Pakistan Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari selected to personally take part within the SCO Foreign Ministers’ assembly at Goa for a number of causes. Non-participation would have meant self-isolation. An alternative to fulfill his counterparts from member nations at one location would have been misplaced. The assembly supplied a chance to work together with the Chinese and Russian Foreign Ministers particularly. The Afghanistan situation has change into a headache additionally for Pakistan, and since this is a matter of concern to all member states, Bhutto Zardari would have needed to remain updated on the SCO’s considering on how this downside could be collectively addressed.

Knowing that India would not directly goal Pakistan on the terrorism situation, he would have needed to state his piece: Pakistan is itself a sufferer of terrorism, it doesn’t in any approach help terrorism, a distinction needs to be made between state and non-state actors, implying that the Pakistani state will not be concerned, that Pakistan has complied with FATF necessities of denying monetary help for terrorism and cash laundering, that terrorism shouldn’t weaponised in diplomacy (a dig at India).

Beyond all this, he needed to make use of the chance to talk on to the Indian individuals by way of our press and appeared to have requested to particularly meet two or three journalists thought of by Pakistan to be “serviceable”. Pakistan has, even previously, used sections of our media that favour a dialogue with Pakistan and help steps in the direction of normalisation of bilateral ties to do its “peace” propaganda and attempt to flip the tables on each situation that India raises in opposition to Pakistan.

Bhutto Zardari’s “Butcher of Gujarat” outburst in opposition to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the UN in December 2022 was thought of by New Delhi as “a new low, even for Pakistan”. Bhutto Zardari was reminded of the genocide unleashed by Pakistan in opposition to ethnic Bengalis and Hindus in 1971 and its continued maltreatment of its minorities. His vituperations in opposition to Modi personally confirmed his immaturity, an absence of consciousness of the harm he was doing to his personal standing in India and likewise clouding additional any prospect of resumption of any severe contact between the 2 nations.

The Pakistani Foreign Minister subsequently got here for the assembly with lack of political credentials with India. He needed to be invited as a part of India’s duty as present Chair of the SCO. The Chair doesn’t have the correct to be selective in invites, and utilizing the state of its bilateral relations with a rustic to not invite it might have induced a severe diplomatic controversy.

From Bhutto Zardari’s interviews with some Indian journalists it’s clear that Pakistan is digging a deeper gap for itself in its relations with India. His rhetoric and polemics present a continued regression in attitudes in the direction of India slightly than an effort to maintain doorways open. He insists that Pakistan won’t have any dialogue with India until India reverses its August 5, 2019 determination to amend Article 370, which he is aware of won’t occur. India can reside with out a dialogue with Pakistan, as Pakistan has already performed the worst that it will possibly do to India lately. Any new adventurism by Pakistan in opposition to India, within the parlous situation that it’s in, could be suicidal.

Spouting propaganda on Indian soil that India is altering the demography in Kashmir, lowering the Muslims right into a minority, with all Kashmiri management in jail, was intentionally provocative. Arguing that the modification of Article 370 is a violation of UN resolutions and bilateral agreements with Pakistan goes to absurd lengths.

The UN resolutions are defunct, Pakistan violated them by looking for to seize Kashmir by power in 1965, committing aggression once more in 1971, actively selling jihadi terrorism there, handing over components of Pakistan Occupied J&Ok to China, with the CPEC venture initiated a decade in the past, by permitting the presence of PLA personnel in occupied territory, and so forth. The non permanent Article 370 was not made a part of our Constitution in session with Pakistan; its revision doesn’t want session with Pakistan, particularly as Pakistan by no means recognised its validity.

Pakistan has at all times been fixated on parity with India, and this extends to accusing India of the very costs that India makes in opposition to Pakistan. If confronted with the truth that Pakistan has not taken any motion in opposition to Hafiz Saeed of LeT and Masood Azhar of Jaish-e-Mohamed, the Pakistani Foreign Minister very glibly equates their case with Kulbhushan Jadav. It is a mantra: accuse Pakistan of supporting terrorism in India and it’ll speak of India supporting terrorism in Pakistan, be it Jadav, in whose case he makes a distinction between him as “state actor” and others as “non-state actors”, as if this justifies the actions of the latter from Pakistani soil. This, regardless of Pakistani Prime Ministers like Nawaz Sharif falling afoul of the Pakistani Army previously by asking it to train extra management over these jihadi teams who have been giving Pakistan a foul title internationally. The checklist of Pakistani sponsored terrorist assaults on India is lengthy; Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar have publicly referred to as for jihad in opposition to India, collected funds for it, and have been listed by the UN as terrorists, with acUS bounty on Saeed. It is perverse to speak of Jadav in the identical breath as Saeed and Azhar. 

Bhutto Zardari’s dishonesty within the case of Pakistan’s failure to attempt the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror assaults is staggering. He accuses India of not cooperating within the pursuit of the trial in Pakistan by not sending Indian witnesses to Pakistan for cross examination, when the very fact is that though in 2012 India agreed to the go to of a Judicial Commission from Pakistan to take solely the testimony of witnesses, in 2013, it agreed to a different go to of a Judicial Commission and this time India allowed cross-examination. In 2017, Pakistan requested India to ship 27 extra witnesses for cross-examination. India proposed to Pakistan to ship its Judicial Commission once more for cross-examination, or it might be performed nearly. The matter has rested there since. Besides this red-herring, Bhutto Zardari hyperlinks the non-trial of 26/11 terrorists with the Samjhauta Express situation and the dearth of any convictions in that case. He additionally raked up the therapy of minorities in India, citing the Bilkis Bano gang rape case, as in opposition to the safety of minorities in Pakistan on the authorities stage. He was by no means self-conscious in resorting to this brazen hypocrisy.

All in all, a consultant of a rogue state engaged in Oxford-accented rogue diplomacy in India. No surprise Minister Jaishankar referred to as him a “promoter, justifier and spokesperson of a terrorism industry”, and stated that on terrorism, “Pakistan’s credibility is depleting faster than its foreign exchange reserves.”

(Kanwal Sibal was Foreign Secretary and Ambassador to Turkey, Egypt, France and Russia, and Deputy Chief Of Mission in Washington.)

Disclaimer: These are the non-public opinions of the writer.