For Modiplomacy to succeed, ....... Power & Politics /The Sunday Standard/ January 03, 2016

For Modiplomacy to Succeed, PM Should Either Include Pak Army in Talks or Neutralise  It

Trust without verification invariably proves fatal. Prime Minister Narendra Modi must be ruing the day he was persuaded to trust Pakistan’s political establishment led by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. To give innovative diplomacy a chance, Modi forgot the historical truth about the Indo-Pak peace dialogue. It keeps alternating between farce and tragedy in the space between one terror attack and another. In a blood-stained New Year message, Pak-supported terrorists massacred the budding friendship between the two leaders by attacking the airforce base station in Pathankot.  Coming barely a week after Modi’s bold landing in Lahore for Sharif’s birthday celebrations, the fidayeen attacks reinforced the harsh reality that the Pakistani political runway is obstructed by India-baiters whose only objective is to let its mammoth neighbour bleed. These saboteurs project the four meetings between Modi and Sharif in the past 20 months as a mere exchange of social pleasantries. They ignore the intent and content of External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s discussions with Sharif during her Pakistan visit in December 2015. The movers and shakers of Pakistan’s parallel establishment have treated the decisions taken at a meeting between the National Security Advisers (NSAs) of the two countries in Bangkok as needless notebooks meant for waste paper basket. Above all, the images of Sharif and Modi holding hands in Lahore or whispering in each other’s ears in Paris are acts of betrayal of their idea of fundamentalist Islam. They have returned every handshake with hand grenades and gunfire, killing Indian security personnel and civilians. For the blood-thirsty jihadists, the survival of a fundamentalist Pakistan depends on promoting terror and not adopting good economics. Terror is their most lucrative business. It gets them weapons and women, money and mosques, and the authority to dictate terms to a democratically elected government. Cocking a snook at the growing bonhomie between the two PMs, the terrorists have slain over 50 Indian defence personnel in the past year.

It would be facetious to expect any element of surprise over the weekend’s terror attacks. For Modi, such an ugly response to his gestures couldn’t have come at a worse time. He has already defied his core constituency, which wants war and not words with Pakistan. He has sent clear signals to his ministers and diplomats that they should walk the extra mile to give dialogue a chance; like Atal Bihari Vajpayee had done even after being betrayed umpteen times. From all indications, it is clear that both domestic and external interlocutors had assured Modi that Sharif was capable of ensuring the successful continuation of a comprehensive Indo-Pak dialogue. Successive Indian Prime Ministers have been given similar assurances by the powerful US, which treats Pakistan as its crony colony and its ambivalent army as ally against any selective terrorism aimed at America. No Pakistani leader, however, could deliver on any of the promises made to India. In 2004, the duplicitous Pervez Musharraf gave a written assurance to Vajpayee that terrorists wouldn’t be allowed to use any part of the Pakistan-controlled territory to operate against India. It was a mockery since more attacks, including the devastating Mumbai strike, continued to happen. According to diplomatic sources, Pakistan NSA Sartaj Aziz, a confidant of Pak Army chief General Raheel Sharif, gave his word to the Indian NSA Ajit Doval in Bangkok that the Army will tame all home-based terrorists and cripple their capacity to damage India. The assurance was repeated during Swaraj’s Islamabad visit. It was in this atmosphere of accord that Modi decided to land in Lahore and strengthen Sharif’s capability to rally the Pak Army behind him.

Peril in Pathankot has not only diminished Modi’s resolve to dismantle the tangled skein of Indo-Pak relations, but has also proved again that Sharif is not the appropriate person as he doesn’t enjoy full authority and command over the armed forces. He doesn’t have a comfortable political majority in Parliament. He is perceived by the people as a symbol of the aristocracy, the elite and big business interests. Since he comes from Punjab, which is emotionally closer to India than the rest of Pakistan, Sharif doesn’t inspire much support in other regions, except among the rich and mighty in Lahore. During his earlier stint in power, he was effortlessly ousted by a military coup because he and his party were considered ineffective and slaves to the US. During the past four years, he hasn’t been able to contain the ever-growing influence of fundamentalist forces in Pakistan. The number of terror attacks has risen substantially during his tenure because he doesn’t have the army’s full support. Those opposed to dialogue argue that Sharif, who has failed to control jihadis in his own country, cannot be trusted to dismantle the terror establishment whose aim is to damage India.

