The Recent Loss of Senior Officers in Gadole Encounter
Nishant Sharma
In a recent encounter in the Gadole area of Anantnag, senior Indian Army and J&K Police officers, including Colonel Manpreet Singh and Major Ashish Dhonchak, made the ultimate sacrifice while combating terrorists. The nation mourns their loss and honors their courage in leading their troops from the front.
Dr. Farooq Abdullah’s Call for Dialogue
Amid tributes and condemnations of the terror attack, JKNC President Dr. Farooq Abdullah has advocated for engaging in talks with Pakistan as a means to bring peace and curb terrorism. However, history suggests that this approach may not yield the desired results.
Pakistan’s History of Denying Dialogue
Pakistan has consistently shunned the path of dialogue and diplomacy, as seen in its actions throughout history. From the 1947 invasion of Jammu and Kashmir to the Kargil War in 1999, Pakistan’s track record has been marked by aggression rather than dialogue.
Challenges Since 1998: Post-Nuclear Era
Even in the post-nuclear era since 1998, attempts at dialogue have been met with setbacks. The Kargil conflict and subsequent terrorist attacks, such as the 2001 attack on the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislative Assembly and the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament, have hindered progress.
Challenges During Engagements (1999-2008)
While diplomatic efforts intensified between 1999 and 2008, terror attacks in India reached alarming levels, including the 2005 Delhi bombings and the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. The latter brought dialogue to a standstill.
Recent Initiatives and the Path Forward
Efforts to resume dialogue, such as PM Modi’s surprise visit to Lahore in 2015, were met with immediate terror attacks, notably the one on the Pathankot airbase the following week. These experiences have left many within the Indian diplomatic community skeptical about the efficacy of dialogues with Pakistan.
Reasons Behind Pakistan’s Terrorism Policy
Pakistan’s relative weakness compared to India in terms of economy, military power, and global stature has led it to use terrorism as a diplomatic tool. This approach gives Pakistan an advantage in negotiations.
The Way Forward: Pragmatic Approaches
While some hope for future dialogue with a more peace-oriented Pakistan, the current reality calls for India to avoid dialogue and isolate Pakistan on the global stage as a foreign policy tool to pressure it into curbing terrorism.
India’s complex relationship with Pakistan has been marked by decades of tension, conflict, and occasional attempts at diplomacy. The recent encounter in the Gadole area of Anantnag, which resulted in the loss of senior Indian Army and J&K Police officers, has reignited the debate about whether talks with Pakistan can genuinely address the issue of terrorism.
The tragic sacrifice of Colonel Manpreet Singh, Major Ashish Dhonchak, and Deputy Superintendent of Police Humayun Muzamil Bhat underscores the challenges faced by India in its fight against terrorism. While leaders from various political parties have paid tribute to the martyrs and condemned the terror attack, Dr. Farooq Abdullah’s call for dialogue with Pakistan has sparked a contentious discussion.
Dr. Farooq Abdullah’s advocacy for dialogue with Pakistan as a means to bring peace and curb terrorism may appear well-intentioned, but history suggests otherwise. Pakistan has consistently demonstrated a reluctance to engage in meaningful dialogue and diplomacy.
One can trace Pakistan’s history of denying dialogue and resorting to aggression back to its inception in 1947. Despite having a standstill agreement with the Princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan launched an invasion in the valley through tribal militias. This marked the beginning of a pattern where Pakistan’s actions contradicted its diplomatic commitments.
Even during the 1960s, when successful diplomatic initiatives like the Indus-Water Treaty were in place, Pakistan launched a full-scale invasion in J&K in 1965. In the 1980s, despite continued dialogue and diplomacy, Pakistan began fueling militancy in Punjab and Kashmir, further straining relations.
The post-nuclear era since 1998 raised global concerns, with fears that the Kashmir issue could become a ‘nuclear flashpoint.’ India, in a gesture of bilateral and global peace, sought dialogue and diplomacy. Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s historic bus journey to Lahore in 1999 exemplified India’s commitment to resolving issues through peaceful means. However, Pakistan’s occupation of Indian posts in the Kargil, Drass, and Batalik sectors during the Kargil War demonstrated its willingness to betray trust and resort to aggression.
Despite the setbacks, India did not abandon the path of dialogue. In 2001, President Pervez Musharraf was invited to the Agra summit. However, the same year witnessed an attack on the Jammu and Kashmir State Legislative Assembly complex in Srinagar, followed by a terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament in New Delhi.
The period from 1999 to 2008 witnessed several rounds of foreign secretary meetings and diplomatic engagement. However, it was also marred by a series of terrorist attacks, including the 2005 Delhi bombings, the 2006 Varanasi bombings, and the 2006 Mumbai train serial blasts. The 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks in 2008 effectively stalled the dialogue process.
Efforts to resume dialogue, such as PM Modi’s surprise visit to Lahore on December 25, 2015, were met with immediate terror attacks, notably the one on the Pathankot airbase the following week. These experiences have left many within the Indian diplomatic community skeptical about the efficacy of dialogues with Pakistan.
Several reasons underlie Pakistan’s reluctance to commit to dialogue. Firstly, it’s often unclear with whom to engage in Pakistan—is it the government, the military, or another institution? Secondly, there is no guarantee that the terms agreed upon in dialogues will be acceptable to all elements within Pakistan. Thirdly, there is no assurance that Pakistan will honor its commitments.
A fundamental reason behind Pakistan’s persistent use of terrorism as a diplomatic tool is its relative weakness compared to India in terms of economy, military strength, and global standing. When Pakistan enters into dialogue with India, it often negotiates from a position of vulnerability. However, using terror as a bargaining chip gives Pakistan an edge and leverage in negotiations.
While Dr. Farooq Abdullah may believe that dialogue with Pakistan can be a tool to curb terrorism, history suggests otherwise. It is possible that one day, a more development- and peace-oriented faction within Pakistan may emerge with whom fruitful dialogues and diplomacy can be pursued. However, for the present, avoiding dialogue and isolating Pakistan on the global stage can be India’s most effective foreign policy tool to pressure Pakistan into curbing terrorism.
In conclusion, the loss of senior officers in the Gadole encounter serves as a painful reminder of the challenges India faces in countering terrorism. While the call for dialogue with Pakistan is well-intentioned, a historical perspective reveals a pattern of Pakistan’s reluctance to commit to meaningful dialogue. The complex dynamics between the two nations require a pragmatic approach that acknowledges the limitations of dialogue and seeks alternative strategies to address the issue of terrorism effectively.
