The Sattvic effect 7 RCR has.... Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard / August 23, 2015

The Sattvic Effect 7 RCR Has on Its Occupants When it Comes to Pak Must be Dispelled

Location, location, location. On the face of it, the very idea sounds ridiculous when it concerns PMs. But in a country where vastu, astrology and mythology determine the lifestyles and businesses of the majority, the numerology of 7 Race Course Road (RCR), the PM’s official residence, assumes an almost astral significance. Indo-Pak dialogue watchers now wonder if there is something arcane in the air of Race Course, which affects the thinking of its occupant regarding dialogue with Pakistan.

Spread over more than 12 acres of impeccably landscaped greenery, the RCR complex has become famous for exercising a sattvic effect on the personality of the premier. It becomes more pronounced while dealing with a hostile and untrustworthy neighbour like Pakistan. Today, India’s nationalist PM Narendra Modi, who rode to power by promising to teach terror-sponsor Pakistan an unforgettable lesson, is being perceived as a docile dove. During his campaign in 2014, he was spewing fire and brimstone. But soon after winning the Lok Sabha elections, he became the first PM to invite his Pakistani counterpart to his swearing-in ceremony. His tactical charm offensive with Pakistan didn’t end there. He walked the few extra miles by courting Nawaz Sharif at various international forums. But ever since he moved into 7 RCR, Modi hasn’t uttered a single hostile word against Pakistan or warned it of reprisal despite a record number of cross-border incursions. The Congress even attacked him for expressing sympathy for the Bangkok blast victims, while keeping schtum on the daily killings of Indian jawans and civilians along the LoC. Those who know the PM will not believe for a moment that he has abandoned his nationalistic moorings. So, is his government’s decision to engage—instead of isolating Pakistan as a terror-bitten pariah—influenced by some planetary effects on RCR?

Modi, however, is not the first Indian PM who has changed the approach of dealing with our treacherous 1947 offshoot. Some Indian soothsayers and vastu experts joke that the softness of Indian PMs for Pakistan started soon after Race Course became the PM’s official residence. Rajiv Gandhi was the first one to move into RCR. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first premier, who lived in a sprawling bungalow on Teen Murti Road, may have lost the 1962 war, but he had followed a militarily aggressive policy against China and also wrested Goa from the Portuguese. Lal Bahadur Shastri, whose address was 10 Janpath, treated Pakistan as India’s biggest enemy and routed its army and almost captured Lahore in 1965. During Indira Gandhi’s 15-year stay at 1 Safdarjung Road, her policy was to treat Pakistan as a tremendous threat. Since it was a close US ally, she took a confrontationist attitude towards America too. Both Indira and Shastri did not hesitate to engage Pakistan in full-fledged wars.

But once Rajiv moved into RCR, the government’s attitude towards Pakistan changed. He went out of his way to wave the olive branch. He got along famously with Pakistan PM Benazir Bhutto, who became a frequent flyer to New Delhi. During the five years of his rule, Pakistan almost wrangled for itself the status of a Most Favoured Nation. The emotional distance between Lahore and Delhi was sort of bridged with a plethora of highfalutin cultural galas and lavish dinner parties in both cities. Rajiv didn’t know that his government’s excessive obsession with bettering relations with Pakistan had provided the ISI a golden opportunity to infiltrate J&K. By the time he was overthrown by voters, Pakistan had already created a powerful base in the Valley to destabilise India. Mars, the planet of aggression, seems to have moved away from the firmament over 7 RCR. The natural aggressive instinct of a Prime Minister to counter a hostile neighbour has been pacified. P V Narasimha Rao, after moving into 7 RCR, became a strong proponent of dialogue with Pakistan. His old friend Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who lived on Safdarjung Road, was always pushing for a confrontation with a terror-toxic Pakistan. It was Rao, who, in fact, consolidated Track II diplomacy to lay the ground rules for cross-border chitchat. But the planets changed when Vajpayee shifted his numerological pin code to RCR in 1998. And he fell in love with idea of a friendly Pakistan. He hopped onto a bus to Lahore in February 1999, but got Kargil in return gift. Later Vajpayee invited Gen. Pervez Musharraf to a summit in Agra. But the stars changed during his second innings, and the pacific atmosphere of Race Course prompted him to speak in peacenik patois. Did Vajpayee and his team fall under some Pak sorcerer’s spell and forget their earlier Pakistan doctrine? His successor Manmohan Singh (MaMo) was a dove, which simply dove into the peace pool at RCR. He was one of the most vocal and active votaries of Indo-Pak dialogue. So obsessed was he with striking a detente deal that at one stage, he was even toying with the idea of converting the LoC into an international border.