For Modi the dove, however, hardly any escape routes are left to fly away to peaceful skies. He has too much at stake and can’t afford the rhythm of dialogue he has initiated to break at this stage. Peaceniks and ill-liberals will clamour that any interruption in talks will only strengthen the radicals. Modi will also be under pressure to disclose the content and contours of the dialogue, which he and his team have been holding with Pak leaders since the past few months. Since Modi practices unconventional politics, he will have to connect with the real power holders in Pakistan to take his mission forward. So far, all previous Indian leaders have stuck to conformist mediation by involving just diplomats and civil servants in engaging Pakistan. Perhaps, the time has come for the PM to co-opt Pakistan’s defence establishment, too, in open speak. India cannot ignore the reality that it is the Pakistan army, which dictates decisions in that country. If Modiplomacy has to succeed, Modi should either include the Pak Army in the formal dialogue process or neutralise it if it refuses to fall in line. After all, it is the Indian Army, which has borne the brunt of Pak-sponsored terror, along with innocent citizens. The presence of uniformed officers of both countries, sitting along with political leaders from both sides, will provide more than a photo-op and yield better results. So far, only meetings between the two unequals, Modi and Sharif, have taken place. While Modi represents the mandate of the Indian people and the might of the government, Sharif is merely the face, and not the force, of the government in Pakistan. Modi must verify Sharif’s credibility and clarity before reposing trust in him again.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com Follow me  on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Instal A Genuine Modi Government... Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard/ December 27, 2015

Instal a Genuine Modi Government to Restore Your Image as Vikas Purush

If wishes were horses, the best wishes of millions of Indians, including mine, would be with you to seize the reins of a happy and productive 2016. You surprised the world by signing off 2015 with a unique Modi stamp, landing in Lahore to greet your newly acquired “friend” Nawaz Sharif on his birthday. Your creative diplomacy and perseverance have paid dividends abroad. In 2015, you also broke many records in setting the agenda for India’s social, economic and political discourse. You launched many new schemes and shook the bureaucracy out of its deep slumber. You may be disappointed with the limited success your government has achieved in legislative business, but disruptive politics is now an unfortunately unavoidable ingredient of the Indian democratic narrative. You will have to deal with an even more vicious and confrontationist Opposition in 2016.

Your government and politics will come under greater public scrutiny than in 2015. Every gesture and move of yours will be questioned both inside and outside Parliament. Emboldened by their success in Bihar, Delhi, and successful verdicts in several byelections and local body polls, the non-BJP opposition will target you personally as the father of failure. They will try to erase your image of a Vikas and Loh Purush. After all, in the demolition of the Modi icon lies the hope for the revival and survival of leaders without a message, mantra or mission. Even some of your colleagues, including a few trusted ones, are waiting in the wings for you to slip so that they can strike and bargain for more powers and crumbs. Despite political reverses in a few regions, your popularity is intact. Your admirers swear by your ability to deliver. So, you will be judged in 2016 by your ability to deliver on the initiatives you had announced in the past 20 months. For a new government, its first year is considered the year of understanding the system and setting new goals. The second is of delivery. The third is for consolidation, the fourth for expansion and the fifth for setting new targets to be included in the election manifesto. For your government, 2016 is a combination of the second and third year, and hence will be more demanding. Since the Opposition is itching to remind you of your myriad poll promises, you need to draw a feasible and credible road map for delivery on the following fronts:

• Black money: There is no doubt that the generators of black money fear the government is almost stealthily invisible in its investigations. The finance ministry, however, has met with limited success in bringing back black money. Even at home, little of the parallel economy has been revealed. Your detractors do not leave any opportunity to remind voters about the failure of your strong pitch against black money. Your stance against black money and corruption was one of the key factors which moved young voters in your favour. Most of them, however, are aghast with the meagre amount unearthed by agencies. The Congress is sure to exploit in every Assembly election this paltry action as one of the most visible signs of electoral betrayal. Your fight against corruption should assume a decisive turn in 2016.

• Make in India: Your call to foreign investors to open shop in India and make goods to be exported was one of the most innovative ideas to spur the manufacturing sector. According to statistics, FDI has shown a spectacular rise in 2015. But the MNCs are hesitating to invest in core manufacturing sectors. Barring e-commerce and services ventures, they have shown little interest in setting up new units, because their focus is on quick profits. You have magnanimously offered a flexible and attractive tax regime, but they are only interested in taking out more money from the country than they bring in. From 2009 onwards, foreign companies have repatriated more money out of India in the name of brand royalty fees, technology transfers, research and development support, expert advice etc. than they have invested in their Indian subsidiaries. Your colleagues in other ministries must ensure that all MOUs signed during your visits abroad are converted into production licences. Otherwise, your foes will use the same statistics to run your government down.

