First Person | Modi’s Choice

Ghazala Wahab

Cling to the ideology he grew up with, or turn the geopolitical opportunity to his advantage

At the last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organisation’s (SCO’s) defence ministers’ conclave in Qingdao, China, Indian defence minister Rajnath Singh refused to sign the joint statement, which was endorsed by all other participating nations. Thereafter, in a series of posts on X, Singh explained India’s reason for not signing the statement.

The essence of his explanation was calling out the double standards of the member states, who accept one kind of terrorist violence—the statement mentioned the militant violence in Pakistan’s Balochistan province, which the country blames on India—but not the kind India has been raising its voice against—Pakistan-orchestrated terrorism in Kashmir. According to Singh, this was even more shocking given the recent massacre of civilians in Kashmir’s Baisaran valley, which India insists was carried out by The Resistance Front (TRF), a proxy of Pakistan based Lashkar-e-Taiba, a United Nations-designated terrorist group.

In a media interaction, the spokesperson for the ministry of external affairs, Randhir Jaiswal said that only one country, insinuating Pakistan, had a problem with the inclusion of the Pahalgam attack in the joint statement. Yet, strangely, the member nations were mindful of that one nation’s concerns over India’s. Could this be the consequence of India’s diminishing engagement within SCO? After all, India did distance itself from the SCO statement condemning Israel’s unprovoked attack on Iran. Worse, India advised Iran to exercise restraint, quite like the US and other west European countries.

Or could it be that SCO, like many other countries including the US, do not see the Kashmir issue in the way India wants them to see--that the only problem in Kashmir is terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. A few days after the SCO fiasco, at the Quad foreign ministers meeting in the US, the participating ministers condemned the Baisaran attack, but did not link it to Pakistan. The Quad, by the way, is the basket in which India has placed its entire poultry farm at the cost of its commitments to SCO and its big sister BRICS. Remember, going against the BRICS sentiment, India had said it will continue to trade in dollars much against the growing consensus on trading in local currencies, because given its commitment to and dependence on Quad, it cannot be party to de-dollarisation.

Hence, the sad truth is that for all of India’s exertions, in bilateral and multilateral forums, most nations do not regard the Kashmir issue as settled. Given the post 1947 history of Kashmir--the UN resolution, wars between India and Pakistan, the violent insurgency since 1989 and the active backchannel talks between the two sides during 2004-2008--the world still regards Kashmir as an unresolved matter between two nuclear-armed nations. This is the reason that when India brings up terrorism in Kashmir, the world sees it as part of a dispute; repeatedly tempting the US President Donald Trump to offer mediation.

Another evidence of how the world responds to India’s assertions on terrorism is the much-touted proscription of Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed by the UN. While the Jaish was listed in 2001 for its support to al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, Lashkar was listed in 2005 for the same reason, with subsequent activities including the Mumbai terrorist attack of 2008. Clearly, this happened because of the US’ Global War on Terrorism anchored in Afghanistan. The UN sanction list does not refer to their terrorist activities in Kashmir.

India insists that whatever remained of the ‘issue’ in Kashmir was resolved in August 2019, when Articles 370 and 35A were revoked by the government and endorsed by the Parliament. Since then, the government has been showcasing this ‘resolution’ and the consequent ‘normalcy’ in Kashmir through tourist numbers and promise of future investments.

However, despite this effort, shutting down of dissenting voices on Kashmir is taking a toll at India’s global standing—something very dear to the Prime Minister and his core vote bank, which views him as a world leader--someone the globe defers to and consults on critical matters.

But Kashmir is isolating India from the world, after having isolated it in its neighbourhood. The roots of India-Pakistan animosity are planted in Kashmir. This animosity demands that India’s South Asian neighbours take sides between the two countries. The result of this diplomatic obstinacy has been that despite its common history, and linguistic, cultural and culinary congruity, South Asia remains amongst the most divided regions in the world. Worse, despite sharing borders with each of its neighbours, India’s engagement with them remains abysmal. Hence, despite coming into existence almost 40 years after India’s independence, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) unravelled within two decades.

Now media reports suggest that China and Pakistan are discussing the possibility of a new South Asian compact. Whatever shape this compact takes, it will certainly not have India. Shorn of India-Pakistan tension, and with China steering it, it is likely to see rapid progress as it will be an adjunct to latter’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

SAARC aside, SCO, BRICS and Quad, refuses to accept India’s arguments on Kashmir, circumscribing both its global standing and influence. Having harped on it for over 10 years with the same results, shouldn’t the Modi government try something different? The previous governments could not take a revolutionary position on peace with Pakistan and China through Kashmir because of their weak mandate. The back-channel India-Pakistan conversation during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s tenure would have hit a roadblock even without the unravelling of President Musharraf’s regime, because neither Singh’s government had a powerful mandate nor his personality the force to command people to accept everything he did.

Prime Minister Modi has hypnotised the people of India. In his first term, he sold demonetisation as being beneficial to the people and in the second term he convinced the voters that the loss of life during the Covid-19 mismanagement was an illusion. Surely, he can sell peace with Pakistan and China, especially when this peace will accrue both geopolitical and economic benefits for the nation and enhance his global stature as a leader bold enough to shrug off the historical baggage. All it needs is a conversation on Kashmir. Who knows the prize at the end of the tunnel could even be a Nobel! So, cling to the ideology he grew up with, or turn the geopolitical opportunity to his advantage. The choice is his.