Getting the talk atmospherics rightIn the meeting in Ufa, Russia, between the Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers, Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif, held on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation conclave in July 2015, the leaders agreed to, among other things, talks being held in New Delhi between the National Security Advisers (NSA) of India and Pakistan, which was “billed” as the most important takeaway. However, no one in India — possibly no one in Pakistan as well — should mourn the demise of talks that were not held in the end. Strident rhetoric emanating from both capitals, which was further embellished by the media in both countries, had threatened to convert the talks into a “theatre of the absurd”. Hence, it was almost providential that Pakistan called off the talks.Talks between India and Pakistan suffer from certain inbuilt defects. India, far more than Pakistan, has always been keen to engage in direct talks with the latter. Pakistan prefers instead to talk to the rest of the world, if only to accuse India of perfidy, especially when it comes to Kashmir.Pressures and outcomesIndia’s desire to periodically up the ante for talks stems from a combination of international and domestic pressures to which India succumbs from time to time. Much of the international pressure comes from lobbies in the West, including the United States. The domestic peace offensive tends to be equally persuasive in pushing the envelope regarding holding talks. Pakistan has far fewer stakes, or for

that matter qualms, about the outcomes where talks are concerned. Hence, it has far greater latitude in this regard, including of sabotaging talks if and when they are held. Pakistan’s real problem is that it is the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Army that determine when to talk, and even on how to marshal arguments, often with little regard to the truth.Of late, there has also been an unfortunate trend of the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan holding bilateral meetings on the sidelines of global meets or events — whether they relate to issues that are of economic and strategic importance or on any other aspect. This is accompanied by pressures for significant outcomes, irrespective of whether the times are propitious for such talks or the regional and geo-political situation lends itself to holding such talks. Preparations tend to be a casualty in these circumstances and, inevitably, such meetings result in less than favourable outcomes. Prime Ministerial meetings in recent years — Lahore (1999), Agra (2001) and Islamabad (2004), during Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s time; Havana (2006) and Sharm el-Sheikh (2009), during Dr. Manmohan Singh’s time; and now Ufa (Narendra Modi), are best remembered for what they failed to achieve than for their results.The reasons are fairly obvious. Operating under the glare of international observers and the world media, pressures are generated to come up with path-breaking initiatives. These result in ignoring reality and real concerns which can only be circumvented through careful and detailed groundwork,

including preparation of position papers and the like. Without this, possibilities of forward movement are indeed limited and more likely doomed. Nevertheless, attempts do, and will continue. Intrinsic to this is an element of grandstanding that leaders indulge in — an essential concomitant of summit-level diplomacy.With the announcement of the NSA-level talks, without due preparations being made, it might have been anticipated that it contained the seeds of its own failure. Furthermore, statements and agreements reached between the heads of government require careful vetting so as to leave no scope for differing interpretations, as has arisen in the present instance. This is especially important when the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan meet since only a very small window of opportunity exists.The timing of the initiative was again rather unfortunate. By its constant shelling across the Line of Control, Pakistan had already demonstrated that it was in no mood for talks. Subsequent to the announcement of NSA-level talks came the terror attacks in India — in Gurdaspur (July 2015) and Udhampur (August 2015) — which only seemed to reinforce Pakistan’s intentions. The Pakistani High Commissioner’s “high jinks” later, and the Pakistan NSA Sartaj Aziz’s insistence on holding talks with the Hurriyat prior to the NSA-level talks, further confirmed Pakistan’s disinclination for holding talks.Terror strikes and Kashmir