• Swachh Bharat: Never before has any national leader put so much emphasis on keeping India clean as you. You realised it is urgently needed to promote tourism and create a healthy nation. You rightly thought that a variety of iconic personalities and institutions would charge the mindset of ordinary citizens when used as ambassadors for your mission. The time has come to review their contributions to check whether all of them actually took part in spreading the message or just used the idea as an instrument of self-promotion. Most of them have vanished after their photo-ops. Your detractors are likely to use its less-than-expected success to mock what they call your adventurist ideas.

• Construction of toilets: If the numbers, which are being touted by various agencies, are any indication, your directive to construct toilets in villages has been a resounding success. But a reality check is required post-haste. Government agencies have spent the allotted funds to complete their targets in many districts. But a large number of toilets are either non-functional or have disappeared, since no accountability was fixed for maintenance. Already, visuals of newly constructed but filthy toilets are being shown on TV channels. Since they are facilities, which influence the voter directly, you will need the power of your authority to make this scheme work.

• Housing for all: Providing affordable housing was one of your initial promises. As you are aware, the real estate sector is going through its worst-ever crisis since Independence, with demand having nosedived to abysmal depths. Various government agencies have not taken enough initiatives to construct new houses under Centrally sponsored schemes. Over 700,000 residential units constructed by private companies remain unsold, since the ability of buyers to pay has been considerably eroded.

There are many such areas, which need your personal attention. As you know, politics is about perception. Success has many fathers, but failures have none. Those who voted for you would like you to lead from the front in 2016. You were given the mandate to rule with a mind of your own. So far, you have been depending on a team, which are assets for themselves than for the nation. Time has come for Prime Minister Narendra Modi to instal a genuine Modi government, which would complete all work under construction in an effective manner.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Modi, Instead of Extending Olive Branch, ..... Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ July 12, 2015

Modi, Instead of Extending Olive Branch, Should Isolate Pakistan Globally to Resolve Stand-off

PM Narendra Modi with Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif

History is a saga of surprises. The plain-speaking PM Narendra Modi has never been referred to as a diplomat. His meeting, however, with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in Ufa, Russia, brought out a hitherto hidden aspect of his personality. Contrary to his usually loquacious self during confabulations with foreign leaders, he hardly spoke a word before or after his awkward assignation with his counterpart. Modi didn’t move an inch from his designated place to welcome Sharif, who had to walk over 50 steps forward for a handshake. At the end of an elastically hour-long rehearsed dialogue, Modi revealed himself as a polished diplomat who could tell someone to go to hell in such a manner that the person would actually look forward to the trip. Only time will tell if Sharif has walked into a trap laid by Modi or not, but it is evident that the Indian PM has changed the terms of engagement with Pakistan.

South Block mandarins wouldn’t relish the concept of a former Indian police officer and a Pakistani economist discussing the contours of the Indo-Pak relationship. The envoy class has so far been living under the illusion that international relations and dialogue was their monopoly. As has been proved time and again, only generals settle disputes while diplomats are kept busy doing policy pantomimes. By proposing the resumption of a dialogue between two leaders who are non-diplomats by training and tutelage, Modi has delinked terrorism from diplomacy. It is perhaps for the first time that the National Security Advisors of India and Pakistan will set the tone and tenor of discussions between both countries. The only previous example was when Brajesh Mishra, the NSA to PM Vajpayee, held discussions with his Pakistani counterpart Tariq Aziz just before the SAARC summit in 2003. But then, Mishra was also a former diplomat and the principal secretary to the PM. Modi had opposed a soft approach towards Pakistan during his 2014 election campaign when he held the UPA government responsible for the ‘Mar Jawan, Mar Kisan’ (Die Soldier, Die Farmer) atmosphere prevailing in the country. But in Ufa, he opted for the Vajpayee line, which espoused mature magnanimity by giving peace yet another chance.

It is still unclear why and how did Modi decide to resume direct contact with Pakistan. A few days before the Ufa meeting, Javed Ashraf Qazi, a senior Pakistan minister and former ISI chief, warned India that Pakistan will not hesitate to nuke India if needed. The Pakistan army also killed two Indian soldiers along the LoC. The NDA and UPA had previously called off talks after the rising number of border violations, and the Pakistan ambassador to India inviting J&K separatists for discussions incensed New Delhi. There are no indications that Modi had any formal or informal consultations with the members of the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) over meeting Sharif before leaving for Russia. Other members of the CCS such as Home Minister Rajnath Singh, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar and Finance Minister Arun Jaitley were either travelling or busy with other assignments. It is obvious that Modi took the gamble on his own. There must have been some pressing compulsions for the PM to deviate from his pre-election stance. Modi, it seems, has made a fair assessment about the impact the meeting would have on his core constituency and the opportunity it would provide the Opposition to attack him. Since NSA Ajit Doval and Foreign Secretary S Jaishanker were accompanying him, the PM made a unique decision. If the past record of Jaishanker is to go by, he would have pushed for a full-scale dialogue, since he has always favoured the US line on Indo-Pak. On the other hand, Doval is a hawk who has always pushed for an end to Pak-sponsored terror as a precondition for resumption of a meaningful dialogue. For Modi, the choice was between Do Nothing and Talk Everything diplomacy or following a Shame Pakistan, Secure India strategy. He voted for security.

