The Real Power Centre in India

By

Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan

During the recently concluded Indo-Pak foreign minister level talks in Islamabad, on July 15, 2010, Indian Foreign Secretary Ms. Nirupama Rao, made five telephonic calls back home in order to seek clarification and new directives from the New Delhi. Because of these continuous intrusions, the negotiations ended without making a positive outcome. Otherwise, upon its arrival on Islamabad airport, the head of Indian team Foreign Minister, Krishna was full of zest; once he made a statement that, they have brought a message of good will for the people of Pakistan from the Indian people. Receiving of such like directives and issuing of rabble-rousing statements by Indian team, later in the media, speaks of three things. First, the Indian participants of the talks under FM Krishna were not fully prepared for the dialogue, therefore, they were being spoon fed continuously, lest they could have been castigated on reaching back home. It was exactly, the way LK Advani was thrashed for admiring Quaid-i-Azam during his visit to Pakistan in May-June 2005. He later had to seek exoneration from the Hindu nationalists; BJP and RSS and also refused to accept what he said in Pakistan. Similarly the former Foreign and Finance Minister, Jaswant Singh was removed from the basic leadership of his party; BJP for admiring and accepting Quaid-i-Azam, as a great leader of the South Asia in his book entitled, “Jinnah: India-Partition-Independence,” published in 2009.

 Secondly, they were not expecting the Pakistani side would be asking for the wholesome talks to include negotiations on all issues, yet to be resolved, thus have continuously been asking the desire of the Indian Government. Pakistan indeed, wanted a revival of the composite dialogue process, initially started in 1997 and revived in 2004. This dialogue process included progress on all issues to list; the issue of Kashmir, Siachin, Sir Creek, water, trade etc. India on the other hand wanted to divulge on the issue of cross border terrorism and trade. Indeed these issues are subsidiary in nature and would be resolved automatically, once the basic issue, the Kashmir stands resolved. Indian and Pakistani Premiers accepted negotiations on all these issues during the Thimphu round of SAARC Summit (16^th SAARC-Silver Jubilee year) in April-2010 in Bhutan. The agenda of the talks was unanimously worked out during the meeting of foreign secretaries in Islamabad on June 24, 2010. India Home Minister Mr. P Chidambaram visited Pakistan on June 25, 2010, and shared his views with his Pakistani counterpart in a cordial environment.

Thirdly, the team headed by the Foreign Minister S M Krishna had little or no authority to make progress on the unresolved issues.  Their hands were tied and lip sealed except to utter a few ceremonial words by the real power centre in New Delhi. That is why the frequent phone calls were being made by the biggest bureaucrat of the foreign minister, Ms. Nirupama Rao to get their consent. It appeared, as if India wanted to concentrate on a single point agenda through a narrowed down and a selective approach to; “confront the Pakistan government with its complicity in the Mumbai incident and use another stick to accuse it of infiltration in Kashmir”. However, as per the FM Qureshi, “Indians were conveyed that Pakistan wanted a roadmap for the future but they (Indian) did not have the mandate to commit to a roadmap. Pakistan is ready for talks but dialogue should be substantive, meaningful, and result-oriented. Pakistan's people and Kashmiris cannot be de-linked from the situation in Jammu & Kashmir.”

In all eventualities, the talks could not make the headway because of the Indian unfounded and unyielding attitude. This is not the first time that the negotiations between India and Pakistan failed. Tracing back the Agra Summit of July 2001, once former Pakistani President visited India with a lot of hopes and flexibility vested in his official position to make progress on the out-standing issues between both countries. He went to India with lot of clarity, absolute authority, and succinctness. There have been five long and arduous rounds of the discussions, mostly one on one, between the then Indian Prime Minister Mr. AB Vajpayee and Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf. However, no progress could be made to resolve the issues, bothering 1.4 billion populace of the India and Pakistan.

