The India-Pakistan equation is haunted at the best of times, hobbled by the Pakistan state’s desperate need to hold up India as a physical and ideological foe before its people in order to justify the perpetuation of the military’s predominance in the Islamic republic. But even by the prevailing dismal standards, the post-Ufa flare-up along the international border and the Line of Control marks a new low.
On July 10, the Prime Ministers of the two countries met on the sidelines of the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation in the Russian city of Ufa to re-smoothen ties. This was at India’s initiative. A joint statement was issued, outlining the steps to be taken by both sides to restore normality after the rupture caused last year when India called off a meeting of foreign secretaries when the Pakistan high commissioner in New Delhi insisted on meeting Kashmir separatists before the talks.
It was hoped that after Ufa the PMs will meet again in New York in September to keep up the momentum of contacts at the highest political level. Prime Minister Narendra Modi accepted the invitation of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to visit Pakistan for the Saarc summit in 2016.
But two negative developments marred the atmosphere in less than a week of the Ufa contact. Pakistan national security adviser Sartaj Aziz held forth at length to all but jettison the Ufa text and the Ufa mood. The hawks had mounted an offensive, guided by the military and security establishment, seizing on the fact that the Ufa document did not specifically mention Kashmir in generic terms while committing both sides to combat terrorism. The second hostile development was Pakistan claiming last Wednesday that an Indian drone on a spy mission had been shot down in its airspace. The absurdity of this was made amply clear when foreign secretary S. Jaishankar revealed the following day that what was shown to the media by Pakistan was, in fact, a Chinese drone. It appears that the ISI had got the Air Force to shoot down one of its own drones (in service of the highway police) to accuse India of hostile intent to muddy the waters.
What has followed was fairly routine — an intensive exchange of fire. India’s response is that it stands by the Ufa document but would give an “effective and forceful” response to Pakistan’s little military tricks. Pakistan now doesn’t refer to Ufa. This is the difference. The military establishment has once again shown that its civilian authority is for window-dressing purposes. Building a peaceful neighbourhood is not on its mind. India can be sure that Pakistan’s hostility will flavour its moves in Afghanistan and Central Asia as well.