Though the details about the terms of the NSA-level talks are yet to emerge, it is clear that Pakistan has agreed to discuss “terror in all forms”. Modi’s detractors could find fault with the government for agreeing to provide fresh evidence about the perpetrators of the 26/11 massacre because the UPA claims it had given enough proof for speeding up the trial in Pakistan. The PM may also face the ire of his supporters for not raising the issue strongly enough of prosecuting Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi and Hafiz Saeed—financiers and masterminds of terror attacks in India. The only ironic solace for the PM will be the support he will receive at home from those who ideologically and personally abhor Modi but adore him when they feel he thinks like them on Pakistan.

But the success of Modi’s unconventional diplomatic adventurism in Ufa is tenuously linked with Sharif’s ability and capacity to deliver on the terror front. The idea of Pakistan survives and thrives only on anti-India fervour and actions. Terrorists and fire-spewing Pak generals know well that this nefarious notion of Pakistan will die the day its leaders and citizens start breaking bread with their Indian counterparts, and cricketers of both nations start running between the wickets to the applause of excited crowds. Pakistan was born out of hatred for India. The army has controlled it for the past 60 years, with the sole objective of remaining in a state of visible and covert warfare with India. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism nourished by the Pakistan army has made it impossible for even a tiny section of moderate elements across the border to mount pressure on their government to fight the fanatics in the system. The warmongers have sabotaged and subverted every legitimate move to settle all contentious issues with India.

Modi has to remember that Pakistan has contemptuously betrayed the Indian leadership too often by aiding and abetting terror attacks on India just before and after Indian PMs initiated peace moves. It has forced three wars on us. Both countries have signed over a dozen joint statements and mutual agreements on culture, economic and educational relations. None of these have moved forward because of unabated Pakistan-sponsored terror threat to India. All the confidence-building measures (CBMs) have achieved nothing except more blood and mayhem on Indian soil.

The sadistic twist in the tale is that Pakistan has been able to reacquire international acceptability by projecting itself as a victim of homegrown terror. Despite providing sanctuary to terrorists, it has been able to wrangle financial and military equipment from the three powerful members of the UN Security Council—US, China and Russia. Modi has to realise that the solution to the subcontinental standoff doesn’t lie in succumbing to the sugar-coated opinions of the peaceniks, pseudo-secularists and lovers of lavish Pakistani hospitality. India’s success depends on his strategy to globally isolate Pakistan and convince world leaders that today’s idea of Pakistan is a danger to them as much as it is to India. The rest of the world can use it against India only at its own peril. Pakistan can sow satanic seeds of an apocalypse, which can obliterate with fire more towers in New York, restaurants in Bali, media organisations in France, tube stations in London and hotels in India.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

PM Must Choose his Words ..... Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/ August 24, 2014

PM Must Choose his Words and Weapons in Dealing with Pak and its Missionaries

For a while now, all Pakistan envoys posted in India have been nothing more than remote-controlled megaphones. Their mission is to blare out the bluster of their ventriloquists in Islamabad and they are rarely switched off. Conventionally, a diplomat is expected to convey even the nastiest news in the nicest manner. But Pakistani diplomats are trained to convey to India the meanest messages in the foulest fashion. Recently, when the elegantly balding, sharp-nosed Abdul Basit, Pakistan’s High Commissioner to India, made a plea to include separatist leaders as stakeholders in the K-dispute, he gave an ugly face to diplomacy. His provocative contention was a direct intervention in India’s internal matters and violation of conventions. Despite a stern warning by India’s foreign office, he held meetings with self-styled Kashmiri leaders who have been rejected by the people of their own state. A section of Indian diplomacy firmly believes that most Pak high commissioners have been used to unintentionally sabotage dialogue between the two countries. Or was it an attempt to prevent the visit of Indian diplomats to Pakistan, who would have gathered first-hand information about its paralysed government? Opposition leaders like Imran Khan and Dr Tahirul Qadri are making it impossible for beleaguered PM Nawaz Sharif to function as head of the government. Hence it is a mystery as to who could have advised Pakistan’s foreign secretary to continue the dialogue with Indian delegation? Was it a move on Basit’s part to destroy India’s democratic milieu? After all, every Pak envoy is known for hosting parties replete with biryani and sufi concerts for Delhi’s cultural, social and political influencers who would then sing the same tune as the quarrelsome quwwals in Islamabad.

