World is not about Indo-Pak ties

MEMBERS of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) are meeting in Islamabad today to tackle extremely urgent issues, which includes finding ways to rein in the world from the precipice of Armageddon. Western support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the Zionist state’s intensifying military stand-off with Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Iran threatens to explode out of control. Fresh tensions in the South China Sea and the unending war in Ukraine would also inevitably take front row.
Similar intent is on the menu in Kazan in Russia, where an expanded BRICS group is meeting on Oct 22-24. Russia has said it will focus on “promoting the entire range of partnership and cooperation within the framework of the association on three key tracks — politics and security, the economy and finance, and cultural and humanitarian ties”. India and Iran are members of both bodies, shepherded discreetly by China and Russia. There’s an obvious contradiction within the group that threatens to undermine its foundational purpose. Iran is battling the Zionist assault, whereas India has been an anchor of support for Israel.
Serious stuff. And here we just heard from India that its foreign minister, representing Prime Minister Modi in Islamabad, would not talk to Pakistan during the SCO meet. The question is: did anybody suggest that India should consider talking to Pakistan during the fraught international meeting in Islamabad? What could have prompted the comments, that have little to do with the agenda at hand? “Wo baat saarey fasaane mein jiska zikr na tha/ Wo baat unko bahot nagawaar guzri hai” (‘a subject we did not discuss/ Is the source of a strange fuss’ — apologies to Faiz).
It’s bad enough that Modi is skipping a crucial event, given the intense Western interest in the SCO and BRICS agenda for a multipolar world order. But India has sought to thrust itself in the frame with a non-sequitur. Who needed to know about a non-existent bilateral meeting? Indian journalists? Barring exceptions, they are notoriously limited in their interest in foreign affairs, displaying scant engagement with the world unless it concerns India. The king of Tonga will get the headlines if he endorses India’s perpetual quest to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. After that, who cares what else was discussed?
Why is it that it seems out of character with senior reporters on the foreign ministry beat to raise issues engaging the media worldwide? There’s a war in Ukraine, but the only interest for India seems to be cheap Russian oil. And then there’s the curious media claim that Modi stopped the war to pull out stranded Indian students from Ukraine. There’s no dearth of burning issues. Why was India sending lethal ammunition to Israel, for example, when it was being used to kill Palestinians? Indians, and indeed the world, are keen to know the answer. On what grounds has Delhi not signed the letter written by 104 countries from the Global South to condemn Israel declaring the UN secretary general persona non grata?
An archival example of the malaise is worth recalling. Chancellor Helmut Kohl was visiting New Delhi in the 1990s to collect a coveted peace prize. The Cold War had just ended and Germany was reunited. There was some acrimony in Europe about the UK’s delay in joining Germany and France in the Airbus project. Kohl told reporters in New Delhi the project would carry on without Britain. The remarks shook the global markets. It was the Indian colleague’s turn to ask his question at Kohl’s press conference. “Welcome to India, Chancellor, and I hope you are enjoying your stay,” the friend began. “My question is, sir, in the event of a war between India and Pakistan, whose side would you take? Also, do you support us on Kashmir? And finally, now that you have East Germany with you, sir, could you help us improve our Olympic standards?” Kohl consulted with his aide to check if he had heard the question right. The reply was withering: “I think you are mistaking me for Kaiser Wilhelm!”
As for why Modi won’t be visiting Islamabad although he is expected to show up in Kazan, I think it’s Iran that worries him, as he would be watched closely, not least by Israel. Last time Modi hugged Vladimir Putin, he had made an awkward visit to Kiev to balance the gesture. He also would avoid being seen to be talking to Pakistan. The communal doctrine of Hindutva that guides his foreign policy scarcely interested A.B. Vajpayee, although both are from the same ideological school.
Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif had a ‘zero summit’ in Colombo after their nuclear tests, but they met, nevertheless. Vajpayee sulked over Pervez Musharraf’s coup against Sharif. One day, Musharraf declared himself president and put on a sherwani. Vajpayee was the first to greet him. Manmohan Singh and Shaukat Aziz met in Egypt and discussed the horrors inflicted by terrorists in Mumbai. Unusually, they also discussed the violence in Balochistan. Ergo: both sides wouldn’t let terrorism disrupt their quest for better ties.
One is not sure if the Oxford-educated Singh knew much about military philosophy, but Sun Tzu, the military legend from the Eastern Zhou period of 771 to 256 BCE, would have smiled at his meeting with Aziz. Sun Tzu had brilliantly said: “Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.”
Such sagacity wouldn’t appeal to the infantile worldview of Hindutva currently underpinning India’s domestic and foreign policies. Its policy towards the new Bangladesh government, for example, could be more than an accusatory anxiety about minority Hindus. In a world where overworked notions of Jewish-Muslim mistrust were questioned by the Abraham Accords, and alleged Shia-Sunni rivalry is being mocked by Hezbollah-Hamas solidarity, the Hindu-Muslim binary only displays a devious intent, as does the India-Pakistan failure to pick up the phone for an urgent and private conversation.
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.
Published in Dawn, October 15th, 2024