If MaMo was a dove, NaMo was supposed to be a hawk. Have the enchanted environs of RCR changed the way every Indian PM perceives Pakistan? Has the diplomatic necromancy of RCR acquired control over PM’s mind, since the place functions more like the PM’s office than his residence? South Block, which is still called the PMO, has become just an outhouse where a couple of bureaucrats hold random meetings and keep records. It also houses the external affairs ministry, which used to give important inputs to the PM’s diplomatic formulations. For the past 25 years, none of our PMs have spent more than a few hours a week at South Block. Rao even got a special lift installed, but one he never used. After Modi moved into 7 RCR and access became severely limited, he now gets to hear only the views of those who enjoy unrestricted entry. 7 RCR’s imperial aloofness from rest of the establishment has made it India’s most powerful parcel of premium political real estate. Modi has spent barely 15 months living there. Perhaps, the stars may change the prevailing Pak-bewitched mood and turbo-boost Modi’s mission and commitment to causes that define him as a no-nonsense nationalist. Then the contrarian and conflicting diplomatic gamma rays emanating from within the boundaries of 7 RCR may finally be dispelled by the influence of mangal in the PM’s house.


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

IN losing your neighbour's confidence ... Power & Politics / The Sunday Standard/ August 11, 2013

In losing your neighbour's confidence, risk is of being gobbled up by Big Brother

“A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”—John F Kennedy.

For the past decade, the Indian establishment has been scrupulously adopting market mantras of the land of Kennedy. India’s economy is now more open than that of the mother of all open economies—the US. Both, however, have one thing in common. They are afraid to let people know the truth behind the establishment’s shady decisions. America wants to snoop on every global citizen. The Indian government is going out of its way to conceal the truth from the people. Defence Minister A K Antony’s statement last week followed this example. Within a few hours of Pakistani soldiers killing five jawans at the LoC, Antony was forced to say terrorists in Pakistan Army uniform were responsible. Who hypnotised him to try market the imaginary innocence of the Pakistan Army is a mystery. He finally accepted that it was indeed an act aided and sponsored by the Pakistan military. While the credibility of India’s defence establishment suffered damage, the incident raised questions about India’s dubitable diplomacy. A series of decisions by a cabal of diplomats have left none in doubt that they would go to any extent to promote their personal ambitions at the cost of India’s clout. Their success is evident in the PM’s unwillingness to call off the sham of a peace dialogue with Pakistan. Neither the bodies on the border nor the bombing of innocent citizens stands in the way. The similarity in statements made by both countries on the killings seemed to emanate from the same source. When Pakistan-based terrorists and ISI henchmen murder Indians, our rulers disturbingly don’t even catch a cold. In spite of a nationwide consensus in favour of teaching Pakistan a lesson by isolating it in the international community, the UPA is determined to host Nawaz Sharif at a friendly rendezvous in New York next month. India’s fixation for talks with Pakistan became more pronounced after UPA’s return in 2009. It was reflected in the joint statement issued after a meeting between PM Manmohan Singh and former Pak president Asif Zardari at Sharm el-Sheikh in July 2009. In a deviation from past policy, India delinked Pakistan-sponsored terror from composite dialogue. India accepted the inclusion of the Baluchistan issue in the statement, which had never happened before. Since then, the PM and his advisers on Pakistan have stuck to their resolve of pandering to our untrustworthy neighbour.