Hence, India, as the prime mover of the talks, should have taken particular care to deny Pakistan an opportunity or excuse to derail the talks. The very fact that Pakistan agreed to “talk about terror” at the NSA level, which would have given India an opportunity to put on the table factual details of Pakistan’s failure to deal with terrorists on its soil — including not taking action against those responsible for the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack, such as its mastermind Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi — should have alerted India about Pakistan’s possible perfidy.Presuming that India wanted the NSA-level talks to succeed, then India’s logic of trading charges even before the talks were held — which was carried out through the medium of “leaks” from voluminous dossiers prepared by India to confront Pakistan — was a flawed one. It was also clearly futile to try and pit India’s carefully prepared documents against Pakistan’s “tissue of lies”, as there could be no winners. Rather than confront Pakistan with these facts, India would have done well to put forward ideas and concepts that would try and help narrow the differences and keep the door open for another round of talks at a more propitious moment.Again, India must have been extremely naive to believe that there could be an India-Pakistan dialogue without Pakistan making Kashmir its centerpiece, even if it did not form part of the Ufa agreement, as stated by the Union Minister of External Affairs and Overseas Indian Affairs, Sushma Swaraj. The “K” word is a part of Pakistan’s DNA, and

anyone who has dealt with that country over the past half a century, would know that Kashmir is always the “400 pound gorilla” in the meeting room. India should have anticipated this and resorted to some flanking moves of its own to ensure that the talks did not get derailed. This smacks of a “suspension of belief” about the nature and record of the Pakistani state, and a case of gross amnesia on India’s part.India had more to lose by the talks not being held. In the short term, Pakistan has obtained a fair idea of how much India knew about developments in Pakistan, including the whereabouts of India’s No.1 fugitive, Dawood Ibrahim. India’s hope that the talks would pave the way for a conducive climate in which some of the critical aspects of terror could be addressed, has, meanwhile, proved to be a non-starter. It has left Pakistan laughing all the way to the Arabian Sea. The more serious casualty is the setback to any such future problem-solving approach. In all this, India seemed to come out second best.Gains for the ‘sword-arms’There are several other negative fallouts as well from the aborted NSA-level talks. Both factions of the Hurriyat — Pakistan’s acknowledged “fifth column” — have gained a degree of prominence when their fortunes were almost at their nadir. This constitutes a setback to India’s efforts over the years to marginalise them. It will give Hurriyat supporters fresh grist to indulge in violent demonstrations in places like Srinagar and Baramulla. The recent spurt in

Islamist radicalisation in the Valley is also likely to get a fillip and become infused with new vigour.Pakistan-based terrorist organisations like the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) can also be expected to exploit the so-called breakdown in relations, and India should brace itself to confront a fresh wave of terror attacks. As it is, the graph of militancy in Jammu and Kashmir has been going up of late, and the latest events should aggravate matters. The LeT, being the recognised “sword-arm” of the ISI and the Pakistani state, will be the main gainer.Meanwhile, there are several lessons to be learnt from the latest “mishap”. Negotiations with Pakistan, especially at senior levels, clearly demand more careful thought and planning. Talks should not be launched on the basis of pressure exerted by those on the periphery, and from those who constantly “applaud” India’s determination to “talk on terror” despite Pakistan’s belligerence. Detailed planning for the success of any such talks should include measures to minimise the fallout if talks fail. Every opportunity should be provided, if talks fail, to revive or restart them at an appropriate time. Most important, talks at this level need to be held when the regional and geo-political situation is suitable for negotiations, and Pakistan demonstrates some inclination to resort to negotiations, rather than engage in provocations.Decision delayed is defence deniedEach day the government delays the implementation of the One Rank One Pension (OROP) scheme, a demand that is 42

years old, it risks playing with fire. It is safe to assume that the serving service Chiefs have conveyed as much to the government. The public manifestation of the rapidly spreading and quickly deepening levels of disenchantment came when the daughter of Gen. V.K. Singh, former Army Chief of Staff and a serving Minister of State, sat with the Jantar Mantar agitators in an open show of support. Mrinalini Singh’s husband is a serving Army officer. This is a categorical indication that both Gen. Singh and Col. Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, another Minister, would no doubt have pointed out to the government the consequences of not being able to deliver on a promise already made several times over.Uncertain futureRoughly 60,000 people retire from the armed forces every year. Some retire before they are 35, and as many as 87 per cent of servicemen retire between the ages of 34 and 48. Soldiers, sailors, airmen at the lowest level are the hardest hit because after a near nomadic life in the armed forces, they most likely do not own too many assets, a home nor have an alternative income stream. They have no clear prospect of a second lease of working life either.Soldiers retire early because they need to be fighting fit to be in the forces and hence, the armed forces need young blood. The retirement policy affects an estimated 25 lakh ex-servicemen. Counted along with their dependents, the number swells to roughly three times that or 70 lakh people.

