{"id":250575,"date":"2015-08-31T12:04:53","date_gmt":"2015-08-31T06:34:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tehelka.com\/?p=250575"},"modified":"2015-08-31T12:04:53","modified_gmt":"2015-08-31T06:34:53","slug":"art-of-diplomacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/art-of-diplomacy\/","title":{"rendered":"Art of Diplomacy"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Photo:
Photo: PIB<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>
\nIn his book, Diplomacy,<\/em> Henry Kissinger, the former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State of the United States, described the constant tussle that his country\u2019s presidents grappled with to tide over global affairs. Over the past 100 years, some felt that the US should be the guiding light to woo nations to adopt its values. Others felt it should carry on aggressively to transform them. Some thought the era of balance of power was over; others felt it was intrinsic to international relations.
\nFor seven decades, similar issues were debated in India vis-a-vis her relations with Pakistan. Should India follow \u2018hot pursuit\u2019, as advocated by Ajit Doval, the country\u2019s National Security Advisor (NSA), to wrest back Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and destroy the terrorists\u2019 bases there? Should she amicably resolve the problems? Post-1998, when both neighbours possess nuclear weapons, is it imperative to smoke the peace pipe with other regional powers to maintain a power equilibrium?
\nThe recent impasse between New Delhi and Islamabad over the NSA-level bilateral talks indicated that the debate rages on. There is a diplomatic chaos and confusion on both sides. Neither nation knows whether to talk peace or war, whether to give an inch, to walk the extra mile or stay put. The public stand-off between the two is about who is perceived to have blinked first. In fact, one of breaking- news headlines in an Indian TV news channel was: \u201cWill Pakistan blink first?\u201d
\nAn analysis of the events that led to the cancellation of the talks, and the language used by both sides hinted at the diplomats\u2019 inability to decide what to do and say. Instead of using the hotline between the two capitals, they used the red-hot media to attack each other. Nothing was sacrosanct in this war of the words. Both sides accused each other of being scared to hold the NSA-level talks. It was evident that this was a unique case where both sides blinked at almost the same time.
\nWar on terror <\/strong><\/span>
\nIn the end it boiled down to a few words, or rather two sentences. Pakistan\u2019s NSA, Sartaj Aziz, said that the bilateral agreement signed by the two prime ministers, specified that the overall talks will encompass \u201call outstanding issues\u201d between the two nations. Sushma Swaraj, India\u2019s foreign minister, countered that while this phrase found its place in the \u2018preamble\u2019 of the agreement, the details of the specific talks were specified in the details. As we know, the devil is always in the details.
\nAccording to Aziz, all issues meant exactly that; the talks couldn\u2019t be limited to a few issues. Therefore, New Delhi couldn\u2019t impose any \u2018preconditions\u2019 before the talks. In the Swaraj scheme of things, the specifics were clear. Apart from the preamble, the deal stated that three different discussions would be held between the two countries. The first in the three part series was between the two NSAs, followed by the ones between the respective border forces and military officers.
\nNew Delhi insisted that the NSA-level talks were to discuss only terrorism, and no other contested issues like Kashmir. She explained that Prime Minister Narendra Modi\u2019s thinking was that unless the two nations reduced the violence, either in the form of cross-border terrorism, incursions and firing, there couldn\u2019t be any peace talks. This was implicit in the agreement, and wasn\u2019t a precondition.
\nIslamabad disagreed. Aziz maintained that the spirit of the bilateral deal was to discuss all the contentious issues, including the K-word. This was the heart and soul of the problem as Pakistan\u2019s polity, military and society completely supported the Kashmir people in their bid to decide their fate. At a press conference, the Pakistan NSA said that Kashmir was the most important issue.
\nWar on Kashmir <\/span><\/strong>
\nThe reason why India raised the diplomatic decibel level was due to the K agree word. First, Pakistan insisted that it would include Kashmir in the NSA talks. Second, the Pakistan High Commissioner in New Delhi wished to hold a reception for the Kashmir\u2019s Hurriyat leaders on the evening before Aziz\u2019s arrival. Both, said New Delhi, violated the letter of the bilateral agreement. With its autonomy demand and pro-Pakistan stance, the Hurriyat-Islamabad truck was unacceptable to New Delhi.
