Terrorist attacks in Jammu and Kashmir have increased dramatically in the last few months. There has been an overall decrease after the abrogation of Article 370, but in order to demoralise the recent democratic success (on conducting successful elections) and show that Jammu and Kashmir is not peaceful, terror outfits from Pakistan have increased terrorist attacks. The recent attack in Ganderbal killed seven people. The responsibility for the attack was claimed by The Resistance Front, an offshoot organization of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba. Terrorism is a menace. Destruction of life and property is not the only consequence; it has ramifications that would echo in the nation’s consciousness for generations. The world might have opened its eyes to the dangers of terrorism after 9/11, but the South Asian subcontinent was reeling from the consequences of terror activities for quite a long time. Ever since its independence, India has been fighting these extreme elements in one way or another, especially in Kashmir valley, where cross-border infiltration occurs frequently. This article will try to explain why there are ‘No-diplomatic ties’ between India and Pakistan, these two adversary South-Asian nuclear giants, in the shadow of terrorism.
Terrorism has affected countries and societies across the world. South Asia is not an exception. Terrorism has affected the psyche of people and states for decades. It has disrupted the overall growth of South Asia. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, overall terrorist activities have slumped in the region. However, the number has aggravated in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, which is alarming. Pakistan, on its part, has always been in a denial mode. It not only provided a safe haven to terrorists and terrorist organizations but also provided them with state resources and political patronage at International institutions by taking the help of China. India, since 2018, has been consistent in its advocacy of talk on the dangers of terrorism on multilateral forums. On the bilateral front as well, especially with Pakistan, though a formal diplomatic engagement has not taken place since 2008, any talk of delinking terrorism has not been acceptable.
Foreign Policy Tools are not the same
States use ‘dialogue’ and ‘diplomacy’ as foreign policy tools to avoid conflicts and achieve relative gain where all the parties gain something. However, Pakistan has consistently used cross-border terrorism and militancy as their foreign policy tools in the hope of absolute gain, where one party gains something at the same time others lose. Pakistan uses “established unconventional approaches”, that is, terrorism and funding to militants, to destabilize the Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and avoid direct confrontation with India, which Pakistan can not afford. Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, Working with the CIA, provided money, weapons and shelter to Afghan fighters to fight Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the Soviet Invasion in the 1980s. After the Soviets left Afghanistan in 1988-89, these fighters became unemployed. Pakistan gave them shelter and resources in order to use them against India. This brought Islamic radicalism to the Indo-Pak border areas, and militancy in Kashmir was at its peak in the late 90s and early 2000s. These incidents exhibit that India’s foreign policy tools are dialogue and diplomacy; on the contrary, terrorism and militancy are the tools of Pakistan. Therefore, diplomatic engagement is unlikely to happen when foreign policy tools are not the same.
India’s Past Experiences
International Relations theory first used Human Nature to explain states’ behaviour. The classical realist school equated the behaviour of States to the behaviour of humans. The school has its critics. However, States experience events like humans and act or decide according to their experiences. In the case of India, it has experienced multiple betrayals and lies from Pakistan, starting from 1947. Pakistan backstabbed India on many occasions. During the 1965 war, Pakistan infiltrated India but denied it. In 1971, India signed the Simla Agreement, but Pakistan violated it. During the Kargil War, then Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee started ‘Bus Diplomacy’ to strengthen friendly relations. However, the Pakistani Army captured the Indian peaks in the shadow of diplomacy. During the UPA government, PM Manmohan Singh tried to initiate talks with Pakistan on multiple occasions, but Pakistan’s response was 26/11 terror attacks. Under Modi’s leadership, India again tried to peacefully engage with Pakistan by inviting Nawaz Sharif to the oath-taking ceremony in 2014. PM Modi reciprocated by attending the marriage of the granddaughter of Nawaz Sharif. Yes, the Pathankot and the Uri attacks simply took the wind out of the sail. Due to these repeated betrayals, India’s trust has been depleted. Now, if at all there is to be a talk, Pakistan has to address the issue of cross-border terrorism sincerely. Until then, Pakistan’s future depends on its choices and actions.
India’s Offensive Responses
Since 2014, the Modi Government has responded offensively to violent extremism inside the country and cross-border terrorism from Pakistan. South Asian Terrorism portal shows that killings have decreased drastically since 2014. Before 2014, the average number of terror incidents was 1500, but this dropped drastically in the last nine years to 400. The reason behind this exponential decrease is “offensive counter-terrorism” measures. The government amended the UAPA in 2019 to crack down on individual terrorists. Despite setbacks, the law has yielded good results by creating a sense of fear among the Individual terrorists. India’s response to cross-border terrorism has also changed. It is taking offensive measures on cross-border terrorism from Pakistan. The surgical strike and Balakot strike are fine examples of offensive approaches. India’s intolerance of terrorism does not confine to military actions. India is also putting pressure on Pakistan by demeaning it on international forums.
Conclusion These are some of the reasons behind the lack of diplomatic ties between India and Pakistan, and in many ways, they are working in favour of India. However, cross-border terrorism and visible political backing at International Institutions (the UN) are the primary and traditional reasons behind no-diplomatic ties between India and Pakistan. These offensive strategies have helped India mitigate the threat of terrorism in recent years. In contrast, previous governments’ defensive strategies may have occasionally yielded results but nothing of note. The search operations in militant areas of the country, the preemptive strikes on terror outfits in Pakistan, and the strengthening of terrorism and extremism legislation in the country have delivered better results. “No Foreign Policy is also a Foreign Policy,” says Dr Nanda Kishor, who heads the Department of Politics and International Studies at Pondicherry University. The present government has consciously avoided engaging directly or indirectly with Pakistan. The most recent example is when India’s Foreign Minister, S. Jaishankar, visited Pakistan for the SCO submission. However, he clearly mentioned that ‘he is not going to Pakistan to engage with Pakistan diplomatically but with the SCO’. One may fail to gauge the immediate impact of “no engagement”, but certainly, the frustration will mount, and results follow.
