How long must we ignore Pakistan’s perfidities – Shankkar Aiyar

Nawaz Sharif & Pak Army Chief

Shankkar AiyarIndia is yet again at that intersection where it must avenge its honour, yet it cannot afford to lose its moral stature. … Independent MP Rajeev Chandrashekar proposes to move a Private Member’s Bill in the Rajya Sabha calling for Pakistan to be declared a terrorist state. … It would be interesting to see how the government responds to this approach. – Shankkar Aiyar

Study history, study history. In history lie all the secrets of statecraft….” so said Winston Churchill. Around 45 years ago, as the Pakistani Army waged war against its own people in East Pakistan, Indira Gandhi made a prophetic observation in a TV interview weeks before the 1971 war. She said, “I think, and I personally think most of the world believes this but they may not say so openly, that Pakistan as it existed can never be the same again.”

History is witness, since, to the unravelling of a country—the decoupling of the nation and the emergence of the rogue state. For four decades, Pakistan has leveraged sponsorship of terror as an instrument of statecraft, creating multiple business models. That Pakistan continues to do so while being a member of the UN and a trusted ally of the evangelists of global morality illustrates the perfidy that defines geopolitics.

There has been hopeful excitement about a bill (HR 6069) titled “Pakistan State Sponsor of Terrorism Designation Act” introduced in the US House of Representatives by Congressman Ted Poe. He said, “A day of reckoning has arrived. Fifteen years after September 11, 2001, we have more than enough evidence to determine whose side Pakistan is on. And it’s not America’s.” This is not the first attempt. On March 9, 1995, Congressman Eliot L. Engel along with Representative Bill McCollum supported by seven members introduced a resolution (H Con. Res 35) calling upon the Secretary of State “to designate Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism”. The 1995 resolution was referred to the Committee on International Relations. The 2016 bill has been referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and Committee.

The reality of Pakistan sponsoring terror and providing a safe haven for terrorists has been known and repeatedly proven—Abbottabad is but one location. The fate of India’s repeated presentation of dossiers is well known. Others haven’t fared better either. Rahmatullah Nabil, former head of Afghan spy agency National Directorate of Security, accused Pakistan and ISI of systematically sponsoring terrorism with grim details. Zalmay Khalilzad, former US envoy to Iraq, Afghanistan and UN told the House Committee on Foreign Affairs that Pakistan was playing a double game. He averred that Pakistan, instead of being designated as a “major non-NATO ally”, should be on the “list of state sponsors of terrorism”. Indeed, in February 2015, Edward R. Royce, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations wrote to Secretary of State John Kerry questioning the strategic partnership between the US and Pakistan.

Richard Nixon & Yahya KhanFact is, Pakistan has insured itself into a secure refuge. The reason is located in history—in the crafting of the principal agent relationship with the US (and with China). On October 25, 1970, Richard Nixon promised Pakistan’s military ruler Yahya Khan that “we will keep our word, we will work with you, try to be as helpful as we can”. That was the price America had to pay for Pakistan brokering peace with China which came through in July 1971. Despite an arms embargo, arms were made available to Pakistan via Turkey and Iran. Indeed, in the 1970s, US Ambassador to India Patrick Moynihan urged in a telegram to the President “Promise Pakistan Anything But Arms” as it would be “feeding the fantasies” of Pakistan.

Osama bin LadenIt would seem that four decades later, the US administration is yet paying the EMI. Since 9/11, it has funded Pakistan to the tune of $25 billion—nearly 70 per cent of which was for security-related assistance. And questions have been raised. In 2011, following Operation Geronimo, a bill titled “Pakistan Foreign Aid Accountability Act” called on the Secretary of State to certify that Pakistan did not know of Laden’s presence. In April 2016, Congressman Matt Salmon (Chairman, Sub Committee on Asia) in his opening remarks on the 2017 Budget (Afghanistan and Pakistan) questioned the conduct of Pakistan and observed “too often they seem to do the bare minimum to keep the money flowing”. Pakistan is also a recipient of aid from multilateral agencies like IDA, World Bank and countries including Japan, the UK and Germany besides the Middle East.

