The government’s decision to request Pakistan for overflight permission for Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to travel to Bishkek for the Shanghai Cooperation Council (SCO) summit on June 13-14, is disappointing.

This request follows one made in May for the travel of former external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj to Bishkek to participate in the SCO foreign ministers meeting. While it cleared Swaraj’s travel, its airspace remains effectively closed still for normal civilian flight operations from/to India. This is causing immense hardship to lakhs of Indian and foreign travellers.

Would it not have been better for government to show solidarity with common travellers, including the great number of workers who live in the Gulf countries and make significant contributions to India’s economy? This is especially because Modi has displayed great concern for the welfare of the ordinary people. While the PM’s time is precious it can be imaginatively utilised through stop-overs as well as during flights. Thus, saving time cannot be used as an excuse for the request nor can overflying Iran be considered taboo.

There is another compelling reason why favours should never be sought from Pakistan. These relate to the mindset of the Pakistani establishment on India. Pakistan’s ruling dispensation thinks in religious terms, especially when it looks at India. This is on account of historical reasons and the two-nation theory which is the country’s foundational doctrine.

Pakistani decision-makers believe that India lacks stamina and is ever willing to compromise, especially when profit is at stake. Thus, General Ayub Khan’s biographer notes that the Pakistani leader was convinced that Hindus cannot take more than a few hard knocks. In fact, he traces Pakistan’s 1965 misadventure to this strongly held Ayub conviction. This seems incredible for Ayub Khan had served in the British Indian army and should have come to know the resilience, stamina and fighting prowess of non-Muslim soldiers. It can only be attributed to historical prejudices which continue, though the events of 1971 should have eroded them.

These prejudices also continue because ever since Pakistan began sponsoring full scale cross border terrorism since 1989-90, successive Indian governments have pursued inconsistent policies in handling Pakistani terrorism. India’s default position is that terrorism and dialogue cannot go together. However, time and again it has overlooked this position and begun a full dialogue.

Modi too made concessions when he diluted the India-Pakistan Ufa joint statement of July 2015 which was negotiated by then foreign secretary and now external affairs minister S Jaishankar. The flurry of activity of December 2015, which included Modi’s Lahore visit, followed. The Pathankot and Uri terrorist attacks of 2016 led to a recalibration of Indian policy which was demonstrated once again and more vigorously with the Balakot strike.

Pakistan is in deep economic trouble and the Pakistani leadership is playing the peace card but without giving any real indication of abandoning its long-held terrorism policy. Wisely, Modi is insisting that Pakistan must change course demonstrably and on a durable basis for the resumption of full dialogue. If Modi makes concessions now the resilience shown over the past three years will go waste.

The overflight request will be refracted in Pakistan as a sign of a weakening of Indian resolve and an inability to put up with hardship. Also that Indians are not ‘gairatmand’ or with self-respect. The fact that Indians have self-respect is not the issue; it is the projection of steely resolve to Pakistan that is.

Three other points may be made in the context of government’s request. On a TV talk show in which this writer participated, a BJP spokesperson said that Swaraj’s health condition was behind government’s request. Obviously, there is no such compulsion with Modi.

There would be nothing wrong in asking Pakistan for special overflight permission in case of emergencies such as medical evacuation or for sending relief material to Afghanistan or central Asian countries in the wake of a natural disaster. However, the prime minister’s flight cannot fall in an ‘emergency’ category. Hence, the request seeks a favour, pure and simple.

The continued closure of airspace is unwarranted. It should be considered as a hostile act and the infliction of costs should be considered. This may have a salutary effect.