See all NatStrat transcripts on Youtube

Welcome back, viewers. Once again, warm greetings from Shantanu Mukherjee, Advisor Nat Stratt. Let me remind you, we have Ambassador T. C. Raghavan, a distinguished diplomat with us.

We are discussing Pakistan in our conversation series here. And in the second session, I will discuss with him or we will discuss with each other about the External relations of Pakistan, its foreign policy, whether its diplomacy is on the wane, does Pakistan stand isolated in the global community with the FATF, that is the terror things, it is a pariah state, the last 76 years of its existence, what is the status latest with an experience of Ambassador T.C. Araghavan? These are some of the things which we are going to discuss. To begin with, the recent visit of Prime Minister Modi to the United States, because we always know from the 1965 war, 1971 Bangladesh, the Kissinger, Nixon, all support to Pakistan.

And we are seeing a huge bonhomie emerging between the US and India by the Indian Prime Minister's visit there, so many deals, the Kashmir not being discussed and other things. It's a complete departure from the past trend. Watching Pakistani newspapers, they are muted in the sense that they are unable to react or maybe they are struggling to come to terms how to react that they have stolen a march except very, very feeble reactions till now. So in conversation, I would like to know from you based on your experience and all, how do you read it? Has it rattled Pakistan?

Does it have to recalibrate its policy with the United States? Is it going to make some concessions to it? What is the status, sir?

Well, to my mind, as you say, the reaction has been somewhat muted. But when 1 studies it, 1 can make out 2 or 3 broad trends which underpin that reaction. The first is the sense, as you said, of feeling slightly bewildered Because they had always, many of them have grown up with the impression that Pakistan is very much part of the US led alliance system. I think that view has changed and there is a greater understanding today that global geopolitics is in flux and new trends have emerged. And because of those trends, India and the United States are on converging paths in terms of how they see their interests, while at the same time, China has emerged as a countervailing force and it is in Pakistan's interest to converge with China to the extent possible.

So there is this understanding, I think, in Pakistan of this broader geopolitical shift. Given that, I think they are still concerned about the drift in Pakistan-US relations. I think their main worry is the steady decline in Pakistan-US relations over the past decade. And I think they see the strengthening of US-India relations to some extent in that context also. They do see it in the context of China, but most of all, I think their effort is that we must try to study the course in our relations with the United States.

That is the Pakistani view. While at the same time, they understand that India because of its economic position, because of its larger strategic footprint has a certain importance which they will not be able to compete in terms of the wider region. But in South Asia, I think they are quite clear that they have to try to maintain their position, use the China relationship to leverage the regional situation in their favour and finally try to improve relations with the United States to the extent possible.

You say improve relations, How do they improve? I mean, is there a quid pro quo? There's some deal. How do they do it? What leverage can they exercise?

I don't see anything.

Well, I think we should never forget that, you know, Pakistan is a country of 230 or 240 million people. It's the fourth or fifth largest country in the world. It has nuclear weapons. It is located in a part of Asia, which is geopolitically of great importance. So all countries will always give a certain importance to what is happening in Pakistan.

So it is never going to be the case that Pakistan will become a marginal factor in regional geopolitics. It won't work like that because whichever is the outside power looking at the region, they will say see a country of

230, 240

million people, which is fundamentally very unstable, but it has nuclear weapons. So, they will try to see what they can do to establish a minimum relationship with it. And that applies equally to the United States.

Talking about the United States and I will deviate for a minute for my clarity sake. Now to maintain balance, you say China, do you think Russia will try to step in to do something? I mean, in terms of renewed warmth, more warmth to strike a balance with Pakistan? Like you said, that it's a regional thing, it doesn't deserve to be ignored, it will not be ignored, whatever it is, because of its population size or whatever?

I think so. I don't think Russia will step in in any immediate sense, but Russia will always remain interested in Pakistan because it is part of the hinterland of a region with which Russia is deeply engaged with, that is Central Asia. So for that factor alone, it will always remain interested in Pakistan. And how things will play out in the future is more difficult to predict because Russia presently its own domestic situation and its own commitments vis-a-vis Ukraine and the situation it faces with Europe and the United States. 1 can only make a guess about how much it will be able to look at Pakistan in particular, or even at South Asia in those circumstances.

How much excess capacity or redundancy does it have to deal with that. But I don't think in the calculation of any major country, whether it is the United States, whether it is Russia or for that matter in any power, we will ever have a situation where Pakistan will not exist. Pakistan will always remain a factor in the regional and geopolitical approach of all the major powers in

the region. That's true. That will continue to be. Coming back to this Indo-US relations, in light of Prime Minister's visit now. There had been many pacts signed on technology, military, defence cooperation, and so many things.

Do you think Pakistan, like you said, that it cannot be ignored, it will try to recalibrate, it will try to renew its policy, make fresh attempts to reach out to the United States? Could it offer, say, number 1, with the military point of view, offering some basis, I won't know, pardon my ignorance about it, or try to offer some, invite some technological deal or anything where US might relent. Why I'm saying this is that US had gone on full hog in giving India the space in this visit, what we can make out from the media. It was a sweep, you know, it's a complete sweep. But at the same time, I noticed that Pakistan was irked by the joint statement of the 2 leaders where it said that Kashmir was shown in a negative light or Pakistan was shown in a negative light.

