We have many diplomatic options, but in order for these to be successful, we must first convince the international community that we are serious about punishing Pakistan: Satish Chandra
New Delhi: Satish Chandra, former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan and former Deputy National Security adviser to the Government of India, speaks to The Sunday Guardian regarding the recent crisis between Indian and Pakistan. Excerpts:
Q: In view of the recent escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan, do you think war or military action is a solution to the problem of terrorism that Pakistan exports to India?
A: Pakistan’s export of terrorism to India can be successfully addressed only by a multi-pronged response, inter alia including diplomatic, political, economic, commercial, military elements, etc. The military element would be a necessary, but a comparatively smaller part of this response. Military action should be taken against Pakistan immediately after a terrorist act has taken place. In response to the Pulwama attack, we did the right thing in taking out the Jaish e Mohammed (JeM) training camp at Balakot. How many terrorists were killed—whether 200, 100, or 150—is irrelevant. By this action, we demonstrated that we can even hit deep inside Pakistan in retaliation against a terror attack. Unfortunately, we failed to retaliate appropriately after many earlier terror attacks like 26/11. I believe that after the 26/11 attack, we should have taken out Hafiz Saeed, along with the other ring leaders, through covert action in a very short time span.
Q: So, what diplomatic options does India have to stop Pakistan from exporting terrorism to India?
A: We have many diplomatic options, but in order for these to be successful, we must first convince the international community that we are serious about punishing Pakistan. This cannot happen if we continue to deal with Pakistan in a business-as-usual mode and make all manner of concessions like unilateral accord of MFN (Most Favoured Nation) status to it or withdrawing our objection to duty free export of Pakistani cotton textiles to the European Union, even at the cost of the Indian industry, as done by the previous government.
One of our first moves should be to have an Act of Parliament declaring Pakistan as a terror state and, accordingly, impose curbs on dealings with it in all areas like trade, flights, shipping, travel, and, of course, diplomatic relations. This is to send out a strong message that India is serious about the importance of Pakistani export of terror and proxy war against India. Simultaneously, we should urge other countries to do likewise or at least stop providing it with any assistance, economic or military. We should use our increasing political and economic clout to try and ensure no economic assistance is provided to Pakistan by the international and regional financial institutions and that it is placed on the black list by the Financial Action Task Force for failing to place meaningful curbs on the financing of terrorists. We should ruthlessly expose Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism and its gross abuse of human rights in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, both in our bilateral interactions and at international fora. We must deepen linkages with Afghanistan by making known that we do not recognise the Durand Line. Additionally, we should develop trilateral counter intelligence cooperation with it and Iran as we, along with these countries, are the victims of terror emanating from Pakistan.
Q: Do you think it is also time we walked out of the Indus Water Treaty, since it was concluded under the notion of promoting goodwill and friendship between India and Pakistan and we have seen neither of the two being shown by Pakistan?
A: This treaty is overly generous to Pakistan as under it, the latter has been allocated as much as 80% of the flow of the Indus waters, though we have 40% of the catchment area. Nehru signed the treaty in the hope that it would foster better ties between the two countries. This hope has been belied. Accordingly, we should walk out of the treaty. Though the treaty does not have a specific provision for unilateral abrogation, we can do so under Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties which permits it in the event of a fundamental of change of circumstances under which the treaty was concluded. The fundamental change being Pakistan’s reprehensible behaviour, as demonstrated by its export of terror and complete absence of any display of goodwill, friendship and cooperative spirit on the basis of which the treaty is predicated. It may be noted that even in the operation of the treaty, Pakistan has not shown any cooperative spirit or goodwill and has, over the decades, stalled many Indian projects.
Q: Pakistan has recently proscribed terror organisations, including the Jamaat ud Dawa (JuD). Do you think Pakistan is actually serious about fighting terrorism or is it hogwash?
A: We have seen this move before; they had proscribed these organisations even before, but they still operate and are given protection by the Pakistani army and the ISI. When Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, the LeT mastermind of 26/11, was put in prison, he enjoyed a privileged status, had all sorts of visitors, operated many cell phones and even fathered a child.
Please understand, Pakistan is not a normal state, it is a rogue state, it is a criminal state. If you look at it as a normal, civilised state, I think it is a mistake.
Q: In the case of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, we have seen how Pakistan has violated the Geneva Convention. Do you think that India should drag Pakistan to ICJ?
A: Yes, of course. The 1949 Geneva Convention clearly stipulates that prisoners of war must not be hit, humiliated, terrorised, or forced to make statements. We can legitimately ask for reparations and I believe the Government of India should do so.
Q: Don’t you think that the Indian government should put pressure on the Pakistani government to hand over Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed to India?
A: Yes, it should be done. In fact, all the perpetrators of terrorism in India should be handed over to it.
Q: India has been facing proxy war and terrorism from Pakistan ever since Independence. What do you think is the failure of successive governments that we could not thwart attacks like 26/11, Uri or Pulwama?
A: Successive governments in India have not been able to thwart Pakistan’s use of terrorism against us because they have not been able to appreciate that its internal dynamics place it in an adversarial mode against us, which nothing can alter. Accordingly, our governments have in the main sought to mollify Pakistan with one concession after another, little realising that this has only encouraged Pakistan in its inimical policies towards us. It has led them to believe that we are a weak state incapable of reacting boldly. It is imperative, therefore, that we change our policy towards Pakistan from one of appeasement to one of imposing costs on it till such time that it stops exporting terror to India.