the Pakistani diplomats must have left their Indian counterparts googly-eyed. Game, set, and match to Islamabad.
And ever since, at every multilateral forum and in all bilateral talks, it is the UNSC formula that has been ceaselessly repeated—condemnation without mentioning who is being condemned.
Pakistani diplomacy reaps dividends
Pakistani diplomacy has been equally quick to reap the dividends of being on the same page as everyone else. The FATF has resiled from including Pakistan in the black list; the World Bank and the IMF have been generous in filling Pakistan’s near-empty coffers, and the US and Russia in arming it; and Trump, delighted that Pakistan wholeheartedly agrees that it is he and he alone who stopped the May war and plans to nominate him for the Nobel, invites Pakistan’s Army chief to a two-hour lunch at the White House, and later, both him and the Pakistani Prime Minister for an official visit.
Also Read | By sending MP delegations worldwide, India internationalised Kashmir issue: Michael Kugelman
China signs up for the second phase of CPEC without demanding its money back, and everyone jests that the Pakistan Army chief is only reiterating the nuclear deterrence doctrine when he talks of wiping out India if we seek to flatten them with our Brahmos missiles.
Meanwhile, India is pushed to the sidelines, helplessly trying to appease an impossible Trump on trade and Russian oil; its claim that the May war ended because of its initiative is derisively brushed off; and it remains unable to confront the Chinese over their Air Force officers sitting in Pakistan control rooms, directing cyber and electronic operations against India. And in Sharm el-Sheikh, during the Gaza peace summit, Pakistan’s Prime Minister was invited by Trump to speak from the podium.
The only ones prepared to buy our Pahalgam story are a genocidal Israel and a terrorist regime in Afghanistan. No one else, not even Bhutan or Mauritius, is ready to openly endorse our story. The Foreign Service, helmed by a man who is himself a retired IFS officer, has touched its nadir.
Mani Shankar Aiyar served 26 years in the Indian Foreign Service, is a four-time MP with over two decades in Parliament, and was a Cabinet Minister from 2004 to 2009.