The 40-Day War between the US-Israel alliance and Iran ended with a 15-day ceasefire, followed by direct negotiations between the US and Iran in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad. As the lines are being penned, efforts are underway for the second round of “Islamabad Talks”. Though the first round of the talks ended without an agreement, it was the first time since 1979 that a US Vice President sat face-to-face with a high-ranking Iranian delegation led by the Speaker of the Parliament and including the Foreign Minister. Furthermore, considering the worsening global economic fallout of the war and President Trump’s threat of civilizational annihilation against Iran, the significance of the ceasefire and subsequent talks could not be overstressed.
From facilitating the ceasefire in West Asia to bringing the warring parties to the negotiating table and mediating the “Islamabad Talks”, Pakistan has emerged as an important player in global diplomacy. While the political dispensation in Pakistan has its own set of domestic and foreign policy reasons to push for a cessation of hostilities and seek a resolution to the West Asia conflict, given the global economic fallout of the war, Islamabad-Rawalpindi’s diplomatic endeavours could be described as anything but exclusively self-serving. In fact, peace in the Persian Gulf serves the interests of all countries facing the brunt of the disruption to energy and fertilizer supplies through the Strait of Hormuz. Hence, it is not surprising that Islamabad has assumed the diplomatic centre stage, and Pakistan’s top civil-military leadership is spending rather busy days conducting shuttle and telephone diplomacy, while also receiving commendations from all around the globe.
Nevertheless, Islamabad becoming the centre of global diplomacy for what can be categorized as an international cause did not go well everywhere. Neither surprisingly nor unpredictably are naysayers found in the country’s east: the Modi government and the aligned media in India. Considering that India remains heavily dependent on energy imports from the Persian Gulf and is severely affected by disruptions to shipping through Hormuz, rationality dictates that New Delhi should appreciate any efforts towards peace in the Persian Gulf. However, the Modi government and, by default, the aligned media have adopted a paradoxical approach of open adversity and dismissiveness towards the US-Iran talks, solely because Pakistan happens to be in the driving seat.
A few days before the US-Iran ceasefire, as Pakistan scrambled to bring the two warring parties to a ceasefire, the opposition parties in India questioned the Modi government as to why India is not making the de-escalation efforts, while Pakistan is playing an active diplomatic role. Although the Indian opposition, viewing Islamabad’s de-escalation efforts through the lens of the India-Pakistan rivalry, reflected a problematic zero-sum approach, the Modi government has been patronizing and encouraging such a mindset vis-à-vis Pakistan for more than a decade.
During a briefing to the opposition leadership, the Indian External Affairs Minister, S. Jaishankar, resorted to the use of a derogatory expletive to scornfully dismiss Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts, which—though unbecoming of a foreign minister—is not unexpected of Jaishankar, given his long record of vituperation against Pakistan. This followed the trademark frenzy in the large sections of Modi government-aligned Indian media downplaying Pakistan’s mediation efforts and stooping to whine about the rationale of peace talks in Islamabad. Some enthusiasts have gone so far as to make passionate calls for the failure of talks in Islamabad. Simply put, from the policy circles to regime-aligned media, a hysterical meltdown is being witnessed in India over Pakistan’s active mediation efforts in the US-Iran conflict.
The meltdown may be paradoxical, but it is not inexplicable. In fact, it is the manifestation of a broader proclivity in the domestic and foreign policies of the Modi-led ruling dispensation in India. For many years now, the Modi government’s narrative has rested (among others) on three pillars: (1) India under Modi has elevated in stature to become a “global leader”; (2) India has isolated Pakistan at the global stage; (3) India has de-hyphenated itself from Pakistan. Although completely divorced from reality and delusional to the core, the narrative forms an essential element of the Modi government’s domestic messaging.
As Pakistan assumed an active diplomatic role and India found itself out of the picture, the three pillars of the Modi government’s narrative façade collapsed in the face of empirical realities. Helplessly witnessing its years-old narrative squarely falling flat, the Modi government and the aligned media predictably doubled down on the zero-sum interplay, making the de-escalation in West Asia essentially an India vs Pakistan affair, resulting in the emblematic meltdown.
The pervasive zero-sum mindset vis-à-vis Pakistan in India underscores another paradox in New Delhi’s policy. While India claims to have de-hyphenated from Pakistan and projects itself to be in an altogether different league, i.e., the global leader, the Indian political elite—across the partisan divide—remains unable to rid itself of acute obsession with Pakistan. Not only does Pakistan-bashing remain a ritual in India’s domestic political landscape, but the anti-Pakistan jingoism forms the core of the electoral clarion call of most political parties in India—especially the Modi-led BJP.
The recurrent employment of anti-Pakistan jingoism to galvanize the domestic support base—mostly for electoral dividends—has institutionalized a culture of widespread anti-Pakistan bigotry in Indian society. Over the years, the sentiment has grown so profoundly that Pakistan-bashing has become the benchmark for patriotism, and even a modicum of rational discourse about Pakistan renders one susceptible to being labelled as anti-national. This worrisome mindset eliminates the possibility of approaching the matters related to Pakistan with any semblance of objectivity and rationality.
Be the first to comment