Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari landed in Goa with a lot of confidence. He left Pakistan for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation Foreign Minister’s meet with many people skeptical of his decision to attend the meeting in person. But Bhutto returned with a lot more, converted to the idea that he had made the right decision and was the best man for the job. Despite that it was mainly his informal comments during the press briefing to Pakistan’s 12-member media team that was provocative, just like what he did in New York, the Indian audience is now questioning his overall performance. But that is not how he is being perceived in Pakistan where it is believed that he said what he came to say.
Some in India think Zardari lost an opportunity and New Delhi will never talk to him again. However, he came to Goa conscious of the fact that New Delhi won’t speak to him until Lok Sabha elections in 2024. So, nothing will be lost in saying what was on Pakistan establishment’s mind and speaking to a wider Indian audience—beyond the limited security community.
The idea was to demonstrate to a larger Indian audience that Pakistan is not down and out, and not isolated like the Narendra Modi government had asked the international community to do in 2016. Therefore, attending a multilateral forum with representatives of about eight countries was an achievement in itself for Zardari.
India being the host of the forum could not have stopped him from coming. In any case, if he becomes Pakistan’s prime minister by impressing the powerful establishment, which he probably did with his performance, the Indian government will have no choice but to speak to him when the opportunity arises.
To quote a Sindhi writer, whom I spoke with the other day, president of Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians Asif Zardari made a smart move to get the foreign ministry for his son, which could be the only way to develop relations not just with the outside world but also the establishment at home.
Also read: Talks with India hurt by Modi govt’s decision to end Kashmir special status, says Bilawal Bhutto
Sticking to traditional position
It seems Zardari’s strategy was to be provocative while being careful at the same time. He was cautious in not creating greater mayhem by not opening up the press briefing to Indian journalists and laying down conditions for the two interviews he gave to Indian journalists for these to be aired after he had left. His statement to his own media team “hum unko aisa jawab thein gey key woh yaad rakhain gey” (we will give them a response they will remember) was a reminder of how well the concept of hybridity worked in Pakistan – a civilian leader speaking in the tone of a military general. Surely, he realised the purport of what he said.
The interviews to Suhasini Haidar and Rajdeep Sardesai presented Pakistan’s stance on matters of India-Pakistan relations, which is what they were interested in. The same can be said about Zardari’s neatly scripted formal presentation. He was certainly combative because this is a kind of generation of leadership that Rawalpindi would like to see and repose confidence in — someone who can prove his/her skills as a nationalist and is ready to stand up to India.
He tried to make three broad points in his presentation and the two interviews he gave to Indian media.
First, despite Pakistan’s dire economic conditions, India must not consider it a weakling that is ready to give up on Kashmir, an issue of key significance for Islamabad. Zardari seems to have stuck to the traditional position that was followed by General Qamar Javed Bajwa as the army chief—the minimum Pakistan expects is restoration of statehood of Kashmir, or else the maximalist position which is the UN resolutions.
Second, Pakistan will not go beyond what it has already done to meet the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) conditionalities and for its own security in curbing terrorism. Zardari’s audience at home did not expect him to engage in a philosophical debate on terrorism in which he, as representing the State, would agree to India’s accusation that Pakistan was unable to control non-State actors. In fact, his speech at the SCO aimed at drawing an equivalence, highlighting the allegedly rising religious intolerance in India that is being noted by human rights organisations and governments around the world. He was conscious of the fact that the international community including India’s western partners would not have issues with this part of his speech.
Third, Pakistan is willing to negotiate peace but without conditionalities imposed by India. The establishment is not in a mood for a conflict but a conciliatory attitude. There is a realisation in Islamabad that the Indian subcontinent has come a long way since the Lahore Declaration of 1999. Islamabad has experimented twice with thinking out of the box on Kashmir but was unable to deliver. The domestic audience, meaning the larger establishment will allow a move forward if there are concessions from both sides. Therefore, all that Zardari could propose was leaving out the controversial and building on common issues such as poverty, and climate change among others.
Jaishankar’s ‘meltdown’
Pakistan’s foreign minister came prepared to share his perspective and with the understanding that it will not only be rejected but also provoke India’s foreign minister S. Jaishankar to respond belligerently in a fashion that may only get appreciated by his local audience. Even critics of Pakistan’s approach on terrorism like journalist Myra Macdonald could not sympathise with Jaishankar calling Zardari ‘promoter, justifier and spokesperson of a terrorism industry.’ According to her, despite sympathising with India’s concerns, the Indian foreign minister’s words were undiplomatic.
In Pakistan, people generally lauded Zardari’s visit as a victory. Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar, a budding political figure and once part of the Zardari’s team was quick in pointing out that Jaishankar’s remarks seemed like a meltdown.
Now this is what a public meltdown looks like … pic.twitter.com/BAzcMPQGpv
— Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar (@mustafa_nawazk) May 5, 2023
Others like journalist Mariana Baabur also pointed out that the Indian foreign minister’s comments did not indicate strength. Except for directionless Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) supporters like Pakistani politician Salman Taseer’s daughter Sara Taseer criticising the visit, there was a unison in condemning Jaishankar in Pakistan. Apparently, even Imran Khan, the country’s former prime minister, abandoned his criticism of Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) coalition to lash out at the Indian foreign minister, reminding him of diplomatic etiquette on how to treat a guest.
The lesson for Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, thus being that sticking to official narrative has greater political dividends and will help him turn into an acceptable replacement for Imran Khan once the moment comes.
Also read: ‘Bilawal Bhutto must give answer on atrocities against minorities in Pakistan,’ says AISC Chairman
Beijing’s partner
The debate in Pakistan seems to have stayed clear of any deep thinking about continued presence of terror suspects in the country. Either lost in the PDM versus PTI politics or the country’s urge to not be mentioned in the same breath as terrorism, people generally didn’t have an issue with the foreign minister’s conduct at the SCO meeting. People can’t be blamed as the debate on Pakistan as a hub of terrorism post the FATF experience has diminishing returns. Added to this is lack of information. The unspoken and informal restriction on reporting about terror outfits means the country’s masses know little and feel that the problem only is of terrorists attacking Pakistan from Afghanistan or are restricted to Balochistan.
The other thing worth mentioning is the sense of growing Chinese capacity in Pakistan to not just challenge India but also the US. Those who feel that the country can still challenge India as Beijing’s partner would not appreciate London-based economist Yousaf Nazar’s view that instead of continued showboating, it must appreciate the significance of building ties with New Delhi. There are fewer people in the country, other than economist Yousuf Nazar, who believe that Pakistan needs a reality check on its contribution to terror and conflict in the region or that it must shape bilateral relations based on appreciation of India’s economic strength. The newer generation in Pakistan represented by Zardari want to reach out but as he stated during his visit, on different conditions.
Ayesha Siddiqa is Senior Fellow at the Department of War Studies at King’s College, London. She is the author of Military Inc. She tweets @iamthedrifter. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)