Foreign politics demand scarcely any of those qualities which a democracy possesses; and they require, on the contrary, the perfect use of almost all those faculties in which it is deficient… A democracy is unable to regulate the details of an important undertaking, to persevere in a design, and to work out its execution in the presence of serious obstacles. It cannot combine its measures with secrecy, and will not await their consequences with patience.”
The contretemps which developed soon after the joint press briefing by the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan, at Ufa on July 10, amply bears out the sagacity of Alexis de Tocqueville’s words in his classic Democracy in America. They are true particularly for these two countries which are locked in long-standing disputes. It was not wise to omit any reference to the Kashmir issue in the briefing. This had happened once before at the Agra summit, on July 15, 2001, when the then information and broadcasting minister Sushma Swaraj reeled out to the press a host of issues which President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee had discussed, omitting deliberately Kashmir. This led to a strong reaction in Pakistan. Its high commission’s official, present at Agra, promptly set the record straight — Kashmir was very much discussed.
If diplomacy is to be conducted purposefully with an aim at conciliation neither side should put the other in an embarrassing position with its public opinion.
One witnessed a similar drama in reverse in the famous joint statement which PMs Manmohan Singh and Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani issued at Sharm el-Sheikh on July 16, 2009. It was the first summit of the PMs after the Mumbai attacks of November 26, 2008. Manmohan Singh would have been remiss in his duties to the nation if he had not raised the matter with Gilani. The joint statement said “Prime Minister Singh reiterated the need to bring the Mumbai attackers to justice. Gilani assured that Pakistan will do everything for this.”
A reference to the status dossier, on the investigations into the attacks in Mumbai, was followed by this accord: “Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share information on any terrorist threats”. However, it was immediately followed by this fateful line: “Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas”. Never before had Balochistan figured in a joint statement between the two countries. Mr Gilani could well have revealed in a press briefing in Pakistan his reference to Balochistan in his talks with Manmohan Singh. In the joint statement it smacked of tit-for-tat. The media and the Opposition attacked Dr Singh and his party abandoned him.
The result was summed up by a TV anchor — from now on Dr Singh will not be able to make any concessions to Pakistan. Since Independence no Indian PM India, not excluding Nehru, had gone out on a limb to forge a settlement on Kashmir.
Nehru was so sensitive to public opinion that he cared little for the damage his statements inflicted on the diplomatic process. On November 29, 1962, President Ayub Khan and Nehru issued a joint statement as a prelude to a summit. It spoke of “a renewed effort… to resolve the differences on Kashmir and other matters.” The next day, Nehru assured Parliament that “anything that involved the upsetting of the present arrangements would be harmful” to all the parties. In plain words, change in the status quo was ruled out. Anglo-American intercession only yielded the clarification that he was not imposing any “precondition on the talks”. Small wonder that the talks between the foreign ministers, Z.A. Bhutto and Swaran Singh, failed.
It is not easy to reconcile the political necessity of keeping public opinion satisfied with the claims of diplomacy. The leaders of India and Pakistan would do well to heed the advice of Abba Eban, Israel’s former foreign minister. He wrote: “It is unrealistic to expect leaders to ignore public opinion. But a statesman who keeps his ear permanently glued to the ground will have neither elegance of posture nor flexibility of movement”.
The writer is an author and lawyer based in Mumbai
By arrangement with Dawn
