In a new escalation to the conflict in Kashmir, civilians were banned yesterday from using the only highway in the disputed region for two days each week, allowing Indian security personnel to be moved safely in and out.
This longstanding conflict has made headlines around the world in the past month – yet, the news cycle tends to move quickly on, partly because the underlying dispute has remained much the same since the Partition of 1947. But with so much at stake between the two nuclear-armed powers, and so much to gain from peace, it is the responsibility of world leaders and international media to continue pressuring both India and Pakistan to reach a negotiated solution – something I believe is achievable.
Admittedly, that position has looked rather over-optimistic at times. The terrorist attack on 14 February was a severe provocation, undoubtedly launched from Pakistani soil and killing 44 Indian military. The mood in Delhi was not just of fury. This time India will require Pakistan to change its policy of connivance over the terrorist presence and attacks on India. Standard rules of respect for sovereignty and non-aggression have no exemption in this region. India made this clear with airstrikes against a terrorist camp on the Pakistan side of the line of control.
The terrorist attack on 14 February was a severe provocation, undoubtedly launched from Pakistani soil and killing 44 Indian military. The mood in Delhi was not just of fury. This time India will require Pakistan to change its policy of connivance at the terrorist presence and attacks on India. Standard rules of respect for sovereignty and non-aggression have no exemption in this region. India made this clear with airstrikes against a terrorist camp on the Pakistan side of the line of control.
But while Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s popularity has soared, how has the newer, lesser known, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s reputation fared?
The in-built mutual hostility in portraying the other side was illustrated through the Indian media’s scathing coverage on Imran Khan when he took office in August last year. From accusations as wide-ranging as “warmonger” (despite his records showing him to be quite the opposite), to labels like “feeble puppet of the Pakistani military”, the Indian media was aligned in opposition to Khan.
However, when it came to the crunch last month, he showed himself to be no such puppet. His message was clear – he appealed for peace and dialogue, and he swiftly returned a captured Indian pilot. He won the moral high ground over shrill nationalist voices in India, but also over those seeking violence within his own country.
Unfortunately this did not receive the attention it deserved – and was ultimately drowned out by the patriotic clamour in Indian public opinion. Among security professionals, Delhi will have serious doubts that Imran Khan can change the course of the two countries’ hostile relations. It can cite the hard-line views deeply embedded in the Pakistan’s defence and security establishments – as no civilian leader in Pakistan has been able to exert significant influence on this. Yet, behind the familiar belligerence, new political realities are emerging.
Imran Khan’s election victory last summer was decisive, with his Tehreek-e-Insaf party winning a clear plurality in parliament. His message since the party’s foundation in 1996 has been consistently one of championing the poor, working for equality before the law, and above all ending the decades of rampant corruption that have reduced Pakistan to a developmental and economic stretcher-case.
His message has been set in terms of the moral and political heritage of the Prophet Mohammed’s actions and words, in accordance with his own deeply held beliefs. This is of huge importance in a country both profoundly committed to Islamic belief and traditions, and profoundly scarred by religious extremism and militancy. His appeal for peace and dialogue with India flows from the same source as his call for moderation and mutual respect within his own country.
The message appeals to the ordinary Pakistani, whoever they voted for last year, both inside the country and in the large and influential diaspora around the world. Clamping down on corruption and undue privilege is a promise that turbo-charges Imran Khan’s authority as Prime Minister. The unaffected simplicity of his own lifestyle, despite his privileged background and upbringing, carries conviction, as do the clarity and directness of his popular messaging.
Putting Pakistan back on its feet is an aim that even the most hard-line champions of the country’s security can only endorse. For now, he appears to have the defence and security sector’s acquiescence. The hard part will be persuading them of the successive, reciprocal steps needed to build confidence with India. once a process begins.
As a peacemaker Imran Khan has the advantage of his convictions, and of his democratic mandate. He is well regarded in the Gulf States, which are essential for supporting Pakistan’s economic resurrection. He has reached out to Afghanistan and Iran, signalling a vision of a new peaceful order in the region as a whole. Both the Gulf and the Sub-Continent need to get away from instinctive confrontations. It is too much to hope, though, that one embattled Pakistani Prime Minister alone can catalyse the change. The crucial response will be from Delhi – and the international communities sustained pressure on both sides to reach an agreement.
Once the general elections have been held in April, the onus will be on the Indian Prime Minister to respond in kind. Meanwhile, the coolest heads are needed to avoid further escalation.
James Watt a former British ambassador now working in political risk consultancy in London
