Landing in Moscow on a two-day ‘historic’ visit, as the Putin forces were marching into Ukraine, the Pakistan prime minister, Imran Khan, told the Russian TV that he would ‘love’ to have a verbal duel with his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi.    He may have thought that he could demolish Modi’s image in a TV debate but his worry now should be to shake off the impression that he has sided with an ‘aggressor’.  

Many Indians see the challenge that Imran has thrown as Pakistani leader’s attempt to look for an opportunity to garner some publicity, and, if possible, even sympathy. Imran could not have lived in a bigger world of fools because neither of his objectives is going to be met.

He has positioned himself on his home turf as the strongest and loudest critic of the present Indian government calling it with all sorts of names. He once called Modi a ‘small man’.  There is no need for India to forget or forgive critics easily nor conduct any dialogue with people who position themselves as unfriendly.

Imran Khan has been making false claims of having offered the olive branch to Modi on several occasions. Any noise for bilateral dialogue he has made has   invariably come with a caveat: First resolve the Kashmir ‘dispute’.

Underlining that condition is an unwritten but clearly understood message that the ‘resolution’ of the Kashmir ‘dispute’ means nothing but handing over Jammu and Kashmir to Pakistan.     

It looked awkward when only a few days ago his Advisor (Commerce), Abdul Razak Dawood, openly spoke of the need to resume trade with India.  He is an industrialist and knows the ground situation.  His theme was quickly picked up by the media arguing that Pakistan has a lot to gain from direct and unhindered access to India’s big market. But Imran Khan’s oft-repeated position is that there will be no trade with India ‘without sorting out Kashmir first’.

When everything is made to revolve round the intractable India-Pakistan differences over Kashmir, it is hard to take Imran Khan seriously when he expresses a desire to engage with Modi in a TV debate.

Imran Khan gratuitously advised Modi in the same Russian TV interview to forget about his desire to establish racial superiority, meaning the fulfillment of the Hindutva agenda of making India a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ where Muslim and other minorities have to live as second-class citizens. 

A Pakistani leader has no right to speak about perceived or real majoritarianism in another country. What moral right is there when his land of the pure continues to overlook the rights of the minorities. And decrees some Muslims as non-Muslims because of their practices and Muslims who are not Sunnis are not only looked down, but also frequently haunted and harassed.       

The most crucial precursor to a debate of any meaning between the two prime ministers would be the existence of a mutually acceptable starting point. What good can be expected of a debate that will be a merry go round on Pakistan’s non-stop rant on Kashmir?

The Indian response is known well: Kashmir is not negotiable. But India or Modi would surely like to take up with full force the sponsorship of terror by Pakistan that is aimed at India.

This, of course, has become old hat. While there may be no defence of the Pakistan’s pro-terror policy, it will be foolhardy to expect Pakistan to accept that it has pro-terror proclivities when even the written guarantees given by it in the past have provided to be meaningless.

Imran Khan has a frog-in-a-well view about his country’s place in the world. It is a country that survives on the oxygen of loan provided by a few friendly countries and the IMF.

He imagines Pakistan to be a crucial player in the world because of its geographical location in the middle of Central and South Asia. That would make sense if his country was indeed providing the vital communication link in the region. Frankly, that is not the case.

Pakistan also fancies itself as a regional hegemon, thanks largely to the muscular backing of China. India does not see a case to allow Pakistan to be a presumptive regional power.

It is an undeniable fact that the two South Asian neighbours are stuck in a stalemate; it is equally undeniable, though less openly acknowledged, that for the two countries to break the shackles of poverty it is absolutely essential to explore ways of ending the hostilities of the past seven decades. New grounds have to be broken by putting the differences aside while building a bridge.

In fact, this is what a number of people, including politicians and experts, in the two countries have said often enough. But nothing moved off the ground perhaps because the search for a new, mutually acceptable, ground was to be made under public gaze. That is a recipe for disaster because mistrust and dislike infest the mindset and to remove that something has to be done away from public gaze.

A Modi-Imran TV debate, if at all it takes place, will not be even half as ‘entertaining’ as the high decibel debates on the small screen in the two countries.

So, if it does not guarantee ‘entertainment’ or a substantive dialogue to open a new avenue in India-Pakistan relations what good will a debate between the two leaders serve?  

For now, it remains an idea without date.

In the meanwhile, Prime Minister Imran Khan will do well to try his ‘TV debate’ mantra on his opponents at home, the likes of Shehbaz Sharif, Bilawal Bhutto, and Fazl-ur Rehman, who are working overtime to unseat him with a ‘no trust’ motion in the National Assembly. (POREG)