ISSN 2330-717X

Why Pakistan Army Chief’s Call For Talks Makes No Sense – Analysis


Within Pakistan, it is the army which controls foreign policy towards India, Afghanistan and the US. The polity has no role. Every time the polity has attempted to take a step forward, the deep state employs terrorists to strike within India, pushing talks away.

By Harsha Kakar

The Pakistan army chief, General Javed Bajwa, recently briefed his senate on matters concerning national security and his recent visits, including the military alliance created by Saudi Arabia. The briefing was conducted in-camera. After the briefing, the Pak Inter Services Public Relations issued a statement containing some details. After the briefing by his staff, General Bajwa answered queries raised by some members of the senate.

It was during this interaction that he stated that the army would support the government when it went ahead seeking to improve relations with both India and Afghanistan. Such a statement, especially as it concerns India, may be the first by a Pakistan army chief (as they have mostly maintained silence on calls for talks by the government), and needs to be accepted with a pinch of salt. However, actions on supporting talks are more important than mere words.

Within Pakistan, it is the army which controls foreign policy towards India, Afghanistan and the US. The polity has no role. Every time the polity has attempted to take a step forward, the deep state employs terrorists to strike within India, pushing talks away. It is also abundantly clear that the Pakistan High Commissioner in Delhi reports to the army, rather than the foreign minister, and hence would always remain a stumbling block, rather than being a facilitator.

A day after the army chief spoke for reconciliation with India, he praised Hafiz Saeed, who India blames for most terror strikes, while the US has placed a bounty on him. It is only the army which is pushing for the formation of a political party, Milli Muslim League, led by him, which the government continues to object. Instead of reducing tensions along the border, it launched an operation which claimed the lives of four Indian soldiers. Thus, it is clearly a case of doublespeak, and hence India has rightfully ignored his comments.

Pakistan presently is facing international pressure. Mike Pence, the US Vice President, stated in Afghanistan a few days ago, that Pakistan is on notice to curb terror groups. The US National Security Strategy also highlights Pakistan’s role in supporting the Taliban and Haqqani network. It also seeks to apply pressure on Pakistan to improve its relations with India, placing the onus on it to take the first step.

Pakistan’s attempts at accusing India for supporting the Baluchistan freedom movement and anti-Pak terror groups from Afghan soil and in conjunction with Afghan intelligence agencies has no buyers, either at the UN or on any other forum where it has chosen to raise the subject. Even its demands for UN intervention in Kashmir or for implementing the defunct UN resolution on the same has been ignored. Its calls to enhance the role and mandate of the UN Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan’s (UNMOGIP) has also been brushed aside. Kashmir no longer exists on the UN agenda and has not even been discussed for decades.

On the other hand, India’s actions of naming Pakistan based terror groups backed by the deep state has received support in multiple international documents, including the BRICS summit. It has also been commented upon by many international leaders. At the UN, India, Afghanistan and Bangladesh openly blamed Pakistan for supporting terror groups. Trump and his aides have repeatedly accused Pakistan of employing terror groups as an instrument of state policy. The US and the UN have named Pakistan based terror groups and its leaders as global terrorists. It is only China which has saved Hafiz Saeed from being nominated as an international terrorist at the UN, by employing its veto.

Thus no one believes Pakistan or its army chief, when they make such comments. While mentioning support for talks on one hand and backing terror groups operating on Indian soil on the other, the very concept of talks has no value. Similarly, supporting Hafiz Saeed, whom India considers a mastermind of terror strikes in India in forming a political party, sends a wrong signal. Talks can never be held until terror groups operate from Pakistan soil and ceasefire violations continue unabated. For any meaningful talks there must be a conducive environment, which does not exist.

Lack of a conducive environment implies lack of trust. Lack of trust means that talks can always be derailed when the Pakistan army so desires. Hence, India feels that talks would have no value, unless Pakistan is pressured to stop support to terror groups and dismantle terror camps on its soil. Therefore, India continues to develop capabilities to counter Pakistan, which compels it to spend critical funds and enhance defence spending, which it can ill afford. Pakistan hence feels threatened and cries hoarse on India leading an arms race and increasing tensions in the sub-continent. It feels that only by developing nuclear weapons and supporting terror groups, to tie down the Indian army in Kashmir, can it reduce Indian threat.

In the present environment, India is slowly impacting on Pakistan, what the US did to the erstwhile Soviet Union. As the US and NATO military strength continued to grow, it compelled the USSR to enhance defence expenditure, impacting its economy. Pakistan’s defence budget has been increasing by the year, compelling the government to cut down on other developmental plans, banking only on Chinese investments. It therefore would remain beholden to China.

India, on the other hand, would continue its present march of enhancing capabilities, aggressively countering cross border violations and eliminating terrorists operating in Kashmir. As a growing military and economic power, sought the world over, Pakistan would only remain a small pinprick on its side as it embraces development and growth. It is in no hurry to resume dialogue, unless Pakistan creates trust and indicates a willingness to dismantle terror groups.

Talks would benefit Pakistan more, as it could consider reducing defence expenditure and concentrate on developing its economy, which presently remains in shambles. Pakistan should learn from China, which has also realised that the way ahead with India is dialogue. Continuing its offensive path will only harm Pakistan more than India. India has nothing to lose, hence awaits Pakistan’s affirmative indicators of a desire for talks. For the present, it has rightly chosen to ignore General Bajwa.

Observer Research Foundation

ORF was established on 5 September 1990 as a private, not for profit, ’think tank’ to influence public policy formulation. The Foundation brought together, for the first time, leading Indian economists and policymakers to present An Agenda for Economic Reforms in India. The idea was to help develop a consensus in favour of economic reforms.

4 thoughts on “Why Pakistan Army Chief’s Call For Talks Makes No Sense – Analysis

  • January 3, 2018 at 2:13 pm

    “Pakistan’s economy is in shambles”…IMF. WB, Standar & Poor beg to differ with you buddy. Their growth rate is approaching India’s- which took a hit last year.

  • January 4, 2018 at 4:05 am

    When the neighbour persisists on setting his house on fire hoping that you will get singed, you simply accept that the neighbour in unstable and take precautions. Very little else can be done.

  • January 5, 2018 at 2:35 pm

    India also keeps threatening Pakistan for launching surgical strikes in its territory in reaction to its alleged support to the Kashmiri’s freedom struggle. During Modi’s rule in India, although India’s hegemonic policies towards its neighbours and the issue of atrocities being committed by Indian security forces in IOK have worsened, but these Indian excesses are not catching world’s and UN eyes because of major powers’ interests linked with India.

  • January 8, 2018 at 6:38 am

    India’s belligerent activities and statements would in fact be responded quite the same way it is voicing. Like always a clear tit for tat strategy has always been followed and to every action there seems to be a strong reaction.The practicing of harsh policies would only fuel up the already turmoil situation in the region. For making the region a peaceful place both states must act vigilantly and must seek for alternatives in order to make the relations friendly and strong.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.