And there had been some protests. Dimash issued and the American deputy ambassador was summoned. Some kind of things were happening. I mean, some protests, a mild protest, but there was some protest. And the US immediately came, like in the earlier times.

What I made out as a layman is that, well, nothing has happened. And yes, we value the friendship, we value this thing. But do you think that the US on its part can also think of trying to cajole Pakistan, lest it remains unhappy with the US-India emerging 1.

Well, as I said, no power is going to forget about Pakistan. It will remain a factor. And diplomacy consists in managing different relationships and making sure that 1 relationship remains insulated from the other even though they may be on contradictory trajectories. So yes, the United States will continue to strengthen relations with India. They will see that this strengthening of relations is being viewed with great concern in Pakistan, but that will not stop them.

But at the same time, they will try to reassure Pakistan that this is not a 0 sum game, because this is what diplomacy really is all about.

Engage Pakistan.

That they engage Pakistan, that they try to assist it, that they try to nudge it in a direction which they think is helpful in terms of their own interests. Because after all, the United States and Pakistan were strong allies for over half a century. There are many people in the United States system who understand that And who also feel that the Pakistanis should not be put into a position where they lack all hope altogether, because that will push them even closer to China. So in that framework, the United States will always try to engage with Pakistan and reach out to it and try to see what it can do with it, notwithstanding the very strong convergence in relations with India that it has presently.

Of late, we have been noticing, I mean, it's not really fair to attack the Pakistan Foreign Office and you belonging to the diplomatic community would understand it better. We saw that you talked about, you defined diplomacy. We find that Pakistani foreign ministry today, they are headed by Milawal Bhutto and his deputy, Hina Rabbani and all everything, are perhaps there's some weak streaks when they are handling with other countries as well. It somehow has never been, I would say, a weak team in the past. And do you think they will be able to make up for all the negativities that have been projected, which the other countries had better of Pakistan?

It's not easy because in the end, your external profile depends on your domestic situation. And given the kind of chaos which exists today in Pakistan, there is no way that any country when dealing with Pakistan can overlook that factor. No matter how much they sugarcoat what they are saying, but Pakistan's internal situation has an inevitable impact on its external position. And I think there is no getting away from that because their economic situation, the internal security situation, which you mentioned, and most of all, the very fragile political situation all suggests that this is a country which is going to remain deeply engrossed in its domestic affairs. And so to that extent, its external situation is not as it would have been if it was stable, if the economy was in a better position.

It's certainly far from

the ideal. That is it. Now, in light of this visit, and we discussed in detail, thank you for that. This India-Pakistan relations, as you know, they are at an all-time low. Only a couple of days ago, the Indian diplomat there in Islamabad was summoned and protests made about.

These are very routine, you may have noticed that, about the firing LOC and these things. With say Nawaz Sharif in position, assuming that he comes back and he's to be discussed in the first part of our session, There's going to be an abatement in say cross-border terrorism, on raising of the Kashmir issues and other bilateral ties, or it's going to further escalate As purely I'm talking about the bilateral ties between India and Pakistan, the contentious issues which always dominate. Will there be some maturity on part of Nawaz Sharif? And like you said, that we also have to reach out to them and take the first move perhaps. So what do you think

about that? In my view, it's very difficult to predict what will happen tactically. But in general terms, I would say that in case Nawaz Sharif becomes Prime Minister or if he is the major power as is likely to be in Pakistan, I think it is a helpful and a positive sign for India-Pakistan relations. And I think it is important that we look at it in that positive framework, because In the end, we have to deal with Pakistan as a neighbor. And the fact is that in neighboring country relationships, there is never going to be a static situation.

There will always be dynamic changes. And the question we have to answer is that do we want a neighbourhood which is more stable, where you have minimum diplomatic and stable relations with your neighbours because that enables you to look at your other longer term national development goals. So I would say if we see signs of positive elements coming to power in Pakistan, we should do what we can to encourage it. I think the mistake would be to look at the last 4 or 5 years as constituting some kind of a new normal in India-Pakistan relations. India-Pakistan relations have historically followed a cyclical path.

There are ups and there are downs. There is never a stable position, which is then you which which which you can say is characteristic of India-Pakistan relations. It's never a position like that. So I don't think we should see the last 3 or 4 years as being typical of India-Pakistan relations. And as I said, as the larger power, as the most stable power, it is in our interest to try to impart greater elements of stability to the relationship with Pakistan, even while we are cognizant of all the difficulties and challenges that exist.

So now in this context, whether we need to consider reviving the back-channel diplomacy or the track-2, try to engage something with somebody in the armed forces or in the polity just to bring in more of pacifism and less of this thing in the interest of both the countries?

Well, I think at some stage, we will have to think about the minimum stability required because right now you have a relationship which is stable, but at a very low plateau. The ceasefire has by and large held, which is a good development, but you do not have high commissioners in place. Your diplomatic relations have been downgraded. There is no trade. There is virtually no cross-border movement of people.

