THERE is something appallingly unprincipled about the manner in which Sonia Gandhi and her colleagues in the Congress rant and rave each time the BJP-led coalition headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi makes a conciliatory gesture to Pakistan.

This is the very policy which the Congress-led coalition, headed by Dr Manmohan Singh, followed for a whole decade from 2004 to 2014. People were disgusted at the charges by the BJP then. It was none other than Atal Behari Vajpayee, who wrote a long letter in 2005 to the prime minister on “the disturbing turn that the peace process with Pakistan has taken”. It has now “become Kashmir-centric”.

Manmohan Singh replied, reiterating his stand on Kashmir. But he made a telling point which has acquired greater relevance now in view of New Delhi’s objection to the Hurriyat leaders meeting Pakistan’s leaders in New Delhi. “You are aware of the fact that in the last four or five years these leaders have regularly met Pakistani dignitaries visiting India as well as Pakistani diplomats.”

L.K. Advani took up the cudgels in a letter of March 2007 with greater gusto: “May I urge you to categorically state that J&K will neither be demilitarised nor our deployment of troops in aid of civil power made part of any bilateral negotiations”. What they implied, of course, was that there was no room for any compromise on Kashmir. It is perfectly legitimate for an opposition in a democracy to voice its dissent on foreign policy. What is not permissible is hypocrisy; adopting one position when in power and another when in opposition. In this, Sonia Gandhi has simply emulated Vajpayee and Advani.

A government must respect honest dissent on foreign policy.

There is, however, a far worse form of behavior for an opposition to adopt. It is obstruction. Its grossest form is the opposition reaching out to a foreign government, behind the back of the government of its own country, urging it not to settle with its government and promising it better terms when it acquires power replacing the government of its country.

This sordid ploy was used by the super patriotic BJP leaders, the former foreign minister of Pakistan, Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri records in his memoirs, Neither a Hawk, nor a Dove. “Leaders of the BJP advised me to go slow on the peace process during one of my trips to India in 2007. I asked Brajesh Mishra why he was advising me in this manner when he was confident when he was in power that Pakistan and India could resolve outstanding disputes in six to eight months. With a twinkle in his eye, he responded, ‘Kasuri sahib — woh to hum nain karna tha aur karain gay — aap zara dheeray chalain’ (Kasuri Sahib — it was we who were supposed to do that and we will when we are in power next time — please go slow).” Such conduct is reprehensible. Dissent on foreign policy is not only legitimate but necessary. There is a fine tradition of such dissent in Britain which the late professor A.J.P. Taylor recounted, with wit and learning, in his lectures in 1956 published under the title The Troublemakers: Dissent over Foreign Policy 1792-1939. That tradition has been maintained since to this day. Hugh Gaitskell led the Labour Party’s protests against the Suez war. Robin Cook resigned from the cabinet when he found himself in disagreement with the Blair government’s foreign policy.

No government’s foreign policy can possibly succeed unless it enjoys domestic support. It is equally the duty of the government in power to treat dissent with respect. It must establish a relationship based on trust with the leaders of the parties in the opposition. They must be briefed properly. This will help to narrow the gulf.

India faced a serious challenge in 1977 when, for the first time, a non-Congress government of the Janata Party headed by Morarji Desai came to power. In opposition they had denounced the Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1971 and accused Indira Gandhi of a pro-Soviet tilt. Some even ridiculed non-alignment.

People were surprised to see the Desai government adopt a conciliatory policy towards Pakistan, reiterate India’s commitment to non-alignment and — to the Indo-Soviet Treaty. National interest required continuity and national interest is damaged by extreme partisanship as distinct from honest dissent.

Witness the situation in the United States. Franklin Delano Roosevelt wisely involved Republican seniors Senators Tom Connally and Arthur Vandenburg in the talks leading to the adoption of the UN Charter. Truman assigned to John Foster Dulles the task of negotiating a peace treaty with Japan. This was wrecked by hardcore Republicans who repudiated the policy of détente with the Soviet Union. The chasm continued to widen. No problem, no dispute can be solved without compromise, and compromise necessitates concessions.

The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.

Published in Dawn, March 5th, 2016