Otherwise what was the logic behind Basit’s move in invoking the right of those responsible for creating trouble in the Valley? By his action, Basit has defied Indian democracy. He has challenged the right of democratically established Indian institutions to decide on how to deal with hostile elements. Predictably, an envoy representing a failed state struggling to save its identity is trying to deflect international attention from the crisis at home. It is unclear whether he speaks on behalf of Pakistan’s elected government or some invisible parallel power centre. Democratically elected leaders hardly share the vocabulary exhibited by Basit. His speaking style resembled extremists like Hafiz Saeed and others better. While his symbolic political masters back home underplayed India’s decision to call off the Secretary-level talks on August 25, it was Basit who was painting India as a warmonger.

Basit and his predecessors have been liberally misusing diplomatic immunity by not only engaging with anti-India elements but also trying to infiltrate the capital’s high and mighty club. The Pakistani establishment always chooses suave high commissioners whose cosmopolitan charm makes them trophy guests in Delhi’s drawing rooms. During the past three decades, envoys like Abdul Sattar, Riaz Khokhar, Ashraf Jahangir Kazi and Salman Bashir were so effective at networking that none of those invited to the high commissioner’s residence would ever utter a word against their hosts’ direst diatribes. With huge funds at their disposal, the envoys were able to create pressure groups in India who would parrot the Pak point of view on cross-border dialogue. In the past 25 years, Pakistan’s top diplomats have directly or indirectly facilitated the participation of hundreds of powerful Indian opinion-makers in seminars, symposiums and similar fine-dining gabfests organised by think-tanks funded by unknown sources in Pakistan. It is possible that some of the frequent fliers to Islamabad and Karachi from India have strong feelings against the continuation of dialogue with the perfidious neighbour, but there are many others who refuse to find fault with terror activities sponsored by non-state actors from across the border. The Pak High Commission in Delhi has become the preferred rendezvous for all those who have either been convinced about or mesmerised into believing in Pakistan’s cause. Last week when Basit spoke about “stakeholders”, he found support from many internationalists from India, including corporate leaders, all of whom have been strongly building a case for enhanced cultural, economic and sports cooperation between the two countries. Surprisingly, none of the beneficiaries of Indian munificence—at home and in Pakistan—have ever spoken against terror camps in PoK and Pakistan. On the other hand, they were able to influence the Indian establishment to grant Pakistan ‘Most Favoured Nation’ status by ignoring the fact that border violations have been plenty in past two years. According to a latest report, over a dozen terrorist training camps are actively operating from PoK and other parts of Pakistan. What is worse is that there is no progress on India’s demand to hand over its known enemies like Saeed and Dawood hiding in Pakistan. In a widely televised press conference, however, Basit let it drop that his country is also a victim of terrorism and that over 1,500 civilians have been killed by terrorists. He conveniently forgot that the killers were Frankenstein’s monsters created by Pakistani agencies like ISI.

The response to Basit’s outburst only reflects that though the colour of the Central government has changed, its organs remain unwilling to strike or challenge the defiance of Pak diplomats. Knowing PM Narendra Modi’s style and intentions, he would have sent Basit packing, along with his team and taken the broom to pro-dialogue moles in his own establishment and the party. According to media reports, even External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj was kept out of the loop regarding cancelling the dialogue. It is a fact that Swaraj has been pushing for a hardline approach against Pakistan, even when she was Leader of the Opposition. The new leadership, however, has realised that the primary reason behind the delay in the settlement of the Kashmir standoff emanates not from the political leadership but from diplomats and non-state actors who have a greater stake in the continuity of confrontation between the two countries. Even Western powers like the US allow that any settlement between a prosperous India and a peaceful Pakistan would end US machinations and destabilise its strategic interests in South Asia. Modi began well by inviting Sharif to his swearing-in. But Sharif and his establishment have returned the gesture with bullets and barbs. It is for the PM to choose his words and weapons in dealing with India’s nefarious neighbour and its missionaries and mercenaries in India.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Time to Adopt Modi Model ..... Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard/ June 15, 2014

Time to Adopt Modi Model of Walk the Talk with Pak, Without Bending

All’s well that ends well, goes the proverb. The inverse is also true. With each new government’s debut, Indian diplomacy’s flirtation with Pakistan always begins well but ends up in bloody and bitter encounters after a few rounds of flying kisses and gregarious handshakes. Prime Minister Narendra Modi began his diplomatic innings spectacularly by inviting his counterpart Nawaz Sharif for his swearing-in ceremony on May 26. The Pakistan delegation was not only given disproportionate media space and diplomatic attention, but the effort was also bruited about as India’s sincere desire to normalise relations with a perennially hostile neighbour. Modi was determined to erase the impression of a hawkish Right wing leader who is out to rewrite Indian boundaries with brute force. His election campaign speeches were projected as a mission to bring pugnacious Pakistan to its knees. But as PM, Modi avoided doing anything of that sort. He chose dialogue and reconciliation instead of confrontation and disengagement.

