Further delays in the resumption of dialogue with Pakistan will not make it easier to get satisfaction on the terror front.
An entire year has passed since the Manmohan Singh government decided it was time to find a way to break the dialogue deadlock and kickstart the process of engagement with Pakistan.
During this period, Dr. Singh has met his Pakistani counterpart, Yusuf Raza Gilani, once, Foreign Secretaries from both sides have met twice, and the two Foreign Ministers sat together once, in Islamabad in July 2010. That encounter ended inconclusively, even disastrously, with the Pakistani host compounding the visible lack of progress made in their talks with the impropriety of a public diatribe against his visitor. When the opportunity for a second ministerial meeting arose at the United Nations where both Ministers spent a week in the fall, cussedness ensured a suitable date could never be found.
At the root of the Islamabad fiasco was the fact that neither side was willing to risk upsetting political equations at home by appearing to concede too much ground to the other. Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi wanted to be able to tell the stakeholders who matter in his country — the military — that he had got India to agree to a calendar for the resumption of dialogue on Kashmir and Siachen. But India's External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna was not prepared to go that far. He wanted to calibrate any timetable for the resumption of talks on politically sensitive issues like Siachen to visible progress in the investigation and prosecution of those involved in the Mumbai terrorist attack of November 2008. What resulted, thus, was a stalemate.
On February 6, the two Foreign Secretaries will make a fresh attempt to press the reset button on the frozen process in Thimphu on the sidelines of a Saarc event. Unfortunately, they will meet under circumstances that are seemingly less propitious for a breakthrough with both leaderships under siege. In India, Prime Minister Singh is battling charges of dragging his feet in high-profile corruption cases and the Opposition's hostility towards him and his government has never been greater. In Pakistan, the killing of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer and the open sympathy his assassin attracted from religious clerics and sections of civil society have vitiated the atmosphere and put the liberals and the entire secular political class — which forms a natural constituency for cooperation with India — on the backfoot.
On paper, the government of Yusuf Raza Gilani is likely to find a second helping of whatever fare India served last July as unpalatable as the first. India, too, may feel it has no option but to spurn the Pakistani demand for a clear timeline for the resumption of dialogue in the absence of headway in the 26/11 case. And yet, a deeper look at the dynamics within Pakistan and at the core interests of India ought to give both governments cause to re-examine their attitude.
In a speech to the Research & Analysis Wing on January 21, the Prime Minister's Special Envoy for Pakistan, Satinder Lambah, spelt out the government's policy dilemma. “Engagement,” he said, “does not always assure us of a desired response, nor does it guarantee success. However, rejecting the process of engagement will not enable us to achieve our long-term goals.”
In relation to Pakistan, India's principal goal today is the permanent neutralisation of terrorist organisations which operate with differing levels of support from the establishment of that country and launch attacks on Indian targets. The second key long-term goal is the establishment of normal relations with Pakistan. In his speech, Mr. Lambah made the only public reference the Government of India has cared to make in all these years to the back-channel negotiations which took place with Islamabad from 2004 to 2007. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's measures to improve relations with Pakistan were based on the principle that “borders cannot be redrawn but we can work towards making them irrelevant,'' Mr. Lambah said, adding that a lot of progress had been made. “The ball is in Pakistan's court. We will be willing to pick up the threads.”
In my opinion, Mr. Lambah's words point the way towards the possibility of forward movement but only if both governments have the courage to acknowledge the illogicality of their current official positions.
Three paradoxes
India knows “rejecting the process of engagement” will not enable it to achieve its goals on the terror front and yet it is unwilling to talk until it sees satisfactory progress in the Mumbai attack case. A second policy paradox it must overcome is that it is reluctant to resume the harmless ‘front channel' talks on Kashmir even as it is “willing to pick up the threads” on the far more substantive back channel if Pakistan agrees. Finally, Pakistan, which has spent the better part of the past six decades demanding substantive progress on the Kashmir issue must explain why it is obsessed with the immediate resumption of the formal process (even though it knows this will lead nowhere) but is reluctant officially to embrace the back channel process and formula which offer the best chance for a speedy, win-win outcome.
