How do you know if you can trust a country or its leader? There’s an interesting story from the beginnings of World War 2 from which we can draw parallels to the India-Pak dynamic.
Welcome to Plain Sight by Wyzr, where we bring hidden patterns into plain sight. Every week, we explore stories and ideas that help us understand why we are the way we are.
What’s common between Hitler and Pakistan?
In the year leading up to World War II, Adolf Hitler was aggressively pursuing territorial expansion. One significant focus was the Sudetenland, a region in western Czechoslovakia inhabited predominantly by ethnic Germans. Hitler’s demands for the annexation of the Sudetenland escalated tensions in Europe and raised alarms in Britain.
The then British PM, Neville Chamberlain, decided to act. He made his first visit to Germany to meet Hitler in September 1938. The purpose, in his mind, was to understand Hitler first. And then get him to agree to a deal that minimized damage and averted an all-out war. He wanted to reason with Hitler and make him see the benefits of peace. Sensibly. Gradually.
After that first visit on September 15, Chamberlain wrote about his impressions of Hitler in a letter to his sister:
“In short I had established a certain confidence which was my aim, and on my side in spite of the hardness and ruthlessness I thought I saw in his face I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word.”
Chamberlain made two more visits to Hitler. The final visit was in late September, just two weeks after the first.
Hitler had proclaimed that his territorial ambitions were limited to Czechoslovakia. So this time, Chamberlain pulled out a piece of paper on which he had written a simple agreement, and asked Hitler if he would sign it.
This was the Munich Agreement that permitted Hitler to annex the Sudetenland, with the understanding that he would make no further territorial demands.
Hitler signed.
Chamberlain returned to a hero’s welcome in London as he waved the letter to the cheering crowd. From his residence at 10 Downing Street, he announced, “I believe it is peace for our time…. Now I recommend you go home and sleep quietly in your beds.”
Six months later, in March 1939, Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. On September 1, 1939, he invaded Poland. And the world was at war.
Chamberlain’s credibility was irreparably damaged. Once hailed as the man who averted war, he became the symbol of failed appeasement.
I recalled this story after absorbing everything that happened at our borders over the past week. Sitting in the safety and comfort of Bangalore, I had the privilege of quietly reading through some historical accounts of wars and the contexts surrounding them.
This Chamberlain-Hitler exchange stood out for its similarity to India-Pakistan peace talks, negotiations, agreements, ceasefires, pacts, etc., over the years. Although no Pakistani leader is Hitler, they are all very similar to him in their disregard for agreements.
In the 2000s and early 2010s, the diplomatic route was our primary mode of solution whenever a terrorist attack happened, all invariably originating from Pakistan. They would nod and superficially cooperate, and then go back to what they had always done — harbor more terrorists.
We had understandings and agreements in place, none of which were honored. In 2020 alone, there were 5,133 incidents of violation of the 2003 Ceasefire Agreement. 14 times per day on average.
Clearly, it’s not a country that can be trusted with pacts and agreements and signatures. Our leaders in the 2000s tried to take the Chamberlain route, and faced results similar to what Chamberlain did.
Our current PM, several years ago, ridiculed this approach towards Pakistan in a show. While I’m no one to comment whether he was right or wrong in doing it, or if it was just a political ploy, his criticism was similar to Chamberlain’s by his successor. Just a week after his return from his final meeting with Hitler, Winston Churchill had called this visit “the stupidest thing that has ever been done.”
Churchill had never seen Hitler as a trustworthy person, much like how our leadership looks at Pakistan today. But to Chamberlain’s credit, he wasn’t the only person who had met and decided Hitler was someone whose word could be trusted. It included his closest advisor and foreign secretary, Lord Halifax, and also Britain’s ambassador to Germany, Nevile Henderson. Both opined that Hitler was eccentric, but he surely wasn’t someone who wanted war or intended to inflict damage.
Interestingly, the ones who did suspect Hitler all had something in common — they had never met him in person. And this wasn’t restricted to the UK. Franklin Roosevelt, the American president throughout Hitler’s rise, never met him. Neither did Joseph Stalin, the Soviet leader. Nor did Churchill. None of them trusted Hitler.
Although the sample size is too small to draw a conclusion, it’s worth giving a thought — maybe evil has the power to charm you if you meet it.
Stay away from it, and you can make rational assessments of its character. Try to get cozy, and you’ll be hoodwinked.
Maybe our leaders of the past trusted Pakistan too much. Got to know them too well, and invariably saw the softer, sweeter side of them. Believed their signatures.
We won’t know that for sure. But we do know now that there’s no more unnecessary meet and greet on the cards.
Jai Hind.
What we’re reading this week
Talking to Strangers by Malcolm Gladwell. One of the raciest non-fiction books I’ve ever read. It tells you why it can be hard to understand new people, and why we’re so often deceived or cheated when in hindsight, it seems so obvious. There are many fascinating stories in it. It’s as close to a thriller as a non-fiction can get.
Until next time.
Best,
Yashraj