Obviously, South Block has adopted the Nehruvian principle of dictating the international agenda and become a power centre in itself. India’s diplomats lack long-term perspective; their horizons shrinking from a global overview to being camp followers of American diplomacy. Now we are neither a drop in the diplomatic ocean nor an invitee at the global high table. Pakistan, with its nuclear bombs and terrorists, is more acceptable to liberal Western nations than a secular and open democracy like India.

No neighbour takes us seriously. There was a time when nothing would move in Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Maldives and Sri Lanka without India’s involvement. Now, they ignore us and also threaten to join hands with China and Pakistan. The new Maldives dispensation cocked a snook at us by cancelling the building contract of an Indian company. Bhutan chose to open a dialogue with China after India’s short-sighted move to withdraw oil subsidies. First, India revised the 63-year-old Indo-Bhutan friendship treaty in 2007, which gave Bhutan the freedom to devise an independent foreign policy. But our diplomats were busy cozying up to the US, and ignored Bhutan.

In the case of Sri Lanka, India’s top leadership reversed its policy on human rights, which led to not only DMK’s exit from the UPA but also to the island nation turning hostile to India. Now it is creating more trouble by arresting Tamil fishermen on a daily basis. It has invited China to take over strategic port construction activities. India’s Bangladesh policy is worrying. Dhaka has acted decisively against fundamentalists and terrorists. President Sheikh Hasina wanted concessions in a revised treaty Teesta River treaty and the exchange of territory along the Assam border. The agreement could not be signed because of Mamata Banerjee’s veto; the UPA failed to resolve the boundary issue because the BJP was uncooperative, even though it would help India to get rid of terrorists infiltrating through Bangladesh. Ever since Hasina acquired power, she did not allow top jihadis from Pakistan to hide in the country; she even extradited some to India. She ensured judicial punishment to fundamentalists and invited top Indian entrepreneurs to set up businesses. But our diplomats do nothing to ensure the stability of a genuinely democratic and modern political leadership because Dhaka is not an attractive posting.

Our diplomats are busy playing golf and smoking cigars in Nepal, a playground for extremists from China and Pakistan. Despite having a massive Indian-origin  population, Nepal is not an ally. Like other neighbours, it perceives India not as a dependable friend but a ferocious foe. South Block, it seems, has forgotten the saying that once you lose your neighbour’s confidence, you run the risk of being gobbled up by Big Brother and losing your identity acquired at a huge cost and through hard work by leaders like Nehru, Indira Gandhi and Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

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

Pakistan Understands only... Power & Politics /The Sunday Standard/March 17, 2013

Pakistan understands only one language, turn it into a social and economic pariah

Only a weak host gets hostility in return. While India serves bread, Pakistan responds with bullets. These were Pakistan’s main course in return for the warm and sumptuous lunch served to the outgoing Pakistan Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf when he came to India for a pilgrimage last week. India’s erudite and affable External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid was led more by the euphoria of Stephanian-Oxford fake liberalism than by the earthy political instincts of Farrukhabad. Ignoring the political fallout, Khurshid travelled all the way to Jaipur to make Ashraf’s visit to Ajmer Sharif a peaceful and rewarding event. Little did he know that he was hosting a political leader who was invoking divine blessings for dangerous games. Three days afterwards, Ashraf was leading his Parliament in a venomous attack on his gracious host for hanging a criminal who led the murderous assault on Indian Parliament. Ashraf even chose to forget that Afzal Guru was the creation of the part of the Pakistani mindset that preaches bloody jihad and intolerance. Ironically, the Pakistan assembly—its symbol of democracy—was engaged in justifying an attempt to destroy the Indian Parliament, which is a powerful and vibrant symbol of true democracy.

It is well known that Pakistan is part and parcel of the global terror machine. But its belligerence and gall to directly interfere and condemn India’s democratic structure was blatantly shocking to those who continued to hope that normalcy could be restored through seven-course dinner conclaves in Lahore, London and New Delhi. Last week’s action by Pakistan’s Parliament has proved that India’s diplomatic adventurism has failed to tame or silence the AK-47s that keep targeting innocent Kashmiris in Jammu and Kashmir and people living in India’s cities. Despite over 500 incidents of ceasefire violations and deaths of over 100 Indian soldiers and officers during the past few months, our diplomats still carry white flags and file-folders, waiting for their Pakistani counterparts to reciprocate. From Sharm-el-Sheikh to Jaipur, Indo-Pak dialogue is a sordid saga of deceit, deception and decadence.

