Sharm-e-Sheikh -- a new dawn or costly mistake?

Most people must have read about the recent storm initiated in the foreign policy sphere by the joint statement issued at Sharm-e- Sheikh between the leaders of India and Pakistan. From all the hysteria surrounding the framing of the document and apparent surrender of moral high ground by India, one could easily conclude the signing of memorandum as akin to selling of national interest. “Manmohan has gone to the Pakistani camp”, pronounced a senior leader of BJP on the floor of Parliament. For once politicians and the usually highly efficient diplomats, manning India’s foreign interests, have been left surprised and bemused at this apparent slip.

I also have a perspective on the issue and would like to share few thoughts that my humble knowledge and understanding can permit me to make. Most theorists consider a country’s foreign policy to be an extension of its domestic policy and an instrument that can be used by it to further its own national interests. Foreign policy is also mostly the result of a long-standing relationship of give and take with another country. Most countries are hence locked in fairly consistent and stable foreign policy positions, with the duty of diplomats being to maintain this status quo and make sure that nothing out of ordinary is done to challenge the existing world order. The best diplomats are termed as diligent, efficient, and articulate but vision and leadership are not really the pre-requisites for good diplomacy. Leaders on the other hand think on the different plane. The most powerful and ambitious of leaders are concerned about their position in history and are weighed in by the expectations that the position of PM or a President bestows upon them. They are more akin to making split second and emotional decisions. Most of them would believe in the concept of black-swan (occurrences that are not expected by people to happen in normal circumstances) promoted by Taleb and would see themselves as the catalysts for such events. It is the business of leaders to initiate and change the course of events based on their vision. For if you keep on doing what you have always been doing, you will keep on getting the same outcome as always.

For far too long India has had leaders with a very narrow and short-term vision. Most decisions are taken with the upcoming election or parliament session in mind. Rather than leading, most politicians have just been indulging in politicking by getting involved in narrow, sectarian and regional issues. They refuse to address the major problems facing India for fear of repercussions from the ignorant and easily excitable electorate. And what’s a bigger problem than our relations with Pakistan at this point of time? Haven’t we been told umpteen times that it is the politicians who are the biggest stumbling blocks to peace between the two countries? Most people know and understand that war is not a solution to India’s problems with Pakistan. As Vajpayee said in one of his poignant moods when the war cry was at its peak following the attack on Indian parliament, “You can decide over when you start a war. But once started, when it will end, how it will end, nobody knows. That is a call leaders have to take,” The loss suffered by the family members of a dead son, husband or father, the utter waste of resources that a war entails, the everlasting hatred that it precipitates are all established negative effects of war that no-one can ignore. Most people who still harp about war have either not read enough history, have something to gain politically or economically by the business of war or are sitting in a foreign country safe and untouched by the after effects of war. Statesmen understand this but politicians don’t. If we agree then that war is not an option, then what is the alternative?

It’s in the above context that the accord at Sharm-e-Sheikh should be seen. There is no doubt that Manmohan Singh is a man guided by his intellect and vision for modern India. He has never been a politician and doesn’t have any short term political rents to disburse. His decision making process is guided not by narrow, political outcomes but by an eye on future and a dominant place for India in world affairs. By adopting policies that could extract a price in present but would pay dividends to our future generations, he is trying to fulfill this vision. No one knows if the initiative will succeed or not or if the terrorist attacks will stop. But one thing is certain; no future scenario can be envisioned without a sustainable peace between India and Pakistan. We cannot sustain this endless pursuit of one-upmanship, weapons and deceit. Lets imagine for once that our PM thinks in the same vein as mentioned above and in addition, for the first time, received a concrete evidence that our neighbor is sincerely trying to address this issue and has turned a corner, then it would be most logical for him, being a statesman, to go more than half the distance in ensuring that peace is given another chance in the region. And that is why I think Manmohan Singh’s latest initiative deserves support.

No issue gets resolved by silence, instead silence breeds mutual distrust, suspicion and leaves the door open for third party exploitation. We might not be able to solve this problem today or this year or even in next 5 years but at least it is a step in the right direction. And unfortunately, after 60 years of conflict, we can’t afford to stay astray anymore. Ignoring the problem and wishing it away is not the solution. One needs to keep trying. For India, it’s even more important as its ambition is bigger. It cannot emerge as a world power without first countering distractions within its own backyard. Today, the single biggest reason why South Asia is suspected and disregarded as an investment destination is because of the higher discount rates that are necessitated by the prospect of war and terrorism attack in the region. In an era, when our country has been unshackled from the economic chains and has started competing in global economy, we cannot afford to be limited by the age-old perceptions with respect to this most difficult of problems. It is only by letting go the past prejudices and understanding the ground realities that we can think about a peaceful future together.

Furthermore as the PM mentioned in his speech, talking together doesn’t mean that we ignore our neighbor’s insincere and false actions, instead it gives us a greater ability to express our displeasure and ensure that our neighour is held responsible for its actions. For anyone who doesn’t believe in this argument should just answer this simple question. Who is more difficult to dupe or backstab - a person with whom you have no relationship or the one with whom you have one?

Finally, we must understand that there is always a great asymmetry in the information privy to the PM as compared to a normal citizen. And this asymmetry is further heightened in matters of national security. We can only judge a leader’s actions on the basis of outcomes or in this case, past outcomes. It is for this reason as well that the person, who gave us economic reforms and staked his government on the seemingly innocuous looking but potentially beneficial in the long run nuclear deal, needs to be given the benefit of doubt.