Bilawal Bhutto's statement about J&K has upset many. In such a scenario, is India soft stance on the episode justified?

IT WAS AT a political gathering of Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) workers in Multan, Pakistan, in September 2014 that Bilawal Bhutto was out of line. However, his chant for: “I will take back Kashmir, all of it”, and “I will not leave behind a single inch of it because, like other provinces, it belongs to Pakistan,” drew only lukewarm comments from the spokesperson of the Indian government. In contrast, caustic and equally hilarious comments were noticed on social networking sites poking fun at what he had said.

The Indian Government’s reaction stood to reason. After all, Bilawal, until now, has been a persona non grata, a green horn in the wilds of political landscape, both in Pakistan and in the world of global diplomacy. The level of his relevance in Pakistan itself is of not much consequence. A longwinded diatribe by an Indian government official therefore, would have placed him on a pedestal much higher than his current political standing.

Above all, it was a childish remark uttered primarily to pander to an audience of his political party workers in Multan. What he said would have worked well in that group. But in his zeal he probably forgot that his own grandfather and an erstwhile President of Pakistan had signed the Shimla Agreement, which, among other issues, had stated that “In Jammu and Kashmir, the line of control resulting from the ceasefire of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both sides without prejudice to the recognised position of either side. Neither side shall seek to alter it unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations. Both sides further undertake to refrain from the threat or the use of force in violation of this line”. Despite Bilawal’s jingoism, this is a position between India and Pakistan that cannot be altered.

Pakistan’s age-old position on Kashmir revolves around mediation by the United Nations, which it keeps harping on periodically at various diplomatic forums. That is in spite of the fact that the proposal to resolve the issue bilaterally has been accepted in principle and was the fulcrum around which the Shimla Agreement was built. But despite the restraint shown by the Indian Government, Pakistan has pursued a staple policy of promoting and facilitating cross-border terrorism across into Jammu & Kashmir. Its domesticallyespoused rationale is that these are indigenous freedom fighters and Pakistan has no control over them in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and that a solution to the Kashmir issue ought to resolve the matter. In short, the Kashmir issue is kept alive in the public memory and Bilawal had merely fed the same line to party workers. There is nothing that the Indian Government can do under these conditions, except to play it cool.

For a proper determination however, an assessment of Bilawal’s current stature in Pakistan needs to be done in a proper light, but does he need any more attention than he has been accorded? Amongst the cognoscenti of the politics in Pakistan, he is seen as a product of Pakistan’s feudal landowner’s syndrome, and one on whom the mantle of the leadership of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) has been foisted. As the only son of the assassinated Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto and her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, the feudal milieu of the PPP is being persuaded to crown him as its heir apparent. Bilawal was propped by his father to lead the PPP because in Zardari’s native wisdom, Bilawal was the best choice to lead the fractured political party after its ignominious defeat in the 2013 elections, especially in its own stronghold of Sindh. There is an assumption that he is being groomed for the 2018 elections.

Zardari, recognized in his own country as “Mr Ten Percent”, also believed that it was Bilawal alone who could represent Bhutto’s legacy in the party to stem the division within the party due to his own image of being a crook. For him, this is for the family. Zardari thus chaperoned Bilawal until he completed his studies overseas and had reached voting age.

But the media at large could have been more deliberate in pointing out the sheer paradox of this feudal prince assuming the leadership of a political party whose “ultimate goal, main objective and raison d'etre was the achievement of an egalitarian and classless society, which was believed to be attainable only through socialism”. The PPP, in its initial manifesto, had called for “true equality of citizen's fraternity under the rule of democracy”, within “an order of social and economic justice.” However, the PPP never seemed to put these principles to practice while in power.

Social networking sites, on the other hand, are a different ball game altogether. Bilawal is an animal of that forest and they have devoured him. The commentators were his contemporaries in years and background and wielded the hatchet on him. Most of the remarks it seems came from Indians in the UK.

Despite Bilawal’s educational pursuits through some British institutions, including a membership of the Oxford University Debating Society that was arranged by his late mother, he could not overcome a perception among his peers that he is an intellectual lightweight unlike his lineage. He is largely seen as a philanderer. The later impression had allowed the rumour to gain currency about his alleged affair with Pakistani politician Hina Rabbani Khar.

Coming back to social networking sites mauling Bilawal, these are forums for unstinted expression in public, largely made on spur of the moment, without the writer even noticing that she may have placed a person on a pedestal despite a caustic or negative take on it. The fear is that whilst exchanges are only conveying a point of view, they can also build a monster. On the brighter side though, the young Bilawal Bhutto cannot drastically alter the nature of India- Pakistan relations.