What isolated Pakistan from a larger political engagement in South Asian region was the anger of the US that it had helped Taliban to extirpate the elected government of Ashraf Ghani in Kabul and support the Taliban to regain control of its western neighbour.

The US and UK know it better than any other actor on the political chessboard of South Asia that in Pakistan real power rests with the Army. Why and how, are not intended to be discussed in this write-up. The focus is on the fact that both powers have been dealing with Pak Army’s higher echelons on different issues of national and international importance at different times.

The main reason for their deep interest in Pakistan Army has been their expectation that they could use Pakistan as bulwark against the ambitions of the Soviet Union. A cursory look at the triangular relation among India, Pakistan and the Anglo-American bloc ever since the creation of Pakistan up to 9/11 shows that the bloc has always been on the right side of Pakistan in any matter that involved India.

Pakistan’s isolation in the international arena surfaced when former US President charged Pakistan as the epicentre of international terrorism, and with that, he cancelled the annual aid which the US budgeted for support to Pakistan Army.  After 9/11 Pakistan began losing its clout with the western countries for its overt and covert use of terror as an instrument of state policy. It brought her closer to the lap of China, a new phenomenon in which Pakistan envisioned her redemption.

Towards the end of his tenure of service, General Qamar Bajwa had fully realized the negative impact of Pakistan’s isolation adversely affecting country’s defence capabilities. The need of the day was to mend the fence with the US.

But London adopted a pragmatic stance on Pakistan’s isolation. General Bajwa succeeded in prompting London to change Washington’s angry mood. Its backing enabled last year’s breakthrough visit by General Bajwa to Washington – the first by a Pakistani Army chief in three years – and an $450 million deal to repair Pakistan’s ageing fleet of F16 combat jets. The US and Pakistan had also begun engaging in counter-terrorism. (The Print of June 7, 2023)

After Pakistan’s new Army chief General Asim Munir, and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Sahir Shamshad Mirza, made a five-day visit to the UK to attend an annual conference, the British army chief General Patrick Sanders reciprocated the visit last week leading a military delegation for “considering measures to enhance its intelligence and military cooperation with Pakistan.” 

The Print reported that General Sanders was told during his visit last week that assistance from the UK was needed to stabilize Pakistan and fight threats to the West from jihadist groups like the Islamic State. The UK believes the Pakistan Army is a necessary bulwark against Islamic State jihadists in Afghanistan. Earlier this year, leaked United States intelligence documents recorded that the Islamic State was engaged in nine plots against Western targets during the FIFA World Cup on Qatar.

The assessment said that “Islamic State has been developing a cost-effective model for external operations that relies on resources from outside Afghanistan, operatives in target countries, and extensive facilitation networks.”

An interesting revelation made by the sources of The Print is that London also pushed India to engage with Pakistan on Kashmir, saying it will help marginalise jihadists. Last year, Christian Turner, the UK’s High Commissioner in Pakistan, said in a closed-door meeting that General Bajwa was seeking the restoration of the scrapped Article 35-A of India’s Constitution, which gave the state of Jammu and Kashmir the right to designate “permanent residence” entitled to purchase land. General Bajwa claimed that he needed these political concessions to push back against pressure to escalate in Kashmir from hawks in the establishment —- among them, Imran.

We know that Pakistan Army has close connections with the UK from the day of its inception. We will come to that a bit later and presently; we would like to make a few observations on what The Print has reported. In the first place it is debateable whether the UK thinks that Pakistan Army could be a “bulwark against the ISIS”.  In the first place, there is schism in the Pak Army on terror as the instrument of state policy. Secondly, Pakistan has always said that the terrorists are non-state actors meaning the state has little or no control on them. This is far from truth. The terrorist organizations in Pakistan are the creation of ISI and Pak Army. Their activists are regularly guided by their mentors who are mostly retired Pak Army officers.

As far as the Pakistani Taliban are concerned, yes, they are bitter enemies of Pakistan Army and are fighting them. The TTP is actually a political movement for separation of the Pakhtunkhwa from Pakistan and recognition of the TTP as the managers of their cherished state. Pakistan Army, supported by the domestic elitist group are fighting the TTP, not the ordinary people of Pakistan. If UK thinks that Pakistan Army will fight against the Islamic State, it is their big mistake. Pakistan Army is adept in hunting with the hound and running with the hare. That is what it did in the case of Afghan Taliban.  The UK certainly wants to bolster Pak Army so that it works as bulwark against Russia if needed. This has always been the guiding objective of UK-Pakistan relations.

