IndiaIt’s time Basit got marching orders

It’s time Basit got marching orders

Date:

Sunanda K Datta-Ray 

It's a wonder the Ministry of External Affairs has not given Abdul Basit, the Pakistani high commissioner, his marching orders. His August 14 speech amounted to support for and encouragement of secession in the host country. Diplomats the world over have been expelled for less.

The case that comes immediately to mind is that of Philip Goldberg, the American ambassador to Bolivia. In 2008, Evo Morales, president of Bolivia, the first indigenous Indian in that high position, declared Goldberg persona non grata, claiming that the US government conspired against him and supported his opponents. Goldberg had met Ruben Costas, governor of Santa Cruz province, which is not only predominantly white but also the richest in Bolivia. The combination of ethnicity and riches probably explains Santa Cruz's defiant mood. The province demanded greater autonomy, threatening secession if its demand was not met.

It doesn't matter whether the central government of Bolivia or Santa Cruz is right. Either way, the US ambassador has no interfering. Unlike Basit in New Delhi, Goldberg expressed no preference in the dispute. But it was enough that he met a potential secessionist. In expelling him, Morales may also have remembered that in 1903 the US encouraged some Colombian politicians to secede and create the new state of Panama in return for the Panama Canal.  More recently, Serbia expelled the Montenegrin, Macedonian and Malaysian ambassadors when their countries recognised Muslim breakaway Kosovo's independence.

Samantha Power, the US ambassador to the United Nations, says that expelling ambassadors can be a tool in a government's diplomatic armoury. While calling for armed intervention to prevent mass atrocities in the Balkans and Libya, she emphasised that the US has many non-military options for responding. “If you think of foreign policy as a toolbox, there are a whole range of options,” she said. “You can convene allies, impose economic sanctions, expel ambassadors, jam hate radio. There is always something you can do.”

Interestingly, soon after Bolivia expelled Goldberg, President Hugo Chavez of neighbouring Venezuela declared the US ambassador there, Patrick Duddy, persona non grata. Since he did not cite any specific alleged infractions by Duddy, it was assumed Chavez's gesture was an act of solidarity with Morales's action. If so, it suggests a further use of expulsion – to demonstrate resistance to the regional (global, too, in this instance) power who cannot be opposed in any other way.

All this is highly relevant to the -Pakistan situation. Carved out of the same country, the two neighbours are at odds on many counts, diplomatic, political, military and religious. Both being nuclear armed, war between them is unthinkable. There are idealists who like to believe that but for their leaders, the peoples of India and Pakistan can be good friends and live in amity. But the leaders, whether political or military, reflect popular sentiments. They do not operate in a vacuum. Even the theory that Pakistan's civilian politicians want rapprochement with India but are prevented by the military, especially the ISI, is wishful thinking. On crucial issues that affect bilateral ties, there is little difference between political and military circles and the public.

Everyone in Pakistan may not be convinced India is out to gobble up their country, but there is a widespread grievance that Pakistan got a raw deal in 1947 when joint assets, especially defence material, were divided. India's hand is suspected behind the unrest in Balochistan and “Azad .”  The vows by the Pakistani president and Nawaz Sharif to “liberate” and Kashmir have a nationwide resonance for every Pakistani sees India as being in illegal occupation of the state.

The 1971 Bangladesh war continues to rankle deeply. Humayun Khan, one of Basit's far more sophisticated predecessors who became Pakistan's foreign secretary, told me once that although he strongly denied every single Indian charge, even if they had been true they would have been justified “after Bangladesh.” If a Pakistani is being as candid as he was, he would admit that the export of terrorism, illicit weapons, narcotics and fake currency is no more than the reprisal for which India should be prepared.

No one will admit this but in many respects, India and Pakistan, Siamese twins in their nationhood, are mirror images of each other. Sanctimonious denunciations by either may be tinged with guilty self-recognition. New Delhi was right to give a dusty answer to the impertinent offer of supplies to Jammu and Kashmir. But that won't stop such fun and games. Every Pakistani leader will forever continue to be seen trying to put the “k” back into Pakistan.

That is the permanent political challenge no Indian prime minister can hope to escape. But a certain decorum must be maintained. The immediate problem is ambassadorial insolence for which there can be two explanations. Either Basit is too ignorant of international diplomatic norms to understand the gravity of his misdemeanour or he was being deliberately offensive to provoke an angry Indian reaction.

This is where the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations can come in handy. Neither country wants to – or can afford to – break off relations completely. It is in the interest of both to keep the dialogue going. But that does not mean putting up with the kind of insolence of which Basit is guilty. He had earlier been summoned to the external affairs ministry over Pakistan's continued support to cross-border terrorism in Kashmir. But that offence was by his government, not him personally. In this instance, he grossly violated the propriety that must guide the conduct of ambassadors who are also respectable men in private life. If he fails to live by that code, India can have no option but to  invoke Article 9 of the convention which empowers the host government to declare a diplomat persona non grata “at any time and without having to explain its decision.” Unless he is recalled, the host country can strip him of his diplomatic rank.

There is normally no need for overkill. In 2012, for instance, the Canadian government declared all Iranian diplomats in Canada personae non gratae and also closed the Canadian embassy in Tehran. When Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Romania, Abdulrahman I. Al Rassi, refused to answer charges of sexually abusing and murdering a 25-year-old Romanian medical student who worked in his embassy as a secretary, the entire legation staff was given 48 hours to leave the country. The diplomatic ballet between Belarus and the European Union meant the latter withdrawing all EU ambassadors after Belarus expelled two of them, as well as banning 200 Belarusian judicial and law-enforcement officials.

Normally, action against just the envoy suffices. It is a way of sending a serious message by a very high-level messenger. The message is that however grave differences might be, the dialogue between the two governments can only be conducted in civilised terms.

Northlines
Northlines
The Northlines is an independent source on the Web for news, facts and figures relating to Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh and its neighbourhood.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Share post:

Popular

More like this
Related

India’s Borders Totally Secure: Rajnath Singh

New Delhi, Mar 28: Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on...

65.7% educated youth unemployed, 63 lakh lost jobs during Covid: Report

New Delhi: Over 80 per cent of India’s unemployed...

No relief for Arvind Kejriwal as Delhi High Court defers petition against arrest to April 3

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused...

Given political will, aerospace power can be effectively used beyond enemy lines: IAF chief

New Delhi, Mar 27: IAF Chief Air Chief Marshal...