Recent border encounters, however, betray the trust the Modi establishment has placed in Pakistani political leadership. Soon after Sharif’s return home, Pakistani troops engaged in their usual incursions, attacking innocent jawans and civilians. During the last four-six weeks, seven such incidents have taken place, killing nine security personnel. Since Nehruvian fellow travellers with vested interests in keeping the Indo-Pak issue on the boil control Indian diplomacy, they habitually try to insulate any new leadership against contrarian opinion. These professional peaceniks will try persuading the new Prime Minister to see an opportunity in sari and shawl diplomacy, thereby giving Pakistan’s democratically elected government another chance at duplicity. Modi is yet to dismantle the dialogue-for-peace lobby, which dominates South Block and the think-tanks floated and financed by it. Millions of taxpayers’ money is spent on foreign junkets for the faux-peace-vaudeville performers to visit salubrious cities for secret parleys and Michelin menus, which have yielded only more gore and blood on our borders. Most of them are even more devious than the NGOs that promote their agenda at the cost of national interest. Even the Track Two, Three and the umpteen number of channels are now coming together to sabotage any possible attempt by the PM to institute a credible nationalist mechanism to deal with Pakistan and also the US. They were spectacularly successful during the NDA regime led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The composition of these unofficial institutions holding semi-official confabulations with invisible interlocutors hasn’t changed in the past 20 years. Prime Ministers and foreign ministers have changed, but the pacifist pundits stay on, loaded with perks and pelf. They have made more foreign trips than India’s Foreign Secretaries or even the foreign ministers. A cursory look at their reports, presentations, and newspaper articles reads like the manifestos of political parties; immutable except for the first page and the cover. They conveniently ignore the harsh reality that India’s every goodwill gesture is reciprocated with either war or a terror attack. Instead of recording Pakistan’s history of betrayal, our self-appointed global peace ambassadors counsel every Prime Minister to aim for a global role by adopting soft postures. None of their reports refer to the wars fought in 1965, 1971, Kargil in 1999, the 2001 Parliament attack, and the 26/11 Mumbai massacre. They don’t see anything wrong in the inhuman killings of over 80, 000 Indian civilians and uniformed forces in Jammu and Kashmir since 1990. They see the mass exodus of Kashmiri pundits from Jammu and Kashmir as just an accidental result of peccant administration by a hawkish governor.

Though Modi has a mind of his own and can hardly be influenced by extraneous factors, it is difficult for him to forget the ignobility he faced from some foreign nations during the past 12 years. He was shunned by the Western powers, and denied visas to address meetings in America and London. Handling sensitive international relationships is Modi’s big challenge. Like his many other colleagues, Modi may not be seeking an endorsement from the American establishment or from its desi megaphones. But they have already unleashed their well-oiled machinery to influence people holding key positions in the government. Ambassadors and high commissioners of the countries, which had declared Modi a social pariah, are already hosting dinner conclaves for newly appointed ministers and new articulate MPs. They are calling on ministers and opinion-makers. Their only objective is to ensure that the Modi government doesn’t take a hard stand against Pakistan, the West’s most dependable ally and a big market for their defence industry.

But Modi is aware of his campaign promises to the people of India. His success in taming Pakistan would depend on his ability to destroy the terror camps across the border, either with cooperation from the Pakistan forces or by the Indian Army. Modi has been advised that glamorous handshakes with a leader who doesn’t have the authority to deliver on a single promise he makes to India are futile. Pakistan is controlled by four different fief-lords, each working within boundaries defined by them. If Sharif enjoys authority over civil administration, the ISI governs and nurtures Pakistan’s terror network over which the Prime Minister has no control. The Pakistani Army chief decides the contours of foreign policy. The delay in Sharif accepting Modi’s invitation was primarily because of the ISI and Pakistan Army’s delayed clearance. Top of the heinous heap is the Taliban, which is allowed to operate freely from various Pakistani cities. Unless the Taliban facilitates a favourable climate for a dialogue with India—or with Pakistan’s other neighbours—Sharif cannot leave his country or send officials to break bread with other diplomats.