Also, a large section of the armed forces has family members who are either still serving or have retired from the forces. In normal conversations, the situation is bound to occupy their mindspace. Those in service know that sooner or later, they will become veterans and inherit the same situation their fathers did before them, an inheritance of loss.The problem has been exacerbated because of the way in which the then BJP prime ministerial candidate, Narendra Modi, appropriated and espoused the cause at the 2014 hustings and his subsequent repeated assurance, both on the floor of Parliament and elsewhere, that OROP was a settled matter and the solution had his imprimatur. Consider also Mr. Modi’s unparalleled political heft in the Lok Sabha and the fact that the Supreme Court has, as long ago as December 1982, underlined the need for OROP. If the agitators feel let down, it is because the delivery of the promise has so far been in inverse proportion to the articulation of the promise itself.Deliberately tangledAs many as ten retired service Chiefs have deliberately used the word ‘imbroglio’, a word of Italian origin that has elements of confusion, entanglement, bitterness, and complication all rolled into one. It accounts for the growing feeling that in the real OROP narrative, Narendra Modi, whom none other than the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s Ashok Singhal acknowledged as BJP’s Iron Man, is helpless. His inability to deliver stems from his being a victim of either

intra-party politics or from him having been ensnared in a web made by intransigent bureaucrats.The discourse in New Delhi circles suggests that a section of the bureaucracy wants to dovetail the OROP with the Seventh Pay Commission. This would effectively scupper the plan because it would postpone the resolution and rework the rationale and framework of the OROP as well. Lt. Gen. Syed Ata Hasnain, who retired as Military Secretary of the Army, writes in the July issue of Fauji India that the “bureaucracy is living up to its promise to complicate the issue to such an extent that it [OROP] is once again shelved without decision.”The procrastination has escalated the situation to a standoff between the veterans and the government. Mr. Modi’s inability to act quickly and effectively has allowed other political parties space where none need have been conceded. The issue is now open to political hijack. There has been a steady stream of contradictory noises emanating from the government, most notably from the Finance Ministry, asking ex-servicemen to “lower expectations”.The implication is that the government is having trouble coming up with the money. It has not gone unnoticed among the veterans that Mr. Modi, the politician, had no difficultly promising Rs. 1.25 lakh crore for Bihar in what amounts, scandalously, to pre-election sops. For OROP, the figure being talked about is roughly Rs. 8,300 crore, a fraction of the Bihar pledge.

Soldiers cannot go on strike like bank employees do, but patience now seems in short supply. Since June, the veterans have resorted to black armband protests, bike rallies, candle-light vigils, petitions, the return of service medals, and hunger strikes in an attempt to force the government to focus on the implications. They know more than others that all it requires is a small spark to set off a blaze. If something has been building up for a long time and is looking for release, even something as inconsequential as a slap can have an enormous ripple effect.We need to remember the mutiny witnessed after Operation Blue Star. Given that the veterans are already on hunger-strike and writing petitions in blood, all it needs is a momentary provocation to set off that dreaded spark.When Hamid Gul offered India peaceFormer head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), Gen. Hamid Gul, who died recently, has been described in the Indian media as a monster, the originator and perpetrator of terrorism against India. Yet, there is another side to his personality which needs to be disclosed.In early 1988, Pakistan President, Gen. Zia-ul-Haq, expressed concern that the Pakistan Army, by consuming almost 48 per cent of the nation’s budget, was unfairly depriving citizens of funds which could raise their standards of living. He was particularly concerned about the expenditure on the operations in Siachen and was convinced that an agreement with India was possible to cut down on these expenses.

