An interview with Ambassador Ashraf Jahangir Qazi
We need to put our house in order
Much skepticism surrounded the Indian foreign secretary’s recent visit. New Delhi didn’t help matters, of course, by downgrading it to just an extension of the usual Saarc outreach. And Islamabad made it clear that nothing less than core issues would do. Sartaj Aziz said so two days ahead of the visit. And the army chief’s no-nonsense posture at the Working Boundary spoke for itself. There were also rumours that Modi chose to come back to talks at Washington’s behest, so nothing intrinsic was going to come out of them.
But much has changed since Modi suddenly, and not so subtlety, took off the mask of appeasement that he donned for his inauguration. His objections to Hurriyet were not grounded in reality – all Indian governments, including BJP, had facilitated such exchange – and the Kashmir election left much egg on his face. In cobbling together the PDP alliance, especially, he has had to take a few steps back and appreciate some hard facts. Pakistan will, after all, have to be part of the final solution. Modi’s obsession with Kashmir’s special stats, too, has no future for the time being. And even Hurriyet will, one way or another, have to be kept on board.
So there might just be a little something to salvage from the dialogue that has only begrudgingly been pushed forward. To understand the latest dynamics, DNA talked exclusively to Ashraf Jahangir Qazi, veteran diplomat with wide-ranging experience, including high commissioner to India.
Question: How do you see the recent ‘ice-melting’ meeting between Pakistani and Indian foreign secretaries?
Ashraf Jahangir Qazi: This is a positive development towards materialising a structured dialogue to help the leaders of both India and Pakistan hammer out a long-term solution to longstanding issues. This meeting may prove to be a reversal of the negative trend between Pakistan and India of holding dialogue for the sake of dialogue.
In the past, so many times both countries have held such negotiations without a positive breakthrough. Unfortunately, these talks have done nothing to help the political leadership resolve major issues. As far as this meeting is concerned, future developments would decide whether the neighbours would benefit from it or not. As for Pakistan, we have always endeavoured to come to a solution through dialogue, but it has yet not worked. Whenever hopes emerged, talks were interrupted due to one reason or the other.
Q: How do you see the border skirmishes at LoC and Working Boundary? Who, in your view, is the instigator?
AJQ: The pattern reflects that firing at the Working Boundary or LoC has always brought death and destruction to the Pakistani side. The Indians start indiscriminate firing, blaming Pakistan for infiltration while Pakistan has blamed India for loss of life and property inside its territory. But no one can confirm who is lying.
I think that the Indians are satisfied with status quo on the LoC and Working Boundary, and they have been lobbying to turn the Line into the permanent border. This is unacceptable for Pakistan, which wants UN and other international monitors to help resolve the dispute.
However, the violations at the LoC and Working Boundary have reduced significantly since 2003, after an agreement between both sides.
The mechanism can further be improved but mutual commitment is needed to cool the temperature and adhere to conflict resolution strategies. Pakistan does not gain from any border dispute, while Indians blame Pakistani provocations for them. Leaderships of both Pakistan and India need to rise above petty difference so peace could replace these skirmishes and bring development for both India and Pakistan.
Q: What, in your assessment, is the core of Modi’s policy in the subcontinent?
AJQ: Since the Indian establishment wants to maintain the status quo over the borders, they are adamant not to change the situation. So is the case with Modi’s government. New Delhi wants the Kashmiri Muslims to accept that they would have to live under Indian rule and there would be no change in borders. The real agenda of the Modi government seems to convince Kashmiri Muslims that India is the only solution to their problems, and even UN cannot help their cause and they would have to live in India.
Though Modi has formed a coalition government with PDP, Mufti Saeed has publicly made it clear that he has a different perception of the situation. In his first post-election public appearance, Mufti Saeed hit Modi hard by offering gratitude to Pakistan and Kashmiri militants for peaceful elections in Indian-held Kashmir. On the other hand, Modi is over-stretched with Hindutva and he refuses to hold talks with Pakistan.