Pakistan Army’s relations with the UK have a long history beginning in 1950 — just three years after the creation of Pakistan — when Sandhurst first started to accept overseas cadets. Pakistan was allocated 39 per cent of funding from the 1959 Commonwealth Military Training Assistance Scheme. The UK wanted securing Pakistan’s cooperation in a West -led alliance against the Soviet Union together with countries like Iran and Turkey. Intelligence cooperation between the two deepened after 9/11, amidst revelation that large numbers of Pakistani-British jihadists were training in Pakistan.

In a Review of the British Government released in February last fears of a fresh wave of Islamist radicalism were voiced which cites “evidence of UK extremist group, as well as a Pakistani cleric with a UK following, calling for the use of violence.” The Review also pointed to “an element of crossover between those who seek to impose limits around blasphemy with those who voice incendiary rhetoric on Kashmir.”

It is surprising that the British government has come out with a Review that speaks of nefarious designs of UK-based jihadists to caution Islamabad and cooperate with it in taking preventive steps. But it did not think it had the duty of cautioning India about the hatching of Kashmir terrorism conspiracy by the British Kashmiris and Pakistanis based in Luton, Birmingham and other towns with a population of more than a million in UK. The kingpins of Kashmir terrorist movement were the British Kashmiris and Pakistanis like Amanullah Khan and his team.

General Sanders’ Pakistan visit comes at a time of intense tension between the Pakistan Army and former Prime Minister Imran Khan. Reports are that the Pak Army invited the owners of top editors of major domestic news outlets to Islamabad for a meeting where they were directed not to cover Imran’s statement. The BBC’s Caroline Davies reported that Pakistani media was instructed “not to mention or show Imran Khan, nor even on their ticker tape”.

Pakistan has been trying to come closer to Russia in the wake of polarisation of powers following the Ukrainian war. If the two countries are able to foster a lasting friendship, the Western powers are likely to lose their Asian “bulwark” against Russia. Hence, we find UK raising the bells of alarm and speaking about stabilising Pakistan against the threat from jihadists. The West including the UK was non-committal when India kept raising the issue of terrorism on world platforms ever since 1990,

By a happy coincidence, I grabbed the opportunity of listening attentively to an interview Dr Sazawal has given to the New Indian news channel recently. Given this in light of the Prime Minister’s recent visit to the US as a state guest, I ruminated over its significance.

Dr Vijay Sazawal, a nuclear scientist of Kashmir Valley origin but long settled in the US, enjoys prestigious status as a scientist. Additionally, he has been maintaining an interest in Indo-US relations, particularly in the areas of technology. He is gifted with a facile pen and his articles published in various US journals are held in high esteem by the specialist.

I have known him since my days at the John Knox Foyer in Geneva where he would be seen sometimes in connection with his professional engagements.  We have maintained our friendly relations over the last three decades. I have benefited from his deep knowledge of American society and its political nitty-gritty. He is a superb analyst of political events and personalities and I have great respect for his dispassionate views on some critical themes.

He was interviewed by Ms Arti Tiku, who has a place in the community of ace journalists in this country an eminent and is running her news channel.  Since both the speaker and the interviewer are known to me, they kindly permitted me to make a transcript of the interview and publish it for the information of a larger segment of readers with an interest in the entire gamut of the Indo-American relationship.

Both of them and this writer as well, are internally displaced persons from Kashmir Valley. Therefore, we are inclined to listen or read what outstanding commentators, formal and non-formal, say or think about the Kashmir issue. But alongside, we are equally interested in keeping abreast with political developments shaping in and around our country and the region, particularly at a time when we are passing through a crucial phase of history in which democracy is sharply challenged by authoritarianism. Some nations and people, influenced by a generation of social scientists with a definite ideology of curbing individual freedoms, are actively trying to change the established world order to their liking. A more disappointing phenomenon is that people from such politico-social groups as used to wear the laurel of giving India a secular democratic dispensation when India won freedom from colonial rule in 1947 are now engaged in castigating Indian democracy as ” dysfunctional and dead”.

Recently, Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi was on a four-day formal visit to the US. He was given a grand reception in the US. Dr Sazawal’s interview is essentially based on his views on the Modi visit, but being as keen about American foreign policy as on Kashmir, he has tried to cover the entire gamut of American foreign policy theoretically as well as practically in his interview to the channel.

To the first question of how the Indian American diaspora looks at the visit of Modi, he was frank that the diaspora is very happy with the visit because it feels Modi has contributed to the prestige of the diaspora. The people of Indian origin, men and women, who settled in the US, feel that they have attained a status in and recognition within American society. Indians are already at prestigious resource centres and creamy layers like Silicon Valley, Microsoft etc., and those who aspire to a higher status feel that Midi’s visit brings new social space, meaning stature, to the NRIs. India has got new recognition with the diaspora indeed.