Gen. Zia was anxious for a meeting between the Intelligence Chiefs of the two countries to explore possibilities and approached the then Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan to speak to the Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and facilitate a move forward.Intelligence chiefs’ meetPrince Hassan conveyed the proposal to Gandhi, who promptly agreed. The two Intelligence Chiefs then met at Amman under the aegis of Prince Hassan. What could be done was broadly discussed. They met again at Geneva after political endorsement of their confabulations at Amman from their Chiefs. The Foreign Offices and other elements of government on both sides were kept out of the loop though it must be assumed that Gen. Zia would not have embarked on this initiative without sounding out his Corps Commanders.The final agreement between the two Intelligence Chiefs envisaged: a) withdrawal of the Pakistani forces to the west to the ground level of the Saltoro mountains; b) giving up of Pakistani claims to territory from NJ9842 to the Karakoram pass; c) the Line of Control to run North from NJ9842 along the western ground level of Saltoro exactly North till the Chinese border; and d) reduction of Pakistani troop strength by two divisions with some corresponding adjustments on the Indian side.In confirmation of this understanding, Gen. Hamid Gul sent a GHQ Survey of Pakistan map where the new line of LoC north of NJ9842 and the western foot of Saltoro was clearly demarcated. After the receipt of this map, steps were

undertaken on the Indian side to convert the covert operation to an overt process. First, the Director of Military Intelligence was asked whether a new Line of Control on the western foothills of Saltoro would be agreeable to the Army to bring about a solution to the Siachen question. He was sceptical of the Pakistani military accepting such a line but said that an effort could be made. Thereafter, the proposal was made into a Government of India proposition with the Ministry of Defence also giving their assent. No one was, of course, told about the ground work done earlier by the Intelligence Chiefs of the two countries.The two Chiefs had also agreed to remain in close contact with each other over the public telephone, using code words and names. One rewarding development of this relationship was that Gen. Hamid Gul decided, on his own, to return the four Sikh soldiers who had defected to Pakistan, angered over the Army assault on the Golden Temple. Over the telephone, he conveyed to his Indian counterpart that four soldiers would be released in a specific geographical area on a certain date.The information was immediately passed on to the Border Security Force (BSF). The four were taken into custody by the BSF from the specified location on the date agreed. The BSF was given no inkling about how the release had been made possible .Sudden endA meeting of the Defence Secretaries of the two countries was already scheduled. It was decided that India would put

forth the proposal for demilitarisation of Siachen from its side and await Pakistani reactions. The Defence Ministry had no idea that the proposal already had been agreed to by the Pakistani top authority at the covert level.On the designated day, the Indian defence delegation left for Pakistan but a supreme tragedy occurred simultaneously. It was announced that Gen. Zia-ul-Haq had been killed in a plane crash. Thereafter, Pakistan turned down the Indian formulation. It has not been heard of since.On the Pakistani side, the secret operation, as it moved forward, was known only to the Pakistani High Commissioner, Niaz Naik. Sometime later, he also died in mysterious circumstances. After Gen. Zia’s death, a civilian government took office in Pakistan. Gen. Hamid Gul was removed from the post of Director General of ISI.When the Indian authorities made efforts to pick up the threads of the covert operation, they were told that no such operation was ever carried out and there was not a single paper in the Pakistani records which would testify to its existence.Gen. Zia’s was a major effort to break out of the psyche prevailing in Pakistan at the time but apparently his Corps Commanders had not realised the extent of compromise he would be ready to make to start a new beginning with India. Once they were informed about the exact terms, they became uneasy and wanted to stop the progress of these developments at any cost.

Could it be reasonable to speculate that Gen. Zia’s death in the air crash was actually a planned assassination, planned at the highest levels of the military hierarchy by those who were opposed to a policy of reconciliation with India? The new Zia line, of which Gen. Gul was the principal architect in Pakistan, was never consummated.Rajiv’s regretBarbara Crossette, correspondent of New York Times in the early 1990s, following an interview with Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991, hours before he was assassinated, quoted him as saying that during Gen. Zia’s tenure, India and Pakistan “were close to finishing agreement on Kashmir. We had the maps and everything ready to sign”.It is thus clear that Pakistani generals will go any extent to prevent a new page opening up in Indo-Pakistan relations. This was evident also from the recent collapse of the National Security Advisor (NSA)-level talks. Two generals like Gen. Zia and Gen. Hamid Gul, who believe in taking unorthodox steps to solve disputes with India, are unlikely to emerge in Pakistan easily.A charitable view could be taken that Gen. Hamid Gul’s subsequently donning on a mantle of extreme hostility towards India was just to save his skin and whitewash his role in the secret talks between the two countries.India should assume a more assertive roleThe world’s most important climate talks are coming up at the end of this year in Paris. The French presidency is leading an unprecedented climate diplomacy drive —