During the past few months, India has moved heaven and earth to ensure cordiality between the two nations. It agreed to open trade, grant bulk visas and facilitate Pak business with visas on arrival; permitted Pakistani cricketers to play in India and earn dollars; facilitated the Pakistan women hockey team to practice in India; and encourages Pakistani artists to stay in Delhi and Mumbai to earn huge money. But all these gestures have been contemptuously ignored by Pakistan. Yet, Indian peaceniks holding flags and candles are conspicuous by their absence at venues of tele-opportunities to protest the uncivilised conduct of Pakistan’s political hierarchy. They would have been beating their chests if such a resolution aimed at interfering in the internal politics of Pakistan was adopted in India. Even the leaders of all Indian political parties were subdued in their retaliatory speeches against Pakistan. Taking advantage of India’s liberal establishment firing from the lip, terrorists aided by Pakistan continue to fire at will at our jawans in Jammu and Kashmir. Others are busy selecting future targets for bomb attacks in various parts of India.

For the past two decades, India hasn’t shown any steely resolve to teach Pakistan a lesson in civilised conduct. It has been mostly engaged in dialogue and discussion in the hope that Pakistan would see some reason in reining in the terror camps. Pakistan’s leaders have received red-carpet welcomes in India, soon after its forces and rebels maimed our soldiers and violated ceasefire restrictions. Even the brutal beheadings of Indian soldiers were forgotten after throwing a couple of paper bombs at the Pakistani leadership. Never before since Independence has the nation’s diplomatic fraternity pleaded to place such deep trust in an enemy that considers civility as India’s weakness.

From the Prime Minister downwards, the Indian establishment has supported and encouraged numerous known and unknown Track-II rendezvous. The UPA has allowed the home minister, foreign minister, commerce minister and prominent businessmen and politicians to visit Pakistan and humour them with concessions, and invited them to India for less work and more leisure. During UPA’s nine years, Pakistan has regained its credibility on the global stage. Earlier, India was able to isolate it through sustained efforts by mounting pressure on the international community to act against the nefarious activities of ISI-led terror operations. Hardly any democratic country did business with the rogue nation. No cricket-playing country has withdrawn its ban on team visits to Pakistan. Earlier, Pakistan was seen as a failed state, which was divided into various regions and sectional interests. In reality, Pakistan’s poor have fallen into the hands of extremist elements while its elite enjoy a global lifestyle. It is the coalition of wealthy leaders from both India and Pakistan who are promoting dialogue, because it makes them acceptable to the West and the US. Since America needs the Pakistani army to contain the Taliban to save Western troops in Afghanistan, India has been under US pressure not to escalate diplomatic and strategic crises by pushing Pakistan into a corner. But after its recent act of defiance, even the doves in India are running for dignified shelter. Pakistan understands only one language. It has to be turned into a social and economic pariah. For Manmohan Singh, the time has come to prove that when he says it is “not acceptable”, he means it. After all he has everything to gain and nothing to lose if he strikes back. As they say, a leader is measured not by his words but by his deeds.

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

No More FOP talk.../Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/January 13, 2013

No more FOP talk. A rabid Pakistan must be told to behave or...