Modi’s uniqueness lies in his out-of-the box thinking. On Pakistan, too, he should reject the choreographed summit meetings with Sharif and his silver-tongued Savile Row diplomats. Manmohan Singh left the office as a failure and India’s weakest Prime Minister, because he was advised to chase the Nobel Peace Prize by dancing with Pakistan. Modi has got a decisive mandate to deliver his promises through his performance on the Pakistan front. The time has come to junk the Nehruvian diplomatic model of yadda-yadda with Pakistan, and adopt the Modi model of walk the talk—that too, briskly and without bending.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

INTERVIEW: Nawaz Sharif/Aajtak-Seedhi Baat, April 06, 2008

"Pakistan all for 'free borders' with India"

Pakistan's new democratic government is all for abolishing visas and creation of "free borders" with India, the country's former prime minister Nawaz Sharif has said. Sharif told when he spoke to me for Aajtak on Seedhi Baat that he has made this suggestion to Pakistan People's Party (PPP) chief Asif Ali Zardari, and he too "favours" the move.Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) and the PPP are running a coalition government following the February elections.Sharif said India and Pakistan need to work closely to resolve the Kashmir dispute. "We want a solution that is acceptable to the Indians, Pakistanis as well as the Kashmiris," he said.Sharif ruled out any patch-up with President Pervez Musharraf. "Pakistan is now a democracy and we are not going to accept Musharraf under any circumstances because he was not elected (to the post). He went to the extent of making changes in the constitution and changing judges, he said. "We will amend the constitution soon to give more rights to parliament". Watch Seedhi Baat

INTERVIEW - Nawaz Sharif/India Today-August 13, 2007

"I can't be Musharraf's dummy"

Duke Street in London is a long way from the Pakistan prime minister's official residence in Islamabad but the three-room apartment, just off tony Oxford Street, in the heart of the British capital has all the trappings of being home to a man who considers himself a premier-in-exile. The flag of Pakistan flutters on the table in the office room where Nawaz Sharif holds court. There is an unending stream of visitors who are attended to by an army of officials, most of whom served Sharif during his two stints as the head of the government until he was deposed by his handpicked army chief General Pervez Musharraf in a coup in 1999. Last week, he spoke with INDIA TODAY Group Editor PRABHU CHAWLA for Aaj Tak and Headlines Today on his plans and Pakistan's future. Excerpts.
Q. You have been in London for a long time now and seem to be enjoying it here.
A. I miss Islamabad, I miss Pakistan, but London is not a bad place either.

Q. So are you plotting Musharraf's ouster from here?
A. I'm struggling to restore democracy and the rule of law in Pakistan, to restore the Constitution to its position as on October 12, 1999 when a military coup toppled my government.

Q. But nobody supported you when you were ousted. How do you expect people to support you now?
A. I think the nation was in a state of shock at that time. They never thought this could happen to a prime minister, who had a two-third majority.
Q. Musharraf has now survived nearly eight years.
A. I won't call it survival. He's a man whose foundation is wrong, who came to power at gunpoint, who subverted the Constitution.
Q. What do you think is the future of General Musharraf?
A. What can be the future of a man who doesn't have a proper past? A man who doesn't believe in the rule of law and in the Constitution; who goes back on the oath he took as an army officer.
Q. But he is the darling of the West.
A. He's not a darling of the West. He is hoodwinking them. He's

