Haven’t the spymasters of India and Pakistan ever met? They probably would have. Did their meeting(s) make a difference to India-Pakistan relationship? Not at all. Will another meeting of the spymasters in 2012 make a big difference to the bilateral ties? Highly unlikely. But, is there anything wrong if they meet again? Not really.
Spymasters of the world do meet each other, but they do it quietly. There is something very odd in the Pakistani report quoting ‘officials’ in Islamabad that a meeting between the chiefs of the ISI and his Indian counterpart is being mooted.
Of course, all channels of communication between India and Pakistan can always be only very useful. But lack of communication channels between the two countries is not the problem today. There are already channels between the two home ministries (in which the IB chiefs sit in), between BSF and the Rangers and the two DGMOs.
But the problem is that the dialogue is stagnating. Given the fluidity in the political situation in both countries, these are times when major initiatives are difficult to push through. (Although, normalisation of India-Pakistan relations is a ‘popular’ thing to happen and there could even be electoral dividends in 2014.)
On the Indian side, our intelligence chief reports to the prime minister. But then, the special envoy also reports to the PM and it isn’t that the PM is lacking in inputs regarding Pakistan. There is also a ‘back channel’ for PM to communicate to the ‘powers that be’ in Islamabad. The only ‘additionality’ in the new proposal is that Pakistan’s ISI chief also reports to the army chief in Rawalpindi.
That is to say, via the ISI chief (who will presumably whisper to his Indian counterpart when they meet in Geneva or Reykjavik), the Pakistani army chief could have a channel of communication open to our PM directly without the elected leadership in Pakistan being necessarily in the loop. Now, is that a good thing to happen? That is the question. An institutionalised intercourse between the spymasters of Pakistan and India becomes necessary once civilian supremacy is firmly established in Pakistan.
Now, is that a good thing to happen? ……becomes necessary once civilian supremacy is firmly established in Pakistan
—————————
Mr Bhadrakumar has done well to pose this question. To answer this question may be a follow up question needs to be asked - is inter-spook dialogue useful to facilitate civilian supremacy in Pakistan?
To establish civilian supremacy firmly in Pakistan it is necessary to attenuate low intensity war indulged by Pakistan. This can happen only when their spook-terror complex is squarely defeated. This defeat is not of war kind, but only about the mind-set which presently engulfs them gets superseded by a more normal world-view.
Such victory is feasible only if Indian policy makers can deliver substantially higher growth rates and social equity to all communities including Muslims. The strengthening of the social fabric can be done only if the crude politics of branding principal opposition as communal makes room for healthier discourse while higher growth rates can come only with consensus on economic policies. Clearly, the inter-spook dialogue is irrelevant to the issue of civilian supremacy in Pakistan. The remedies are mostly within reach and internal to Indian polity. The decades old diplomatic stance of non-interference in the internal politics of other nations is still a wise policy for it is an enabler of inward look for seeking real remedies.
However, inter-spook dialogue may still be necessary to avoid any accidental escalation of conflict and negotiate deescalation of flared up conflicts. It can atleast avert a lose-lose situation.
ISI spook may plant dangerous thoughts in an Indian’s mind about how tweaking the democratic process is in fact patriotic. Or the Indian Chief may have a calming, grown-up effect on a Pak Military that has not quite yet fully embraced the virtues of the democratic process. I think this play-date ought to be supervised by civilian adults.