OPED | Wednesday, October 21, 2009 | Email | Print | 
Lacking in aggression
Rajiv Dogra
Our diplomats are squeamish about striking an aggressive posture at international fora, especially when it comes to Jammu & Kashmir. On the other hand, the Pakistanis are belligerent and make their point effectively. As much was witnessed at the recent UN General Assembly session
It is no one’s assertion that Indian diplomats are the best in the world. That would be naïve; a gross attempt to beat a uniform drum. As is the case with most diplomatic services, ours too is a mixed bag.
It has its laggards; those who get on to the train somehow and thereafter slumber on lazily. There are others, however, who have served under formidable odds in the past and do so now as well. Indeed, many of our diplomats would compare favourably with the best in the world in terms of their dedication sincerity and sheer ability.
That is also broadly the case with the Pakistani Foreign Service. It has its mélange of the excellent, good and indifferent.
But there is one major difference between them and us.
Quite simply, it is this that all Pakistani diplomats seem to have a carte blanche on one issue. The essence of that has remained the same over the years though different Pakistani leaders have termed it variously. Some like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto called it a ‘Thousand year war,’ his daughter shrieked hysterically about a jihad, and more recently Gen Pervez Musharraf was simply disparaging about India.
The Pakistani people, by and large, consider the Indian state as one populated by Hindu Bania; wily but in terms of physical courage largely incapable. If there is still a doubt about how they regard us, then take a look at the meaning of the word Hindu in any Urdu dictionary available in Pakistan. The contempt-filled explanation should provide the proof of this mindset.
It is this stereotype about India, reinforced periodically by the jingoistic leadership, which determines the national attitude of Pakistanis towards India. That in turn translates into a mandate for their diplomats; it pardons their sins as long as they denigrate India in interactions with other countries and at the international fora.
In contrast, our diplomats have to respond with caution. They are constantly fearful of overstepping the line; the Government draws so many red lines that there is very little room for maneuver available with them. After all how can an Indian diplomat go full blast to counter a blistering Pakistani speech after what was conceded in Sharm el-Sheikh?
A statement such as that has a demoralising effect down the line; the entire system begins to buckle under. And a careerist would hardly have the courage to overstep the boundary even if his conscience tells him that he is not doing the right thing by coming up with some limp statement of our national position. Look at, for example, what happened recently at the current session of the UN General Assembly.
Addressing a Special Committee of the UN the Deputy Permanent Representative of Pakistan said, “The decolonisation agenda of the United Nations would be incomplete without resolution of the Jammu & Kashmir ‘issue’. Negation of the right to self-determination breeds discontent, ignites conflicts and threatens peace and security. Unfortunately, South Asia and West Asia have witnessed it directly.” He went on to add, “The International community should support the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination.”
The Pakistani statement was clear, crisp and it contained several messages.
It equated as alike the Palestine and Kashmir ‘issue’, thereby ensuring the Islamic bloc’s empathy and support. It made a plea for self-determination appealing thus to the Western liberal sentiment and seeking its sympathy. And in the context of decolonisation, it was trying to shame India’s claims as a champion of decolonisation when according to the Pakistani statement Kashmir was itself being held as a colony.
In response to all this a junior Indian diplomat said tamely, “Jammu & Kashmir is an integral part of India and participates in the democratic process of India.” He must have gone on to talk ritually of Jammu & Kashmir being a bilateral issue etc by which time most of the delegates would have lost interest. But the damage to India’s position was done in that one sentence itself.
It was a weak and ill-advised formulation.
He may have mentioned it unwittingly but by saying that Jammu & Kashmir participates in the democratic process of India, he is doing immense damage to India’s case.
In taking that position he goes against the resolution adopted by Indian Parliament. According to that, the entire Jammu & Kashmir (inclusive of PoK and the part ceded to China by Pakistan) is an integral part of India. Since that resolution has not been superceded by a subsequent resolution of Parliament, it follows that our national position has not changed.
Yet this junior diplomat contradicted the position spelled out in the resolution. By referring to Jammu & Kashmir in the context of its participation in electoral process, he has unfortunately limited our claim only to that part which participated in the elections. He has by implication left out of India’s territorial claim to the PoK, the Northern Areas and the part ceded by Pakistan to China. Isn’t that amazing? And where does that leave us when we protest to China that it should not build either the hydroelectric dam in PoK or the Karakoram highway through PoK? Would the Government’s protest from New Delhi be taken seriously when its delegate has already conceded that entire territory in a UN General Assembly debate?
Yet, it would be wrong to apportion the blame only on him.
He was merely mouthing the dictated line. In doing so he was also reflecting the confusion that defines our position on the issue. If our representatives are hesitant and unclear about what really constitutes our stand on the Kashmir ‘issue’, it is no wonder that the world at large shakes its head in bewilderment and wonders what really is our stand?
In sharp contrast, however, the aggressive Pakistani diplomat has it all couched in easy to understand terms.
His message is largely this: “Kashmir, under illegal occupation of India, is ours.” Such clarity leaves no one in any doubt. And if the occasion so demands, they spice their vitriol further with terms like human rights abuses, colonialism and right to self-determination.
On the other hand we plod on with our obfuscation, adopting a largely pedantic position and an extremely involved tone. All these combine to convey the impression that we are not convinced of our case ourselves. Moreover, our tone verges on the apologetic; we are sorry that this unpleasantness should be taking place.
The fact is that we feel squeamish in these debates because our leadership keeps changing the national goal posts, the Sharm el-Sheikh episode being the most recent case in point. Other countries, however, regard their sovereign interests as permanent by nature. So they defend every inch of their territory in the debating grounds of the world.
In such battles clarity carries conviction. For instance, our new inspiration Barack Hussein Obama makes his points lucidly and forcefully. It is time we too marshalled our arguments well.
-- The writer is a former Ambassador of India.
Email | Print | Rate:
|