For the past two years, I have been part of a Track-II India-Pakistan dialogue process that the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in Delhi and the Jinnah Institute in Islamabad have been conducting. The meetings take place in Bangkok because neither government is willing to guarantee it will issue visas for all the participants coming from across the border, but that is the subject of another article! Besides strategic analysts and journalists, the ‘Chaophraya Dialogues' have brought together senior retired military, intelligence and foreign service officers, many of whom spent their entire careers planning and executing moves against the other side. Even in the tense atmosphere which prevailed following 26/11, these dialogues always produced a broad consensus in favour of engagement. But this tended to stop short of a fulsome endorsement of the composite dialogue process and the back-channel. Indeed, several Pakistani interlocutors — whether from military or political backgrounds — seemed reluctant to endorse the back channel. The military men said the venture was General Pervez Musharraf's ‘solo flight,' the politicians felt the process was tainted by its association with a dictator.
In our most recent round, however, both sides made some progress. “The absence of a formal and sustained engagement on the full range of issues confronting India and Pakistan is unhealthy, counterproductive and dangerous,” the Indian and Pakistani participants declared in a joint resolution. “We welcome the forthcoming meeting of foreign secretaries in Thimphu and hope that the two sides will be able to prepare the ground for the resumption of a comprehensive and sustained dialogue.” More significantly, the principle which Mr. Lambah spoke of — and which Khurshid Ahmed Kasuri, who was Foreign Minister in the Musharraf years, has also spoken of — found joint support: “We agree with the broad vision of India-Pakistan relations in which borders cannot change but can indeed be made irrelevant. We resolve that a dialogue between the two countries should include discussions on Jammu and Kashmir. The formal bilateral dialogue should be complemented by back-channel contacts. The people of J&K should be appropriately consulted in this process”.
Terrorism, the resolution noted, is of deep concern to both India and Pakistan. “Indian concerns about the Mumbai attacks in 2008 have seriously affected the dialogue process. The perpetrators of the attack should be brought to justice at the earliest. Pakistan has deep concerns about the tragic loss of lives in the Samjhauta Express attack. India has to expeditiously prosecute those involved and keep Pakistan informed.”
Taken together with the views of Prime Minister Singh's envoy, this resolution, which leading members of the strategic community in India and Pakistan approved, indicates a possible way forward. What is required is a process that can build on the Indian enthusiasm for the back channel with the Pakistani insistence on resumption of the front channel. One way to do this is to examine whether, after a suitable period of time, the two channels can be merged. After all, once the back channel reaches an understanding on broad concepts, translating it into actionable parameters will involve painstaking negotiation. It is significant that Mr. Kasuri made well-rehearsed statements during his recent visit to India to the effect that the Pakistani military brass, including Gen. Parvez Kayani, who was head of the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate at the time, were kept fully briefed after each back-channel meeting with the Indian side. No one in GHQ, Rawalpindi, has refuted what he said.
On terror, the aftermath of the assassination of Salman Taseer has brought home to most Indians the degree to which the Pakistani state is caught in a vortex. A system which cannot ensure justice when a high constitutional functionary is killed is unlikely to be able to offer India much relief on 26/11. This is not to say India should stop insisting on progress. But tying the future course of our bilateral engagement to this futile pursuit is unhelpful and counterproductive. Liberal Pakistanis say the resumption of dialogue with India will strengthen them in their struggle against the jihadis and the ‘establishment'. They may well be exaggerating their own influence and our own. In the worst case scenario, dialogue will turn out to be a placebo that will not help them or us. But India has nothing to lose by following their prescription.
Keywords: Indo-Pak ties, 26/11, Manmohan, Gilani, S.M. Krishna, Indo Pak dialogue
Comments:
India and Pakistan living next to each other for over sixty years. What is the urgency to discuss about Kashmir? What is needed is a prolonged period of mutual respect which may lead to mutual friendship. Until then, engagement is a waste of time. The engagements such as Track II, back channels, on the sidelines, etc., is all for public consumption ans isn't worth a nickel.