However, Modi looks to be tending to review his policy and he has sent the Indian foreign secretary regarding the upcoming Saarc meeting. During the meeting, despite Indian efforts, Pakistan also discussed mutual issues. In my view, the Saarc summit may provide an opportunity to both Pakistani and Indian prime ministers to meet and discuss possibilities for revival of structured but meaningful dialogue, which may prove to be a way towards resolution of bilateral disputes.
Q: How do you see the relations between Pakistan, China and India — the three nuclear powers in South East Asia region? Keeping in view Indian border disputes with Pakistan and China, do you think India’s refusal to entertain these disputes may destabilise development in the entire region?
AJQ: Though India has border disputes with both China and Pakistan, there is a huge difference in Indian policy towards Beijing and Islamabad. The disagreement of India over Line of Control (LoC) with Pakistan and Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China are of the same nature, but the Indian response is different. The dispute over LAC continues since 1962. It is the longest dispute in history in terms of time and length of border, as the disputed border is spread over 4,000 kilometres, which has no parallel. However, despite the dispute, India has never entered into a border skirmish with China since 1962 — quite different from what happens on the LoC.
So, while there is always loss of life and property on the Pakistani border, there is no loss of life, or damage to property on the Chinese border.
Moreover, despite the long-time border dispute, Indian trade with China has never been affected and now it has crossed $80 billion. Experts say this trade volume will soon cross $100 billion — eight times more than Pak-India trade.
It is positive that despite land disputes, Indian relationship with China is moving forward. Though China is suspicious of the Indian role in expansion of US footprint in the Indian Ocean with an objective to contain China, bilateral trade has not been impacted. Pakistan needs to learn from this love-hate relationship between China and India.
Q: How do you see Indian reaction to counter Chinese efforts to build a Maritime Silk Route in the Indian Ocean? Do you think China would help bring development and prosperity to regional countries?
AJQ: China has a strategic objective in the Indian Ocean and Indians have always been suspicious of the increasing footprint of China. The Indians want to break off the growing Chinese influence in the region, especially in countries where Indians already have wielded influence over the years.
Of course, Modi’s government wants to cease the forward movement of China in countries like Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. But it would be practically impossible for Delhi to contain China as President Xi Jinping offers lucrative aid in technology, infrastructure and trade to under-developed countries of the region.
No doubt the US is backing the Indian rise to counter Chinese ambitions. But these efforts are likely to fail as under-developed regional states like Nepal, Myanmar and Bangladesh would prefer to cooperate with China as compared to India.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, we need to improve our domestic situation to play an effective role in the regional perspective. Peace and stability can guarantee Pakistan forward movement, but with internal turmoil, no government can ensure development and investment. Rather, no one can even implement any policy and reform.
For instance, reports of misuse of money in the recent Senate election area negative omen for any country. The domestic situation needs to be improved. The patriotism of those who used money to purchase votes is questionable. Even military takeovers have not helped us. The complex situation needs political vision. Even another military coup would not help.
Q: What about your association with PTI? Do you think Imran Khan can provide the kind of leadership that the country needs?
AJQ: I think Imran Khan is a sincere politician who is making efforts to provide the people of Pakistan an alternative leadership and vision. I joined Imran Khan hoping to contribute to his efforts and he appointed me his spokesman on foreign affairs. However, after a month or so, I detached myself from PTI due to the intra-party differences, lobbying and some other issues. Though I still have no differences with Imran Khan or the PTI, I am no more an active member of the party.
Despite my detachment, I think there is no better leader than Imran Khan for the people of Pakistan. PTI has done some good in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa as reforms have been introduced in police, health and education.
As a non-political activist, I will keep contributing to Khan as I am apolitical by nature. I think Imran is an honest and committed Pakistani. He is the best option for the people of Pakistan. I wish him and his party well.