New Delhi, June 8 (IANS) Former Indian diplomat D.P. Srivastava stated that Pakistan’s Army challenges the concept of sovereignty by acting as a custodian of ideologies and religion, rather than focusing on national frontiers like the military forces of other nations.
Srivastava also slammed the radical Islamist ideology in Pakistan, which pits the nation against its neighbouring countries, including India.
In an interview with IANS, the former diplomat also talked about Pakistani Army’s Field Marshal General Asim Munir’s April 16 speech, just days before the Pahalgam terror attack, in which 26 innocent people lost their lives at the hands of terrorists belonging to The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of Pakistan-based terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba.
He hailed Operation Sindoor and said that it reflected a major shift in India’s security doctrine. He also commented on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s G7 invite.
The following are the excerpts from the interview:
IANS: Could you tell us something about your book “Pakistan — Ideologies, Strategies and Interests”?
D.P. Srivastava: My postings took me to Karachi, Pakistan, and the early 1990s. I dealt with Pakistan, among other issues, in the UN division of the Ministry of External Affairs for eight years in the ’90s, and during this, I dealt with Kashmir talks to the Pokhran nuclear test and Kargil. The inspiration for the book came from my posting to Karachi, where I heard the phrase ‘Nazaria-e-Pakistan’, which means the ideology of Pakistan. This is the very phrase used by Gen Munir, who mentioned this in his speech on April 16, days before the Pahalgam terror attack. My book traces the interpretation of ideology and elite interest in the making of Pakistan’s domestic and foreign policy.
IANS: What is the ideology of Pakistan? Gen Asim Munir mentioned “superior ideology” and the two-nation theory in his speech on April 16. What is this ideology?
D.P. Srivastava: The ideology of Pakistan remains vague due to various influential factors within the country. In 1972, two provincial governments were dismissed, and the principal opposition party, the National Awami Party, was banned after the Supreme Court of Pakistan stated that the party was contrary to the ideology of Pakistan. Notably, this occurred before the formation of the country’s new constitution, indicating that the ideology preceded the Constitution in Pakistan.
There are different views of what this ideology is. Iqbal, who is known as the best explainer of Pakistani ideology, said that in Islam, religion and state are integral to each other, so he ruled out the idea of secularism, and he also opposed the idea of nationalism.
Iqbal also stressed the concept of Umma, which is pan-Islamism, and these are the concepts at the root of Pakistan’s current trouble where the jihadi groups do not accept the supremacy of the Parliament, the sovereignty of which, is also challenged by the Army. The jihadi philosophy has always pitted Pakistan against its neighbours, including, what they call “the Hindu India, Shia Iran, and Sunni Afghanistan”.
IANS: What is the mindset of the Pakistan Army?
D.P. Srivastava: To understand the mindset Pakistan Army, one should go back to Gen Asim Munir’s April 16 speech, where he reminded his Pakistani audience that they belong to a superior ideology. What is this ideology, one may ask? (Former Pakistani President) Ayub Khan described it as Islam.
It is very strange that the Pakistani army chiefs talk about ideology and Islam. In other nations, the armies protect the national frontiers, while in Pakistan, the army has become a custodian of ideologies and religion. Seems like Gen Munir has assumed the priest and a general.
The Pakistani army has institutionalised its role in the running of the government, where the civilian parties have taken the backseat. This mindset is also reflected in the neglect of socioeconomic indicators. Pakistan’s army regards itself as the state, and it has this mindset has led to excessive defensive expenditure to the neglect of economic indicators.
IANS: How do you see Operation Sindoor? Is it part of a larger strategic shift in India’s security policy against Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism?
D.P. Srivastava: Operation Sindoor represents a strategic shift in India’s security doctrine, as the Prime Minister has underlined. Pakistan has used the threat of escalation to the nuclear level in the case of India’s conventional response to subconventional threats like terror attacks.
This time, however, there was no statement from the Pakistani side about nuclear escalation during Operation Sindhoor. So Pakistan’s bluff has been called, that it cannot escalate a local conflict or deter India from a military response to a terror attack, and this is a major shift in the paradigm. It also sends a message to the global community that India will exercise its right of self-defence, and we have the strength to do so. We did that in a very responsible manner. We avoided escalation.
The escalation came mostly from the Pakistani side. India’s initial strike was only against the terror camps. We avoided hitting any Pakistani, civil or military installation. It was Pakistan which attacked Indian Air Force bases, and that forced India to attack Pakistani military installations, and that brought Pakistan quickly to its knees. The Pakistani DGMO called his Indian counterpart, begging for a ceasefire. This message has also gone home and has been understood well by the international community.
IANS: Prime Minister Modi has accepted an invitation by Canadian PM Mark Carney to the G7 Summit. Do you think this will help mend the strained India-Canada ties?
D.P. Srivastava: The Prime Minister has accepted the invitation to go to the G7 summit. So the focus will be on global issues, not on bilateral relations. But, of course, when the leaders meet, they discuss the entire range of issues, and this will be a good opportunity to bring the bilateral relations back on an even keel.
We had good relations with Canada, and I believe, there’s a better understanding of the Indian position in the new government there, about the impact of terrorism. And, I think the new government is unlikely to use these incidents as an electoral card. So we hope that this visit will bring about a clearer understanding between the two countries.
–IANS
int/sd/vd