\nAziz explained that India was merely flogging a dead horse. Each time the Pakistan officials visited India, they met the Hurriyat leaders. This had gone on for a decade. Why did New Delhi up the ante this time? Moreover, since Kashmir was critical to the bilateral relations, it was necessary for Islamabad to be in touch with all the involved stakeholders, which included Kashmir\u2019s political leaders. New Delhi\u2019s stance, therefore, violated the spirit of the agreement.
\nA few experts, both in India and Pakistan, questioned India\u2019s focus on Hurriyat. The reason: since these leaders were Indian citizens based in India, the government could always clamp down on them and prevent their meeting with the Pakistan High Commissioner. This is exactly what happened when the Hurriyat leaders were arrested at the Delhi airport. So why did New Delhi feel the need to cry wolf over Hurriyat, and put diplomatic pressure on Islamabad to retaliate verbally?
\n
\n
\"Elusive
Elusive talks<\/strong> Pakistani NSA Sartaj Aziz and his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval<\/figcaption><\/figure>
\nLook at the issue from a different perspective. India wished to discuss terrorism. Pakistan wanted to discuss terrorism and Kashmir. But aren\u2019t the two related. Imagine a conversation between Aziz and Doval. The latter talks about cross-border terror unleashed by militants supported by Pakistan\u2019s intelligence and army. Aziz counters that the terror was the work of independent groups, which supported the Kashmir cause and wished to help their brethren across the border.
\nDoval puts his foot down: we cannot discuss Kashmir; it is not included in the agenda. Aziz reminds him: I am talking of terrorism but it is intrinsically related to the Kashmir issue. Doval gets angry: you are violating the letter of the deal. Aziz retaliates: but Kashmir comprises the spirit of the agreement. The point is that there can be no meaningful discussion on terror without Kashmir.
\nWar of dossiers<\/span><\/strong>
\nDays before the scheduled meeting between the two NSAs, the Indian media speculated that Islamabad turned cold because Doval had prepared a stinging and damning dossier against Pakistan\u2019s involvement in terror activities. The evidence became damaging especially after the arrest of the terrorist, Naved, who spilled the Pakistan beans and gave leads about terrorist leaders, who freely operated from across the border. This scared Islamabad.
\nAt his press conference, Aziz waved three dossiers and hinted that New Delhi was scared because he had prepared three dossiers that proved that Research & Analysis Wing (RAW), India\u2019s external intelligence agency, was involved in several acts of violence in Pakistan. He said that he planned to hand them over to his Indian counterpart. He added that if the NSA talks were cancelled, he might get the opportunity to do it a few weeks later if the two happened to meet in New York. In fact, towards the end of the conference, Aziz posed with the dossiers for the photographers.
\nThe posturing incensed Swaraj. At her press conference, held a few hours after Aziz\u2019s, she accused him of breaking protocols. Such dossiers, according to her, were sensitive documents and shouldn\u2019t be waved at a press conference. They should be secretly handed over to the relevant Indian counterpart. She added that such dossiers are not carried across the world, and handed over anywhere and everywhere. There was a certain procedure to do so.
\nIn fact, she publicly taunted Aziz. She said that the Pakistan NSA talked of the evidence against RAW. How would that compare to the proof that New Delhi possessed in the form of a \u2018living\u2019 person. She obviously referred to the recent capture of Naved. A few experts felt that in diplomacy, words and their usage meant everything. And it was Swaraj who overstepped in this case.
\nWar on Dawood<\/span>
\nAs the war of the words between the two neighbours escalated, the media on both sides became the stage to carry on the attacks. Aziz accused that New Delhi waged a diplomatic sting operation against Islamabad through its newspapers and news channels. Swaraj said that this wasn\u2019t true; the journalists were briefed after the events, as they should be in any democratic setup. But Aziz\u2019s accusations seemed true when a Delhi-based newspaper, followed by an English news channel, carried seemingly-sensational disclosures on India\u2019s most-wanted terrorist, Dawood Ibrahim.The newspaper claimed that it had copies of Dawood\u2019s Pakistani passport and his travel details to Dubai. It also had access to documents that showed that the gangster\u2019s wife had also travelled to Dubai, and copies of recent telephone bills in the wife\u2019s name. They collectively proved that Dawood resided in an apartment in Karachi, which was denied by Islamabad. The news channels showed clips of telephonic conversations with Dawood\u2019s wife, who revealed that she did stay with Dawood in Karachi. She added that her husband was asleep in the house at the time of the calls.