I think these elementary things have to be attended to at some stage because we cannot say that this stability at such a low plateau is sustainable. It is not. And if it is our intention and if it is in our interest, if we feel it is in our interest to have stability in our relations, in our neighbourhood, we should attend to those minimal things.

So,

I would say, yes, back channel is important and other contacts are important. But I think the formal nuts and bolts, the basics are even more important.

That's right. You've made a point. Yeah, basics, the fundamentals need not be ignored. And in the last 5, 6 years, you said that we should move forward. That is what you meant and leaving it.

Yeah, that s a good because I as a security professional, my study is, I hope I m on course while making this that there had been less terror attacks in Kashmir or less of a rhetoric on Kashmir and that kind of things. Maybe that they were saddled with their domestic problems, beleaguered with their economic problems as well. Or I must also like to credit our security establishments and the agencies for foiling any attacks and all. So, with Nawaz Sharif at the helm or anybody for that matter in light of our relationship, growing relationship with the US, I see that there would be less, I mean, I can't predict really, like you say, that there'd be less of violent acts on part of Pakistan targeting India.

Well, in my view, we have to look at it in more fundamental terms. When we deal with Pakistan, although all countries are equal and there are sovereign, there's a basic idea of sovereign equality, which underpins modern diplomacy. But Having said that, the fact is that these are not equal relationships. They are imbalanced relationships. Pakistan is not our equal in any sense, because if you look at the size of the country, you look at the size of the economies, you look at the stability of the countries.

In that sense, we are a much larger and much stabler power dealing with a smaller neighbor. And I think that factor has to underpin our relationship with Pakistan rather than dealing with it as an equal power. It's not a relationship between equals, which means that initiatives always have to come from you. And this has been in fact the pattern in the past, whether you take the NDA 1 or whether you take the subsequent UPA governments or indeed you take the first term of NDA 2. It is not as if problems were not there.

And certainly the threat of terrorism has been an ever-present factor in the last quarter of a century, perhaps even more. But that has not prevented you from taking initiatives to try to stabilize the situation. So we cannot tie ourselves into a position, and this is my view, we cannot tie ourselves into a position which would amount to that unless XYZ happens, I will not do anything. Because that means that you are then presuming your entire approach as not having any initiative or any agency left. I think agency will always have to remain from the Indian side.

Yeah, agreed. But I think the, you say about the population, we are bigger in size and larger in population, square miles or whatever. But judging by history, the pinpricks and everything right from 1947 and then you have the 65, 71, Kargil in 99 and everything we have seen. So it is not really possible for the governments or the agencies to take Pakistan for granted. We are always on guard, isn't it, that they do it.

Hoping of course, cautious optimism that we find that something can be done with the new dispensation there, which may be in the offing that or by the prescription you said that we have to take a lead. The better sense prevails and we live in a better harmony and it's doable, Ambassador.

Well, I don't think we have to be, we should never suspend disbelief. And I don't think taking initiatives means that we close our eyes to the possible dangers which exist

in the

history of India-Pakistan relations is a history of various threats and dangers. So I don't think we can ever exclude that factor. But I do think we need to look at it in a broader framework. And that broader framework is of neighborhood relations. Relations between neighboring countries, especially when you have a large neighbor dealing with a smaller country, are always very difficult.

And even in the past, while India-Pakistan relations stand at a different level, and to some extent, stand by themselves. But if you look at our relations with Nepal or Sri Lanka, or in fact, any of our

neighbors,

there have always been periods of great difficulty. But the point is not to be, not to bind ourselves into a position where you are not in a position, where you are not in a situation to take steps to improve the situation. We should not be rigid. I agree.

I just got it. Thank you very much for this. It is very vital advice. And I would request you to, as far as external relations are concerned, Ambassador, to wrap up with what would be the likely Chinese stance in view of the Indo-US renewed relationship by Prime Minister's visit vis-a-vis China-Pakistan?

I think the China, US, India and to some extent Pakistan, we see all these relations as forming 1 complex whole, But it's always useful to remember that India-China relations, just like India-Pakistan relations, to a great extent are sui generis. We had difficult times with our relationship with China in the past when we also had difficult times with the relations with the US simultaneously. It is not as if the better relations with the US has prevented an improvement in India-China relations in the past. Similarly, you have had good relations with Pakistan and you have had bad relations with Pakistan. And while at the same time, you may have had the opposite set of relations with China.

So, necessarily, they don't matter. They don't impact each other. And I think it's good to keep this in mind that these are sui generis, your problems with Pakistan, your problems with China, and not necessarily always view it in the wider prism of what is happening with the United States and what is happening with other countries.

Thank you, Ambassador Raghavan. It has been a very, very educating session, both the internal challenges, what you explained so lucidly, as well as the external relations you dealt with, very comprehensive. We thank you very much. I'm sure the viewers were equally benefited. And thank you everyone for your patience and presence with us and joining us with this.

We hope to get back to you with more exciting episodes in the near future. A warm thank you to all of you from NatStrat. Bye-bye. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you.