The Shame of Sharm el-Sheikh is haunting India. As the blood-thirsty, trigger-happy Pakistani Army continues its bloody adventurism on our borders, the authors and architects of the spirit of Sharm el-Sheikh ridicule the martyrdom of Indian jawans in the name of glamorous diplomacy, which fetches them more air miles and seats at the head tables of international think-tanks. For the past one week, every instrument of state, corporate India, diplomacy and academia have been used to dismiss the inhuman killing of our jawans as a mere border skirmish. They even ignored the pious sermons of Hina Rabbani Khar, the glamorous Pak foreign minister. While congratulating her country’s media, she hoped the Indian media would follow its Pak counterparts and refrain from hyping the bloody border clashes. It is not because of her wish that the Indian establishment’s response has been muted on the Pakistan Army’s escalating aggression. Instead, the vociferous silence of those who shout and scream at minor incidents reflects a mindset that allows the maiming of Indian pride. These elements have systematically been capturing Indian think-tanks, infiltrating centres of power and dominating international seminar circuits. All of them plead for peace as if they have invested in the welfare of Terror Company. Strangely, all our corporate leaders, members of business fora, Bollywood icons, outspoken academics and hyper-secular NGOs have maintained a cryptic silence over Pakistan’s military transgression, as if their money taps would dry up—or fear that none of them will ever be invited to be a keynote or source speaker at various global meetings organised by the Track-II ‘peace’ enterprises for hire. The same spirit is haunting vantage points in South Block. The brutal massacre of poor jawans from the backwaters of Mathura and the sanddunes of Rajasthan have failed to rouse the anger of the elitist class who rose like a phoenix to condemn the brutal gangrape of a girl in Delhi. Corporates and political parties rightly fought for the braveheart. What makes them behave like lambs when it comes to the beheading of Indian jawans on wintry borders, while the rich and mighty lead a luxurious life in Mumbai and Monte Carlo? It is really disgusting to see some Yuppies, Puppies and others trotting out unsubstantiated incidents and rumours to underplay Pakistan’s sinister designs to resurrect the spectre of 26/11 and of the 2001 Parliament attack. These are the same messengers of that invisible spirit that has kept Afzal Guru alive. If Kasab was convicted and hanged through speedy justice, then why the delay in Guru’s case? Was the colour and quality of the blood of those who died in the Mumbai attacks any different than those who lost their lives protecting India’s rulers? Pakistan has violated ceasefire conditions more than 100 times. As a knee-jerk response, we threaten appropriate action but wait for an appropriate time, which never comes. We know that war is not an option. But meekly getting back headless bodies is a humiliating body blow to the might of Indian nationhood. Unfortunately, those who espouse the cause of nationalism also surrender to the overbearing glamour of Pakistani hospitality, music and support. Those who want to name and shame Pakistan are also the ones who support and promote sports and cultural ties with it. Rich and beautiful people from across the border are the star attractions at wine and dine parties in Indian cities. Not only do they get royal treatment, but also take back dollars for their presence and performance in the drawing rooms of India’s chattering classes. Back home, not one of them would open their mouth on handing over terrorists to India while their Indian hosts use every visible and invisible platform to restrain the government.

This class of Friends of Pakistan (FOPs) genuinely feel that a dialogue with our untrustworthy neighbour would ensure permanent peace. But they forget that the villains of peace survive and thrive in Pakistan. Why don’t they take out candlelight processions, host dharnas, organise seminars in New Delhi and New York to demand the repatriation of the 20-odd terrorists residing in Pakistan for the past 20 years? Why don’t they hold fasts at Jantar Mantar and in front of the Pakistan Embassy demanding Hafiz Saeed’s extradition to India?

Unfortunately, the FOPs refuse to recognise that Pakistan is a failed state. It has become fashionable to blame non-state players and protect the establishment from direct fire. Since the US establishment decides and dictates the tone of the Indo-Pak relationship, FOPs take the cue from the Americans. Until the 1990s, the number of FOPs was confined to academic institutions and very limited cosy nooks of the Indian government. But ever since economics replaced defence as the guiding and compulsory principle of India’s relationship with Pakistan, both governments—NDA and UPA—have been bending over backwards to accommodate American strategic philosophy as the bulwark defining India’s response to Pakistan’s offensive and humiliating conduct. In fact, it is India that is ignoring the sentiments of Bharat, which wants to teach Pakistan a permanent lesson. Some may argue that going to war should be the last option. But India can assert itself only if it isolates Pakistan internally, and chokes it economically as it did following the attack on Parliament and 26/11. Nothing hurts Pakistan more than global untouchability. While India, dominated by FOPs, wants to indulge in dinner diplomacy, Bharat wants to snap all commercial, cultural and sports relationships with Pakistan until it behaves and delivers. Ignoring your enemy with contempt is much more lethal than fire-spitting missiles.

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

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.