In reply to the question of reasons for the US recognition of India’s significance as well as the Democratic party in particular, giving space to India, Dr Sazawal went on to succinctly trace the evolution of the Indo-US relationship vis-a-vis Democrats as well as the Republicans. Being fully conversant with how the Clinton administration dealt with India, he referred to the era when Jaswant Singh, then Indian foreign minister opened a dialogue with the American Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot, and made clear to the Democrats that the level of cooperation had to go beyond simply “The Mango diplomacy” to a more substantive partnership involving a proper understanding of India’s position and fundamentals of her foreign policy. Dr Sazawal believed that the long-time conversations of those days could be considered the time when re-thinking of the US’ Indian policy and strategy had begun to take shape. He did not touch upon the Kargil war and Clinton’s untold disparagement of Pakistani ISI’s clandestine operations.

He explained the estrangement that took shape in bilateral relations after India successfully carried out the Pokhran nuclear test under the premiership of Vajpayee. Many pressures from the Clinton administration on this count have not been reported by the Indian and even American media.  Talks between Indian foreign minister Jaswant Singh and US Deputy Secretary of State extended over 14 meetings from June 1998 through September 2000, but Mr Talbot made it clear that a closer and more strategic partnership with India could not happen because India had refused to sign the NPT. Following Clinton, George Bush took over the US presidency and his advisors, primarily Ambassador Robert Blackwill and then national security advisor Dr Condoleezza Rice (subsequently the secretary of state) in the Bush regime wanted that relations between the US and India needed to be re-visited and positivity inducted into the entire gamut of the relationship. President Bush was informed that a strategic partnership between India and the US was not possible without the U.S. providing special exemption to India to circumvent restrictions on India imposed because she refused to sign the NPT. Consequently, India and the U.S. signed the nuclear deal which provided the gate to a broadening relationship with India.

Dr Sazawal asserted that the Democrats did not understand, and even today as well do not fully understand, the civilizational significance of India and the whole background of India not signing the NPT. He admitted that Clinton did all he could to make life in China comfortable. The US under Democrats defined China in terms of a strategic partner though today they see China as a competitor and an adversary.

Asked why Biden, a Democrat, had changed the policy of his predecessors and given an exciting reception to the Indian Prime Minister Modi, Dr Sazawal opined that the Democrat party is enmeshed in contradictions. Their leaders make contradictory statements. For example, recently when Blinken was on a visit to Beijing, he said Taiwan was not an independent state. This is a contradiction. Politicians in the US, the Democrats in particular, have only scant knowledge of Eastern civilizations. Democratic party-influenced institutions in the US have indeed been more anti-India.

In its dealings with China, the Biden administration has been blowing hot and cold together. There is an inability that marks the difference in treating different civilizations judicially. Replying to the question as to what is the real status of US-China relations and US-India relations; and how would one define the nature and scope of these relations in the context of the current geo-political scenario,  Dr Sazawal said that the nature of Sino-American relations today is not substantially different from what we had observed twenty years ago. China is intricately involved in the American trade and business areas and any decoupling will take its time.

However, Dr Sazawal was highly critical of American media saying it is extremely polarised. He even went to the length of saying that the Indian press was more transparent and more balanced in their reporting than the American press. He emphasized that owing to the limited outreach of the American press the American people remain distanced from the reality and facts, especially regarding eastern civilizations.

To a question on the reaction in America to the critical remarks of former President Obama, Dr Sazawal reacted diplomatically. Without either approving or disapproving the comment Obama, he sidetracked a direct answer and focused on the lack of knowledge of American leadership, especially of the Democrats, about the civilization and psyche of the easterners. Even the Republicans, too, lack adequate and on-the-ground information about what is happening around the world.

Finally, commenting on the extraordinary reception given to PM Modi at the White House and the excitement about it, Dr Sazawal gave very significant examples of General Ayub Khan and his daughter who were the state guests in 1961 and were shown far greater courtesy by the Americans during his formal visit. Similarly, the Venezuelan opposition (pro-American) leader was given a standing ovation by the US Congress at one time (recently) but today stands discarded by Americans for changing geo-political reasons.

Dr Sazawal has a very seasoned view and said that when the US finds its interests being endorsed by some top foreign leader, the White House will roll out the red carpet. There is nothing substantive in the extraordinary reception given to Modi and it should be taken without excitement and exaggeration.

In conclusion, Dr Sazawal’s interview gives us deep insight into the foreign policy formation in the US. He knows the ins and outs of the American mindset and the nuances of bi-party politics.