India,a state with an army; Pakistan an army with a state!

Close on the heels of Prime Minister Modi’s impromptu goodwill visit to Pakistan, Indian airbase in Pathankot has come under attack by actors from its soils, which as usual, it calls “non state, “to disown any responsibility for the unrelenting acts of terrorism that result in loss of precious lives and threatens peace and security of this nation. This is followed by the   customary chant from the rogue,” Pakistan is itself a victim of terrorism.” So, it better be. The cultivation and export of such produce from its lands to other nations, particularly India, cannot be accepted, irrespective of the consequences of cessation of internationally prompted talks.

 Notwithstanding the established conduct of this notoriously inculcated nation, the so called civil society on this side of the border sees reason in continuing dialogue with the terrorist uninterruptedly meaning that India should continue to accept the slap and the invitation for dialogue at the same time. This, so called civil society which mistakably, or out of some sense of self conceit, has given to itself this name, forgets that its constitution whatever it is, does not make it representative of the  popular thought that governs the Indian mind, in its attitude towards Pakistan and which is not without reason, to be so established.

What is this civil society that calls itself such? A handful of the glitterati drawn from the tinsel world or the  page three or some TRP manipulators together seeking to serve an agenda of their own which in so many ways goes against the  interests of this country. This civil society wants India to rush into a territory where even the angles would fear to tread. It would like India do two things, one do business with the devil or declare an all out war on it given the picture that emerges from the talk shops of our time that in time have replaced the traditional “nukkad tea stalls “where the dada’s of the “muhalla”s offered their wisdom with self professed authority on all matters relating to the locality and the state. This civil society in a similar manner seeks to force the Government to toe its line no matter, how absurd.

In the given scenario what makes matters difficult for India in its relationship with Pakistan can be summed up in the observation of an Indian diplomat who once said, “India is a state which has an army, Pakistan has an army which has a state”. Nothing can describe Pakistan as an entity of sorts better. Pakistan as a beggar relies on its democratically elected government when it suits its generals  send it, begging alms and arms around the globe, to sustain itself as a global nuisance, but when it comes to be in any meaningful dialogue with India, the same government is pulled  back .

 When the ex PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee was making his famous goodwill tour to Pakistan despite sour relations, this devil’s army was making inroads into Kargil and having received its due, sent its PM begging to US, for help for cessation of hostility. What promise does any negotiation with this inconsequential Prime Minister and his disabled government, hold for India? If the circumstances obtaining within Pakistan make Nawaz and his government so disempowered why should India be expected to be accommodative with the risks that involve such a gesture from its side. Nawaz is the Prime Minister of this failed nation and has to be seen in that light and not in isolation as some messiah in the midst of devils. The identities of leaders, Nawaz and Modi are merged in their nations and an occasional celebratory meeting of prime ministers cannot be allowed to obscure the reality.

In dealing with Pakistan India should not lose sight of the fact that as and when it has been cornered, it has diplomatically and with deception, beaten India to buying time. It did so when it came begging to India, post 71 war to secure release of its captured soldiers cooling heals in Indian prison camps as also to sign the Simla accord which a victorious nation chose not to make as humiliating as it could have, and also exercised generosity in releasing its captured territories along with 95000 heads of devils back. This country chose to lie low only till such time as it developed its nuclear capability.

The second time India allowed it buy time was when this country was forced by the US to take its forces from its borders with India to its western borders with Afghanistan. Once the US withdrew from this region the devil was back with its plans to bleed India. Each time India allowed this rogue, time, it utilized it to build its capabilities against India. A cornered nuclear Pakistan as a terror producer and a nuclear state now seeks a transitory parley with India only to buy some time against the adverse global public opinion that holds it presently by its scruff. Pressurized by the world and India, this rogue will apprehend the perpetrators of Pathankot and place them in the sanctuary of its prisons where they will comfortably relax and procreate their breed, as the perpetrators of the Bombay attack, Lakhwi and others did, only to be released later.

Can India or any nation of the world trust a liar which had so meticulously sheltered Osama Bin Laden in Abottabad? Can any nation of the world ignore the fact that there was perhaps more to Osama’s presence in Pakistan than what the world knows? How can any nation of the world be sure that Osama was the last threat, resident on Pakistani soil? India has lived with this hostile nation on its western borders for well over six decades and also factors its nuclear possessions as it conducts itself. For India, Pakistan as a nuclear state is a given fact; it also knows that this nation has been a clandestine seller of this technology to at least one nation from where it got its missiles and a nation which now adds to the threat to global peace and security. As radical Islamic thought grows one wonders how the same would impact the nuclear stockpile of Pakistan and in addition to India which other nations stand threatened by it.

Even if these two countries choose to enter any dialogue process can the leadership dare go against the will of the people on either side? Would or can the leaderships of the two nations ever be in a position to defy the historical context that keeps the two nations locked in a stalemate. There may be many issues with Pakistan but it insists that the core issue is Kashmir. The government may have its own diplomatic stand on this matter and some governments of the past may have gone beyond their mandate to find an out of box settlement with Pakistan on this issue such as  Pakistan keep the occupied part of Kashmir and India keep  its part. And if it were so easy for the successive Indian Governments to do so why have they refrained from sharing this idea with the nation. POK was an integral part of the territories acceded to India and the instrument of accession binds India to its defense irrespective of its present situation as a territory under illegal occupation. No government elected hitherto can go against the sovereign will of the people which treats the territory occupied by Pakistan as illegal and due for recovery, in course of time.

Mb     Mountbatten had warned Jinnah that his moth-eaten Pakistan would not last twenty five years; Pakistan got dismembered in twenty fifth year of its creation and Bangladesh was born. A self destructive beggar nation unable to provide even the minimum needs of sustenance to its people governs territories seeking to free themselves from its tyranny, by terror. It is such a nation that seeks to engage India in a constructive dialogue. India should utilize this moment of advantage, and this does not necessarily have only two options, either to be engaged in talks, or be at war. There is a third option that India has, and it is heading in that direction and does not require boasting what it is. In the interregnum, solve your problems Pakistan, as best as you keep creating them.