Test of faith, and more

Tilak Devasher
Member, National security advisory board

Four aspects of the inauguration of the Kartarpur corridor on November 9 are noteworthy. First, much is to be said for both countries going ahead with the corridor in spite of tensions. Even though Pakistan has sought to project it as a unilateral project, the fact is that it is a joint Indo-Pak initiative. This sends an important signal to the international community of how the two countries can take joint action to manage their differences. Pakistan has thus neutralised its own narrative that the bilateral track was not working and calling for international mediation and intervention on Kashmir. The message that has gone out is that there is no need for any third party mediation in bilateral relations. The Indian narrative has thus prevailed that despite tensions, the two countries can engage and achieve positive results. 

Second, Pakistan’s political objectives to ‘please’ the Sikh community from India and the rest of the world are obvious. In fact, Pakistan has mobilised sections of the Sikh diaspora, especially in Canada, the US and Britain, to support its stand on Kashmir and participate in anti-India protests. India had conveyed to Pakistan its apprehensions about Khalistani groups trying to influence pilgrims. Pakistan’s insincerity and real motivation can also be judged from the fact that its official corridor opening video had a poster of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and others in the background. Moreover, Pakistani leadership from PM Imran Khan Niazi downwards has been stressing that the move is for the Sikhs, even though the Kartarpur Agreement does not put restrictions on Indian nationals of any faith from visiting the gurdwara. Thus, India would have to guard against Pakistan misusing the corridor by fomenting Khalistani sentiments.

Third, through the opening of the corridor, Pakistan hopes to mask the horrendous treatment of its minorities. It is now projecting that it respects religious minorities, both its own and of other countries, and is a paragon of religious freedom. According to Pakistan information adviser Firdous Ashiq Awan, the opening of the corridor represented Imran Khan’s vision of protection and freedom of all minorities. However, one has only to read the reports of the US State Department on international religious freedom to debunk such claims. 

One possible follow-up to assess Pakistan’s sincerity about minorities would be if it agrees to provide access to Sharda Peeth in Neelum Valley of PoK. Another would be to see if Pakistan tries and makes the Kartarpur pilgrims pawns in bilateral ties by closing the corridor every now and then.

Finally, it brought out the differences between the civil and military leadership in Pakistan and reiterated who was in charge. Imran Khan tweeted rather grandly on November 1 that for the inauguration, he had waived the requirement for a passport and fee as mentioned in the MoU signed by the two countries. However, the Director-General, Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), on November 6 refuted this by tweeting that entry would be on a passport-based identity, and that there would be no compromise on security or sovereignty. The implication was that Imran Khan was compromising Pakistan’s security and sovereignty. In the event, there were no surprises whose tweet carried the day. Perhaps to express his annoyance at Imran Khan’s suggestion, Pakistan army chief Bajwa, who is credited with the opening of the corridor, did not attend the inauguration. The incident also reinforced the immaturity and poor leadership of Imran Khan in taking decisions without consultation, and then meekly accepting being put down by the army. 

There is one larger issue. Punjab was the worst sufferer of the Partition,  with more than 10 million people uprooted from their respective homes, and over two million killed. The agony of those days was immortalised, among others, by Amrita Pritam’s Waris Shah. The scars of Partition still haunt the people of Punjab, despite the passage of seven decades. Will and can the corridor provide the healing touch to lessen the pain and animosity? Can it rejoin the broken link between the two Punjabs and the two countries? For it to actually become a ‘peace corridor’, Pakistan would have to demonstrate genuine goodwill, first by desisting from using Kartarpur as a lever to create differences between the Sikh community and the rest of India, and second to convincingly demonstrate that it was dismantling the building blocks of terrorism. So far, there is not even a shred of evidence that this is happening. 

Thus the possibility that the bilateral track could be restarted as a result of the corridor is much too optimistic. In any case, Imran Khan had ruled out any talks with India unless it rescinded the action taken on August 5 in J&K. This is not going to happen. What is possible is that in due course, Pakistan will restore diplomatic and trade relations that it had ruptured in the wake of the August 5 developments. India could follow suit in those limited areas. However, even for this, Imran Khan would have to retract from the kind of personal attacks that he has made on PM Modi. 

Finally, the corridor, like the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, will work only if both sides decide to delink it from other aspects of the relationship. Such a stand-alone template could be tried with other outstanding issues too. Low-hanging fruit like regional connectivity and trade could see better results in the future if they are treated as stand-alone issues, instead of being part of a composite dialogue process, and bolstered, of course, by Pakistan stopping its terrorist activities.