working tirelessly to bring countries together beforehand in the hopes of making progress towards a global deal. The latest such consultations took place last month as “informal ministerial consultations” that brought together 40 delegations and 30 Ministers.To limit the global rise in temperature to two degrees Celsius, considered the benchmark for ‘dangerous’ climate change, countries have agreed to submit their ‘intended nationally determined contributions’ or INDCs. INDCs are bottom-up commitments from nations defining the extent of their emissions reduction contribution towards this global goal. Nations were requested to submit their INDCs by the end of March 2015, but not later than October 2015. Initial calculations suggest that total submissions account for only 56 per cent of global emissions.The most significant development in the discussions is the concept of a “peaking year”. A “peaking date” is a time in the future until when emissions are expected to grow, and is likely a function of anticipated growth plans and energy use. China, the world’s largest emitter, says its emissions will peak in 2030. The European Union (EU) is committed to its previously announced target of 20 per cent cuts off 1990 levels by 2020. Ethiopia, one of the world’s poorest nations is set to reduce its total emissions starting 2030. The announcement of a “peaking date” has been extensively applauded as countries’ — more specifically, China’s — willingness to act as a major player in climate change mitigation.

But where is India’s INDC? What will India’s position in Paris be? Like others, India committed to INDCs in 2009. They are expected to soon be reviewed and released, in time for Paris summit.India is the fourth largest emitter and despite our $2 trillion GDP, over 30 per cent of the population does not have access to electricity. Some 21 per cent lives below the poverty line. This means India needs a lot of “headroom emissions” to grow before it we can think of slowing down.But, we are also seen as a major economic player. We should act the part. Especially since there is so much happening at home.Consider just these initiatives: India’s total green energy commitment is 175GW — over five times the current amount. The Indian Railways has announced several energy conservation measures. Urban metro transport is being contemplated as part of the smart cities project. Cars are moving to Bharat-VI emissions norms. The point is, it all adds up. All of this could be bundled into an INDC and become the first step in climate diplomacy. But, to what end? We should keep our eyes on the ball. A two degree goal means that global emissions must peak by 2020. INDCs should therefore be developed with this target in view.“Peaking years” are a function of economic growth, energy use and population increases.The concept of a “peaking year” is an important step in climate negotiations, not because it sets a particular date per se, but because it begins a conceptual shift away from the current outdated

classification of nations under “Annex-I” (so called “developed” economies) and “Non-Annex-I” (so called “developing countries”). According the U.N.’s classification, China the world’s largest emitter is in the same “non-Annex I” bucket as Congo, possibly the world’s poorest country. If the current discussion is on climate finance then a new benchmark must be set for determining reduction rigour.Per capita GDP as the basisGDP per capita would perhaps the most logical way of determining a new benchmark. For a diverse country like India, its leadership quotient could be a sum of all actions currently being undertaken to meet its infrastructure needs; and its “additional” quotient could seek financing for meeting the incremental costs of greening more basic energy needs to cater to say, the segment of India without basic energy access.Either way, it is time that India assumed a constructive role in the international arena. It is time it began to move away from traditional alliances such as “like minded developing countries” and crafted new links that are more in sync with the country’s growth plans. Formulating a credible INDC is the first and most basic step. Working towards developing a meaningful “peaking year” is the next. We have no dearth of skills and institutional capacities to do this, and it should be our imperative as a strong, emerging economy to do so.The politics of backwardnessIf political mobilisation could win for it the fruits of reservation in employment and education, the massive shows