For sure, countries will focus on self-interest. What about multilateral agencies—how sure are they or what is the accountability of end-use of money? What about the state of human rights in Pakistan? The HRW report is a litany of oppression. There is the persecution and execution of minorities—Shia mosques being bombed, Ahmadis being killed, the use of blasphemy laws to institutionalise discrimination. Worse, the government ended an unofficial moratorium on judicial executions.

What about the UN, what about its mandate? Benjamin Netanyahu recently described the transition of the UN from a “moral force to a moral farce”. Fact is, the UN Security Council Counter Terrorism Committee lists 38 resolutions of varying angles passed since 9/11. That, however, hasn’t yet resulted in even a question on how Pakistan repeatedly pops in the discourse on terror attacks—most recently the New York bomber. For sure, not every Pakistani supports terrorism. But events and facts beg the question as to why so many terrorists seem to have passed through Pakistan?

India is yet again at that intersection where it must avenge its honour, yet it cannot afford to lose its moral stature. Options range from and include diplomatic isolation, military action, denying Indus river water and so on. Independent MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar proposes to move a Private Member’s Bill in the Rajya Sabha calling for Pakistan to be declared a terrorist state. It stops short of asking the government to move a resolution in the UN. It would be interesting to see how the government responds to this approach.

They say you cannot escape your history and geography. India’s challenge is to find answers independently to establish its pre-eminence. That, however, still leaves open the question that now must be answered by the evangelists of global good: how long will the international community be mute spectators while a rogue state commits genocide at home and sponsors terrorism across the world? It is an inflection point in history.  – The New Indian Express, 26 September 2016

» Shankkar Aiyar is an analyst for The New Indian Express and  author of Accidental India: A History of the Nation’s Passage through Crisis and Change. He tweets at @ShankkarAiyar.

Pakistan : State of the Nation

2 Responses

  1. Cong for spl parl session to declare Pak a terrorist state – Deccan Herald – PTI – New Delhi – Sept 26, 2016

    Congress today demanded that a special session of Parliament be convened to declare Pakistan a terrorist state in the wake of the Uri terror attack.

    It also alleged that the Narendra Modi government has responded only with “jumlas (gimmicks) and rhetoric” since the attack took place and favoured withdrawal of the most favoured nation status to Pakistan and imposition of economic sanctions on it.

    “We believe extreme situation demands extreme decisions. By now, Pakistan should have been declared a terrorist state. They failed in that also,” party spokesman Abhishek Singhvi told reporters, accusing the government of doing “precious little” to put Islamabad in the dock.

    “We demand near absolute economic sanctions on Pakistan. There should be a special session of Parliament to discuss our security situation and declare Pakistan a terrorist state,” he said.

    The government’s response to the attack has been only through “rhetoric and jumlas” and the Prime Minister’s speech at Kozhikode demonstrated “strategic ambiguity”. India is “looking weak, having failed to deliver meaty blows” to Pakistan, Singhvi said.

    “We do not want this to lead to a strategic confusion, make India a laughing stock. It should not let the world think that India has an aimless political strategy. Aimless political strategy is not a synonym of strategic restraint,” he said targeting the government.

    Noting that Congress also believed in strategic restraint, Singhvi said that such restraint in the face of such provocation should not mean the absence of a strategic response.

    “People of India want concrete actions against the rogue state of Pakistan,” he said, adding the terror attacks at Uri and Pathankot have together taken a toll not seen in the last 20-22 years.

    “We demand the considerable scaling down of Pakistan’s High Commission in Delhi,” he said and wondered why there was delay in considering and finalising the asylum request of the Baloch leader Brahamdagh Bugti.

    In a veiled attack on Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval, he said, “Political and administrative accountability” of the highest offices have to be also fixed in the context of those responsible for security


  2. We repeat the big question: Why hasn’t India declared Pakistan a terrorist state?

    Is the oh-so-clever but pusillanimous Modi Sarkar waiting for the Americans to do it first?

    And why hasn’t the army chief been sacked? The fact that Pak jihadis could access the Uri camp without any obstruction or challenge from guards or dogs or electronic alarms shows that there was something very lax and sloppy in the administrative set up of the camp.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: