All-Party Delegations Take Op Sindoor to the World: What Will be the Talking Points?

Ever since the government announced that India will undertake an unprecedented diplomatic outreach by sending seven delegations of Members of Parliament, which would include a senior retired diplomat in each, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and the Indian Missions concerned have been busy with the preparation of logistical and other arrangements for these visits. The test of the Heads of Missions of the 34 countries that these delegations are visiting would lie in the access that the delegations get to high government officials, elected representatives and opinion makers. While monitoring the arrangements the Missions are making, the MEA would be focused on the briefing of the delegations so that they are fully equipped to convey India’s position on Operation Sindoor and related issues.Basically, the delegations are being sent to demonstrate India’s resolve to combat terrorism and, that in doing so, India will not be deterred by the threat of nuclear blackmail.The MEA briefings would be both verbal—like the kind that Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri has already made to some of the delegations—and in writing. The briefings in writing would consist of the write-ups about India’s relations with the countries being visited, sometimes short biographical notes about the delegations’ interlocutors, and finally what diplomats call “talking points” or TPs. Of all the briefing material, these TPs would be the most important because they would contain the message that is to be conveyed and also the kind of comments and queries that the delegations should expect and how they should respond to them.Naturally, some of the TPs would be common to all the seven delegations. At this stage, it would be useful to mention the leaders of the seven delegations and the 34 countries that they are being covered. These countries include all current members of the UN Security Council and those who are coming in next year. The seven delegations are led by and the countries they are visiting are: Jai Panda (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Algeria) Ravi Shankar Prasad (UK, France, Germany, EU, Italy and Denmark) Sanjay Kumar Jha (Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, Japan and Singapore) Shrikant Eknath Shinde (UAE, Liberia, Congo, and Sierra Leone) Shashi Tharoor (US, Panama, Guyana, Colombia and Brazil) Kanimozhi Karunanidhi (Spain, Greece, Slovenia, Latvia and Russia) Supriya Sule (Egypt, Qatar, Ethiopia and South Africa)Trump Has Left Cracks in BJP's Op Sindoor Narrative. Can Congress Turn the Tide?Despite diffrences in ideology or party politics, the TPs of all the delegations will doubtless emphasise the following points:1. No More Patience: India exercised exemplary patience in dealing with Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism since 1990 till 2016. During this period, it suffered numerous terrorist attacks, including the Mumbai attack of 2008. Clearly, Pakistan mistook Indian patience as a lack of national resolve. 2. Pakistan Known Defaulter: The international community has long recognised that Pakistan is an epicentre of terrorism. It has nurtured terrorist groups as instruments of state policy. The proof of Pakistan’s complicity in terrorism was shown in 2011 when Osama bin Laden was found and killed in a US operation in Abbottabad. Thereafter, too, Pakistan has continued to give sanctuary to terrorists, many of whom are on the UNSC 1267 list. Pakistan had to be put on the FATF grey list because of its connection with terrorism. 3. International Community & Pakistan: India has, over the decades, drawn the international community’s attention to Pakistani terrorism. It was its experience that after major terrorist attacks, the great powers gave assurances to India that they would lean on Pakistan to abandon the path of terrorism. Pakistan has, however, continued on the terrorist path. 4. Failed Peace Talks: Prime Minister Narendra Modi, after he assumed office in 2014, tried his best to build peaceful and cooperative ties with Pakistan. He also visited Pakistan for this purpose in December 2015. The two countries had also decided on engaging in a Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue. However, Pakistan disregarded Modi and India’s goodwill and launched two major terrorist attacks in 2016. 5. Popular Sentiment: The Indian people demanded that if peaceful methods had been disregarded by Pakistan for two and half decades India had to resort to different ways of conveying an appropriate message. In a democracy no government can disregard popular sentiment for all time. Hence, in 2016 and 2019, India undertook limited kinetic actions targeting only terrorism in Pakistan. Obviously, Pakistan did not pay attention to the change in India’s position. 6. Pahalgam's Dastardly Attack: The Pahalgam terrorist attack was heinous in the extreme. Men were killed for their religious affiliations in front of their families. The anger of the nation and its message to the government that Pakistan’s terror masters had to be given a response that would show India’s resolve was clear. Operation Sindoor was a targeted exercise against only terrorist targets. Every care was taken that Pakistan’s state structures were not hit and its people did not suffer. This was conveyed after the attack to the Pakistani military authorities who chose to disregard this important message. 7. Offence the Best Defence: When Pakistan resorted to attacking Indian military installations, India was compelled to take counter-measures. The Indian military effectively demonstrated its accuracy and reach. The conflict remained in the conventional military domain. While Pakistan generally invokes the threat of escalation to the level of nuclear exchanges to prevent India from responding kinetically Operation Sindoor has demonstrated that India will not allow it to use nuclear weapons as a shield to carry out terrorist attacks. 8. Terror & Talks Can't Go Hand-in-Hand: India wants good neighbourly relations with Pakistan but it has to stop its terrorism, which is also harming Pakistan itself. In any event the international community has to put pressure on Pakistan in appropriate ways to give up terrorism. Naturally, India cannot be expected to give every advantage through long standing Treaties while it seeks to undermine it in every way. 9. International Terrorism: India is resolved to root out the menace of cross-border terrorism. Op Sindoor: Video of Blast From Ukraine Viral as India Attacking LahoreAll countries will respond to these TPs by condemning terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, expressing sympathy and in some cases solidarity with India, acknowledging that India was patient in the face to terrorism for a long time. All this is, of course, motherhood and apple pie. Having said all this, some of the smaller states will go no further except noting, in general terms, that terrorism poses a threat to international peace and security.The smaller states do not have the means or the interest to push terrorism up on the international agenda. The European countries and states like South Africa, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil, South Korea, Japan and even Saudi Arabia and the UAE would accept the points made by India on how it has suffered terrorism. They will though with different degrees of intensity suggest that India should, in the first place, give diplomacy a chance. The fact is that terrorism is not high on the international agenda, for the world is currently grappling with the great anxieties in the international order brought about US President Donald Trump. The important powers do not want a distraction. Hence, it will be the test of the teams visiting these countries to convince them that even amidst all the dislocations brought about by Trump, they have to ensure that the screws are tightened on Pakistan on terrorism. They will have to persuade their interlocutors that India’s current policies against Pakistan on terrorism are reasonable—and the onus on ensuring that peace prevails is on Pakistan.In this context, the leaders of the Indian teams will have to clearly articulate, that except for Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, no other country with them launches terrorist attacks on another country with nuclear weapons. That was seen during the Cold War too. Pakistan has turned the doctrine of nuclear responsibility on its head by continuing to behave in this irresponsible manner.India has always preferred the path of diplomacy but it is no longer willing to accept Pakistan’s terrorism.Naturally, these points will have to be modulated appropriately in different countries and with dfifferent interlocutors.Does an Act of Terror Constitute 'Escalation'? Why India Says it DoesThe real difficulty will be faced by Shashi Tharoor’s delegation in the US. President Trump has said, on numerous occasions, that it was US intervention which saved the two countries from entering further along the nuclear path. He has also said that he had threatened to cut off trade ties with both and that this proved to be a crucial factor in bringing about what the State Department has called a US “brokered” ceasefire. India has denied Trump’s and the State Department’s assertions. There is no doubt that the Tharoor delegation will be asked by US Senators and Member of Congress and others about this Trump’s claims.It can be supposed that the Tharoor delegation will take the stand that while India was in conversation with the US during this entire period, what ultimately worked was the Pakistani DGMO’s call to his Indian counterpart. They will perhaps emphasise that for India, conversation is not mediation of facilitation and that relations with Pakistan have and will continue to follow a bilateral path. How much conviction this will create in their US interlocutors remains to be seen. The greatest quantum of advice on pursuing the diplomatic path instead of using kinetic force will be given in the US.It is here that the Tharoor delegation will have to show logic, diplomatic skills and firmness in conveying that the US has the capability to press Pakistan to abandon terrorism for it is inherently escalatory among nuclear states. Tharoor has the diplomatic ballast to take on the Ayatollahs of nuclear theology in the US on terrorism and escalation—and that is what he should do.Flirting With Power: Shashi Tharoor’s Tightrope Between Modi and CongressHe can do this without being shrill or combative or in seeking to show the US the mirror to their past. Ravi Shankar Prasad will also have to avoid that temptation. Sharp one-line quips may earn great brownie points with a section of the people in India but are best avoided in serious conversations or even in public articulation. (The writer is a former Secretary [West], Ministry of External Affairs. He can be reached @VivekKatju. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)

BECOME A MEMBER

All-Party Delegations Take Op Sindoor to the World: What Are the Talking Points?

The real difficulty will be faced by Shashi Tharoor’s delegation in the US, writes Vivek Katju.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from opinion

Topics: Pakistan Shashi Tharoor Terrorism