of strength over these last few days in Gujarat should have yielded results for the Patel community by now. Their agitation to get the community included in the Other Backward Classes list has brought the State almost to an administrative halt. Not only Chief Minister Anandiben Patel, but also Prime Minister Narendra Modi and leaders of parties in other States have been given a rude awakening to the intensity of the demands of the agitators. However, even if the Gujarat government wanted to, it cannot extend reservation benefits to the Patel community merely on the basis of an executive order. Inclusion of more communities in the reservation list is already a highly controversial issue and fraught with procedural and legal obstacles. Not only would communities that are already enjoying reservation benefits oppose any move that would shrink their pie, but other communities currently excluded from the OBC list would demand to be treated on a par with the Patels. More importantly, any decision to extend reservation benefits to new claimants might not pass judicial scrutiny. Recently, the decision to include Jats in the OBC list was overturned by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the perception of a self-proclaimed socially backward class of citizens cannot be a constitutionally permissible yardstick for determination of backwardness. Indeed, the court specifically warned against a caste-centric definition of backwardness, and called for new practices, methods and yardsticks to be evolved to identify socially disadvantaged groups for extending the benefits of reservation. Like the Jats, the Patels will not find

it easy to meet the specified criteria for social and educational backwardness.For the Bharatiya Janata Party, which is in power both at the Centre and in the State, the Patel agitation is a fresh political headache. The party, which counts the Patels among its key constituencies, will need to be seen as having backed the agitation to the full in order to arrest any erosion in its traditional vote-bank. For Prime Minister Modi especially, to envision the loss of the BJP’s political hold in Gujarat would be particularly distressing. There is simply no way to appease the Patels without alienating some of the other backward class communities in the State. Moreover, the BJP finds itself dealing with a new, youthful leadership of the community focussed on jobs and livelihood concerns, and not political power. In a situation where it can neither support nor antagonise the agitators, the BJP and its governments in the State and at the Centre must resist the temptation to grant the demand of the Patels in principle and deny it in practice. It would be cynical to merely wait for the movement to somehow lose steam with time, and not confront the issues that are at stake.A chronicle of our timesEvents as they have played out in the rapidly unfolding drama surrounding Indrani Mukherjea and her murdered daughter Sheena Bora, would put a Bollywood scriptwriter to shame. The story involves money, fame, love, secrets and a corpse, but these are not just the elements of a potboiler. Rather, they are striking pointers to a once-traditional

society’s speedy metamorphosis into an acquisitive FMCG economy with its attendant attributes of obsessive ambition and ruthless self-indulgence. And like fast-moving consumer goods, this lifestyle too revolves around a use-and-throw philosophy. The personality of Indrani Mukherjea that is surfacing from media reports suggests a woman eager to leave behind the humdrum middle-class life of a homemaker in small-town Guwahati and transform herself into a jet-setting society lady in the country’s commercial capital. She appears to have had no qualms in abandoning her first husband and two young children in her search for the good life. Her second husband Sanjeev Khanna, too, was jettisoned quickly. He has said that they parted ways since he did not want to stop her from realising her ambitions. She then met future husband and former Star India CEO Peter Mukherjea, who finally allowed her to find the social reputation and wealth she sought.It is interesting that Ms. Mukherjea’s chronicle and the new mores she could be seen as representing reject the one value so dear to old India — the sanctity of motherhood. Ms. Mukherjea is accused not only of abandoning her young children but also of strangling the daughter she thought might unravel her hard-won life of a social butterfly. And, in what appears to be an attempt to conceal her age and a humble past, she told her first-borns that she could not jeopardise her social status by revealing their existence and would therefore introduce them to the world as her siblings. Even more disturbing is the second motive that the police are

suggesting for the brutal murder, that of money. If there is one thing that could be said to characterise the consumerist economy most, it is the insatiable hunger for more — more money, bigger cars, swankier homes, or more fame. And the newly emerging social praxis endorses individuals who show a single-minded determination to acquire all of this at any cost. But in this particular case, at least the avarice has culminated in a tragic denouement.