A case for back-channel diplomacy

By K.K. Katyal

NEW DELHI, DEC. 13. In discussions on the ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir and post- ceasefire scenarios, various suggestions had been made on the modalities of negotiations, involving different sections. That was understandable.

But there was also a case for back-channel diplomacy - or for resuming the process that was interrupted by the military coup in Pakistan - which did not seem to have attracted the desired attention. Its utility is not to be under- estimated now that there is some awareness of the need for India and Pakistan moving beyond their stated positions or for evolving a ``workable compromise''.

Soon after the coup in Islamabad, the Chief Executive, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, seemed to distance his regime from the Lahore Declaration (perhaps, because of the association of the ousted Prime Minister, Mr. Nawaz Sharif, with it).

Of late, however, there has been a re-think on the subject and, as is evident from the statement of the Pakistan Foreign Minister, Mr. Abdul Sattar, its relevance is recognised. Obviously, the Nawaz Sharif factor does not operate against any particular course of action. That being so, renewed interest by Islamabad - and a positive response and encouragement by New Delhi - in the unpublicised informal contacts, established after the Lahore Declaration, could open a channel that appeared promising. The back-channel diplomatic move was not interrupted even by the Kargil conflict. On the contrary, it was used for attempts to sort out new problems that had arisen. That it did not succeed was a different matter.

Pakistan was represented in this informal process by a former Foreign Secretary, Mr. Niaz Naik. Through a lucky coincidence, he enjoys the confidence of the military regime as well. Mr. Naik had been active in the Track-II discussions in the last one year - visiting New Delhi and other South Asian capitals - for this purpose. That continuity could be an important factor.

Though the details of last year's secret discussions were not public knowledge, some indications were available of the basis, adopted by the two sides. Any public discussion of what had transpired in those unfinished exchanges would not be helpful - it could run into resistance by hardliners from the two sides - but that may not be the case with a decision to resume that process.

The back-channel effort could not be a substitute for contacts and steps at other levels - which, of course, would be desirable for obvious reasons, especially the much-needed supplementary support.

For instance, the ceasefire could be extended beyond the Ramzan month or permission given to Hurriyat leaders to visit Pakistan (if there are no major cases of violence to derail the current suspension of operations).

A senior Hurriyat leader, Mr. Abdul Ghani Lone, in his statements during his recent visit to Pakistan and on his return had spoken of the need for India and Pakistan going beyond the stand taken by them publicly. At a different level, the idea of a ``workable compromise'' was commended by the visiting Foreign Minister of Tunisia, a Muslim country known for its opposition to religious fundamentalism and its use for terrorist activities. (It was a surprise that his visit here last week did not receive proper attention - even from the official publicity outfits.) These ideas are too delicate to be pursued in the glare of publicity.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Malik for 'genuine political dialogue'
Next     : 'Govt. for changes in law to incorporate
           match-fixing'