What went wrong there, during the Agra Summit? It was indeed, a misreporting in the media by then Indian Information Minister, Ms. Shusma Suraj that the talks were focusing mainly on the two issues; the cross border terrorism and the trade and commerce. She did not make mention of the other issues discussed during the meetings. Of course, Kashmir was the core issue, which dominated the summit with 90 percent attention. This wrong reporting in the media even was not in the knowledge of the Indian Premier, who himself got the shock on the statement of his information Minister. Owing to this misreporting the Summit remained inconclusive, in spite, the fact that both leaders did try to  evade the failure by undertaking late night 80 minutes round of the talks. Thereafter, the unfortunate incident of 9/11, and Indo-Pak escalation overtook the peace process, until its resumption during the 12^th SAARC Summit, held in Islamabad in January 2004. After a lot of hectic diplomacy, both countries resumed the composite dialogue process in 2004. Pakistan showed a lot of flexibility for the resolution of the core issue; the issue of Kashmir, but there prevailed again the Indian hawks, and the basic cause remained unresolved. Going back to history, there took place thirteen rounds of the talks between then Foreign Minister ZA Bhutto and Indian Foreign Minister, Sardar Swaran Singh in early 1960s. However, due to lack of a clear roadmap and authority with the Indian Foreign Minister, no progress could be made. 

The basic aim of tracing the brief history of the Indo-Pak negotiations was to uncover the real cause of the failure of the hundreds of the rounds of the talks, ever since 1947. In a democratically ruled government, the power lies with its elected representative to decide about all issues of national interests. They should have the absolute authority vested on to them by the constitution of that country. India claims to be the world biggest democracy, but once its own prime minister or any other minister is unable to take decision, then the question arise, as where lies the real power. Who stopped Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru to sidetrack his own commitments with the Kasmiris and Pakistan? What were the hidden hands, which forced Prime Minister AB Vajpyee to succumb in front of his information minister; Sushma Suraj, LK Advani, Jaswant Singh and Yaswant Sinha, all the hawkish minister of his cabinet? Which was the force behind them? Indeed, the same force did not let the Indian Foreign Minister Mr. SM Krishna to make a progress on the real issues pending for a solution. 

The question arise, where lays the real power in the India. Indeed, the real decision making power in the India can be find in a troika consists of; the powerful Indian Army, RAW, the infamous Indian spying network and the Hinduism; the belief that Hindus are the real master of the India and anyone who have to live there either accept Hindu religion or leave India. This strong bondage with the fundamentalist Hindu mentality, believes in the “Akhand Bharat”- Greater India concept. What to talk of Kashmir, this powerful Troika, believes in the fact that, the other regional countries of the South Asia including Pakistan should ultimately yield to Indian demands, for making Akhand Bharat; the Greater India. Indian Hindu strategists consider Afghanistan and Myanmar (Burma) to be its part through this age-old concept. Indian growing influence in Afghanistan and getting into its social fibre   is indeed part of this strategy. India claims its borders from Hindu-Kush to Burma. Indian intelligence network RAW has sufficiently established itself into Myanmar, Afghanistan and all other neighbouring countries of India.  Indeed, the basic aim of the RAW’s establishment was to destabilise the neighbours to a limit that they either become part of India or submit to its desires.

The so-called Indian democracy is indeed subservient to the real Indian power, mentioned above. It is indeed futile to believe that Indian premiers and ministers like S M Krishna are going to make decisions on issues like Kashmir, water, Sir Creek or Siachin. They just portray to the world that India is very much interested and believes in the dialogue and negotiations. However, behind the scene, the real strategy is gain the time and consolidate Indian hold on to the disputed areas. However, India has badly failed on its malicious campaign of winning the hearts and mind of the Kashmiri masses, as evident from the recent uprising and violence there.

As a piece of advice from the realist’s school of thought, India must accept the ground reality and understand that, Kashmir is the basic issue and without its resolution as per the wishes of its subjects, there would be no progress on other issues between India and Pakistan. India cannot keep Kashmir it its occupation for a long. Therefore, it must stop human right violation in its occupied areas of the state. Moreover, India must re-start the composite dialogue process with Pakistan from the point where it left those in 2008, following the Mumbai attacks, or else world is inclined to believe that RAW has masterminded these  attacks to disrupt the dialogue and compel Pakistan to yield to un-dithering Indian demands. 

The writer is an analyst of international relations.