\nMany speculated that this was another reason why Aziz felt uncomfortable to come for the NSA-level talks. Doval, had irrefutable proof that Dawood was in Karachi, and was helped by Pakistan\u2019s military and intelligence. Obviously, Aziz felt that confronted with such evidence, he wouldn\u2019t be in a position to deny Dawood\u2019s presence in his country. This would enable New Delhi to take the next step \u2014 lobby with the US and Interpol to seek the terrorist\u2019s extradition.
\nHowever, there are three loopholes in this logic. First, some of the newspaper\u2019s documents were old ones; it claimed to show Dawood\u2019s new look but this was published in the past. Since the early 1990s, when Dawood escaped out of the country after the Bombay blasts, Indian intelligence has revealed phone bills and travel documents to prove that Dawood had several valid Pakistani passports. This evidence was presented several times to Islamabad.
\nSecond, in the case of the news channel\u2019s telephone calls, there was more confusion. The female voices on the two audio clips that it played regularly seemed different. Even their tone was not the same. The first voice in the call made at 12.24 pm on 22 August sounded sleepy. The second voice in the call made shortly after was awake and clear. Her voice sounded elderly compared to the first; the second female even addressed the caller as \u2018beta\u2019 or son in the way elderly people do. Therefore, it was impossible to conclude that both the females were the same person and Dawood\u2019s wife. When one repeatedly heard to the two conversations, it seemed like they were the voices of the maid servants. There were more gaps. The woman, who picked up the first call, responded in \u2018Ji\u2019<\/em> to questions such as whether she was Dawood\u2019s wife and whether she lived in Karachi. For most of us, the \u2018Ji\u2019<\/em> will seem like an \u2018Yes\u2019<\/em> or an acceptance of the fact.
\nHowever, if one converses with a Punjabi, Muslim or many of the North Indians, the response is mainly to acknowledge the conversation. Like one will use \u2018Ji\u2019<\/em> to mean \u2018Ji batayein\u2019<\/em> (Please ask) or \u2018Ji boliye\u2019<\/em> (Please speak). It cannot be assumed to be a \u2018Haan\u2019<\/em> or \u2018<\/em>Yes\u2019. If the two female voices were those of the maids, then it would be more logical to assume that the first female\u2019s \u2018Ji\u2019 <\/em>meant the former, as in please speak or please ask. In fact, even when many of us use the word \u2018Haan\u2019 in our daily talks, it does not always imply a \u2018Yes\u2019 but is meant to carry on the conversation.
\nFinally, time and again, it was proved that what New Delhi considered irrefutable evidence on various issues against Dawood turned out to be inconclusive. This has happened in Indian courts! A recent example was when the Delhi Session Court threw out the prosecution\u2019s charges that three cricketers and bookies, arrested during ipl\u2019s sixth season, were involved in match-fixing. The court concluded that the prosecution could not prove that they were part of an illegal cartel, headed by Dawood, which controlled match-fixing from Pakistan and Dubai.
\nTherefore, Aziz wouldn\u2019t be so bothered about Doval\u2019s evidence against Dawood. Or by the capture of Naved since Islamabad had earlier dealt with the arrest of another terrorist, Ajmal Kasab, who participated in the 26\/11 attacks in Mumbai. The war of the words between the two nations was related to their uncertainty on how to carry the process forward, maintain the balance of power in the region, and reach a diplomatic equilibrium between peace and war.
\neditor@tehelka.com<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Should India turn pacifist or carry on a crusade against Pakistan? It is time to hammer out a consistent foreign policy<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":78,"featured_media":250578,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[56],"tags":[2564,6792,9378,2594,574,297,1141,1427,48,1277,9390,892,9384],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250575"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/users\/78"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=250575"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/250575\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=250575"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=250575"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/tehelka.com\/rest-api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=250575"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}