It is the telling silence of nations in the immediate east of Pakistan that has given Islamabad a resounding wake-up call to go beyond change in nomenclatures

International diplomacy and issues are expressed in semantics and subtle wordsmithing that require to be carefully deconstructed and deciphered for its real intent. In any dispute, contrarian positions are publically posited by competing parties and a virtual race for endorsement of either of the competing narratives ensues. The cue to reading the reaction to conflicting arguments lies in the deployment of certain keywords, expressions and tonality that is expressed by the receiving audience at the end of the conflicting pitches.

In the tense and hyphenated domain of India-Pakistan realm, the ‘K’ (Kashmir) word dominates above all. Herein, the operative library of preferred words from New Delhi’s perspective has been “bilateral”, “cross-border terrorism” and “internal affairs” among others; whereas, from Islamabad’s perspective, it has been “international mediation”, “plebiscite” and “UN resolution.” Even the language syntax, emotions and phraseology in the war-of-words between India and Pakistan is decidedly more escalatory, shriller and beseeching when it emanates from Islamabad.

Historically, irrespective of the merits in the topical India-Pakistan arguments, the audience would typically respond in favour or against either of the countries — on the basis of a certain predisposed equation and preference. It’s only some unrelated country with negligible stakes which would occasionally partake an unbiased assessment of the arguments involved, as indeed, would some of the multilateral formations. Therefore, the inevitable play of certain “blocs” or realpolitik considerations resulted in a pre-decided tilt at least till now.

Post the recent revocation of the “special status” for Jammu and Kashmir as well as the planned bifurcation of the State into two “Union Territories”, diplomats from both sides of the Line of Control have been expectedly scurrying across the global capitals to posit their respective sovereign positions. The lines and angularities of the arguments are standard with Pakistan aggressively goading other nations into either condemning the Indian action or seeking mediation. As usual, India has been posturing “bilateral” note, defending its actions as rote “internal matter”, whilst cuttingly alluding to the recurring concerns of “cross-border terrorism.” Barring this time, the Pakistanis are caught by surprise by the unfolding script not toeing the usual “divide” that accompanied Islamabad’s earlier pitches on Kashmir. Global reaction has not only tilted heavily in India’s favour or at best elicited bored disinterest and homilies but has hit a new low of “telling silence” or “zero reaction” from the supposed allies of Pakistan.

Undeniably, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan had inherited a country with its economy in shambles and a discredited sovereign perception as the “terror nursery” of the globe. With traditional allies like the US openly castigating Islamabad for its duplicitous role in the terror industry and multilateral bodies like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) breathing down its neck to further “blacklist” it — Imran Khan had gone ahead with ostensible “course-correction”, austerity-drive and personal charm-offensives to posture “Naya Pakistan” onto the global stage.

Khan made quick dashes to China and to the Gulf sheikhdoms and made sure that he personally drove the visiting Princes from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE when they visited his country. As money started trickling in and the noose of corruption tightened against his political opponents, Khan felt even more confident of his own position, success and that of his country. He postured reconciliatory accent (whilst still undertaking a Pulwama in parallel), yet his eye on the global map with a changed “Naya Pakistan” was clearly work-in-progress.

Serendipitously, Washington’s U-turn in Afghanistan offered yet another opportunity to Islamabad to thaw its freeze with the US and leverage its imminent pivot in Kabul towards its strategic advantage. Suddenly, the move by the Indian Government to revoke Article 370 and 35A in Jammu and Kashmir put the worth of “Naya Pakistan” and its global efficacy to litmus test. Islamabad went into yet another round of competitive pitching vis-à-vis India, brandishing the “K” card.

Khan has been running from pillar-to-post and personally calling up the leaderships in the Gulf sheikhdoms, Iran, Indonesia and various other supposed “allies”. He also sought an emergency meeting at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). But so far, it has come a cropper. The US, the UN and the EU have instead suggested “maximum restraint” and embarrassingly so from Pakistan’s perspective, “bilateral resolution and engagement”.

Reportage in Pakistan is full of actions taken by the Government to escalate the issue with various Governments but there is a virtual silence, which is attributable directly to the leaderships in pitched countries. Even nations like the UAE have invoked the “bilateral” chorus. Amid Pakistani calls for bans, suspension of diplomatic relations and “solidarity moves” for ostensible concerns in Kashmir, Saudi Arabia announced mega deals with a major Indian conglomerate.

Barring China, which has come out with its loaded statements in favour of its “all-weather friend” Pakistan, it continues grappling with its own imploding destiny in Hong Kong. Basically, Pakistan remains stunningly isolated and ignored.

Sabre-rattling by the Pakistani deep state (military) and its local political classes notwithstanding, the reality of a persisting trust deficit and perceptions of sovereign incorrigibility still abound the Pakistani narrative. The transactional equation with China is also premised on the strategic investments of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which necessitates that Islamabad remains reciprocally mum on the fate of Uighur repression in China.

The recent round of tensions between India and Pakistan has driven home the importance of political morality, economic relevance and stability as opposed to regressive pandering to co-religiosity in forums like OIC or charm offensives. These are clearly not bankable levers in times like this.

While China will continue to indulge Pakistan for its own strategic rationale, the Pakistani “model” is an inherent anathema to Chinese sensibilities. Even the US may pander to some Pakistani whims as it will seek to extricate itself from Afghanistan.  However, it has been the telling silence of all the countries in the immediate east of Pakistan that has given a resounding wake-up call to Islamabad to go beyond change in nomenclature and its insincere concerns in Kashmir.

(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)