giving them an impression of being a friend but back home he's doing exactly the opposite. He was responsible for extremist parties gaining power, for sidelining liberal parties like ours and creating a vacuum which was then filled up by the extremist forces.
Q. He attacked the Lal Masjid to prove to the West that he's fighting terrorism at home.
A. I think he created the issue of the Lal Masjid himself. What was he doing for the past six months? Why did he allow ammunition build-up inside the masjid?
Q. What will he gain by creating this kind of monster?
A. He's hoodwinking the West. Dictatorship serves as a breeding ground for extremism and terrorism. Such things never surface in a democracy.
Q. You colluded with the dictator and got out of the country.
A. I never compromised on principles. I had to take action against a chief of army staff General Jehangir Karamat who was a very good man. But he gave a political statement which forced me to act against him.
Q. Musharraf was your appointee. And then he threw you out.
A. He is someone who can never be trusted. He said he would retire as army general before December 31, 2004. He has never fulfilled that commitment.
Q. As a General, he kept you, the elected prime minister, in the dark about the Kargil War.
A. He let me and my government down. He stabbed me in the back. I cut a sorry figure before Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
Q. So you did not know he was planning the attacks?
A. Not all the details.
Q. Do you mean he never shared anything with you?
A. No, not in the manner that should have been.
Q. Was the ceasefire due to American pressure? Or did you realise something had gone wrong?
A. I was never in favour of a war with India. The Indian prime minister had undertaken a state visit to Pakistan only a few months earlier. I have great regards for Vajpayee. I never wanted to let him down. And this man here committed a blunder and embarrassed me.
"I don't want to serve under Musharraf. I am not interested in becoming another Shaukat Aziz. I have no desire to be Musharraf's dummy prime minister."
Q. You announced ceasefire only after going to America. Can you tell us what happened there?
A. I had a three-hour-long meeting with president Bill Clinton. Then he called up Vajpayee in the middle of the night. We felt the conflict in Kargil could lead to a full-fledged war between the two countries which could ultimately turn into a nuclear conflict. We did our best. We are also thankful to Vajpayee for his cooperation which made the ceasefire possible.
Q. As prime minister in the early 1990s, you ushered in economic liberalisation in your country.
A. Yes, I recall your then prime minister Narasimha Rao had spoken to me personally and had said he wanted to send a team across to study our reforms process. We also launched a privatisation programme in Pakistan. Many state-owned industries and banks were privatised.
Q. Would you agree if I say that the Pakistani politicians have failed their people?
A. No. It is the intervention of the military generals. Every now and then, there is a coup. Elected governments are toppled, ex-prime ministers are jailed or worse, hanged. That is a constant reminder to us that demo-cracy is the only way out.
Q. Pakistan is often referred to as a failed state.
A. It's not a failed state. Frequent army takeovers and the interventions of generals have led to that impression. We can turn Pakistan back into a very successful state if the army is confined to the barracks.
Q. Musharraf has been trying to divide your party. Benazir Bhutto, who was your ally a couple of months ago, is now in talks with him.
A. Musharraf has not been able to divide or create any dent in our votebank. We have won elections twice with thumping majority-once with two-third majority. Now we have signed a charter of democracy with Benazir Bhutto sahiba. It's clearly written in that charter that we would not enter into any parleys or deals with the Government. I stand by that.
Q. But Bhutto is in talks with the General.
A. If any party, which has put its signature on the document, is engaged in a dialogue with the Government, it's a matter of concern.
"What can be the future of a man who doesn't have a past? A man who doesn't believe in the rule of law, who doesn't believe in the Constitution and the oath he took."
Q. Do you think the deal between Musharraf and Bhutto will last?
A. I don't know. But I think no party or person who believes in democracy should get into any dialogue with military dictators. They ruined our system. They have violated the Constitution. They are usurpers, traitors.
Q. But there is a certain bonhomie between them.
A. I don't think any such an arrangement will last.
Q. Were you ever approached on Musharraf's behalf?
A. He sent emissaries three times but I refused to meet them. I'm not interested in becoming another Shaukat Aziz. I don't want to serve under Musharraf. I don't want to be a dummy prime minister.
Q. But didn't you cut a deal with him when you were allowed to go to Saudi Arabia and that you will not interfere in Pakistan politics?
A. I never signed any agreement with Musharraf. His three army generals came to see me on the first day of the coup. They brought two papers with them and wanted me to sign them. One was about the dissolution of the National Assembly and the second paper was my resignation as prime minister. I refused to sign the papers and sent them away.
Q. How did you land up in Jeddah?
A. I'm grateful to the King and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia who thought of me in my difficult times.
Q. In the 60 years of Independent Pakistan, generals have ruled it for nearly 35 years. What hope is there for your country?
A. That is why we insist that the Constitution be taken back to its position of October 12, 1999. I think this should be done because you can't let these people go scot free. They have to be punished. This can be done only with the people's support.
Q. When you go back to Pakistan you'll have to give up your ties and jackets? You can't do politics in Pakistan in this dress.
A."Musharraf let me down. He stabbed me in the back. I cut a sorry figure before Atal Bihari Vajpayee and that's why I was very keen on bringing about an honourable ceasefire."
A. (Laughs) Don't I look good in this?
Q. You are looking good. You can be a great politician indeed if the people of Pakistan accept you.
A. I have been wearing salwar kameez and waistcoat for a long time. I'll try to wear both dresses this time if I get a chance.
Q. When do you plan to return to Pakistan?
A. I intend to go back before the elections.
Q. When will that be?
A. Things are very unpredictable at the moment. Even Musharraf doesn't know whether he is going to get elected in the current assembly or the next assembly. He doesn't know where the country is heading. I don't know where we are heading. But I believe I have a role to play and I'm playing that role.