All the major terror attacks in india have taken place when dialogue or 'engagement' with Pakistan was going on. Kargil Intrusion happened following Lahore Declaration and Mumbai train attacks,Suicide attack on Indian embassy in Kabul and Mumbai terror attacks happened while the Composite Dialogue was taking place. What kind of attacks next round will bring we don't know. Pakistan Govt conveniently blames non-state actors for these attacks. But the question here is where is difference between the demands of these non-state actors and the state actors? So who will prevent these non-state actors from claiming victory and getting emboldened further If India chooses to give concessions ? Don't we remember General Musharraf's claim that Kargil forced India to come to negotiation table ? It is very important to know how the otherside thinks. Engagement with Pakistan might lead to some agreements but will the Pakistani govt be able to honour those commitments when Sherry Rehman has been forced to withdraw the bill to change Blasphemy law ? Is it really in control? India's demand of bringing to justice the masterminds of 26/11 under Pakistan's own laws is very reasonable and Pakistan must fulfill its promise or at least seen doing so. But there is no progress at all. Lastly, India is not as powerful or influential yet that it can change or influence the extremsit and liberal or moderate equation within Pakistani society.Even US couldn't do it. Engagement at this stage will be futile.
The time is well past when engagement could produce results. Are you sure that your counterparts in Pakistan can even ensure their own safety, let alone continuation of the talks ? We might not have anything to loose, other than convincing Pakistan that no matter how much they attack us, we will keep talking without any results!
I fully agree that there is no alternative to talking with Pakistan, but our government has serious problems, it is on the back-foot on so many important issues that its very credibility is under question. Until the government puts its own house in order and gets its own ministers functioning as per the directions of the Prime Minister, with what face can it address a foreign country who is also our prime adversary? For a beginning it would be good if Madam Sonia Gandhi could switch of the remote control on the PM and give him a free hand to run the affairs of the country.
If past history is any indication, we shall keep going round and round in circles without any result because we shall be talking with people who have no authority in Pakistan. And those with authority are not in favor of talks because if the problems are resolved they lose their authority and their livelihoods. Let us hope the breeze of democracy blowing in the middle east reaches Pakistan also soon.But foremost, Pakistani society has to give up its antagonistic attitude towards India because there is no basis for that attitude; India has never attacked Pakistan, Bangladesh happened due to the atrocities committed there by the Punjabi Pakistan.
I am ashamed of our countries' history since partition. Numerous wars - clandestine operations - and support of insurgencies have lead to our current horrible scenario.Kashmir has been central to this conflict. The reason in my head is simple. At partition princely states were free to choose which country to accede to. Hyderabad, Junagarh, Manvadr acceded to Pakistan, however being Hindu majority states they became part of India - in Junagarh a plebiscite was held. Why did the same thing not happen in Kashmir which is/was Muslim majority? As a Pakistani I see this double standard as the primary reason for conflict. I hate that Kashmir becomes the center of any India/Pak dialogue because it stops us from progressing on mutually beneficial projects such as NAM, SAARC, trade. Why is it that there are more human right abuses in Indian Kashmir than the Pakistani side? The Kashmiri freedom struggle is now indigenous. Can we please sort out Kashmir and then move on to other issues? If this means neither Pakistan nor India get to have Kashmir that is perfectly fine by me, lets give Kashmir its independence. Trying to improve relations without solving Kashmir is useless - because in effect the LOC would become the de facto border between the two countries - splitting up Kashmir the way Punjab was split up would be a shame really.
It is a pity that the peace process cannot be accelerated for internal poitical problems. Great staemen prevail over local politics and go for ground breaking decisons. With the advent of turmoil in Egypt and elsewhere, where liberation movements will overcome pan arabic/islamic problems, the attention will obviuosly shift to Kashmir. India cannot hide under the fig leaf of other greater problems such as Palestine. It is time now to act instead of being forced under pressure from outside world. Even Obama is willing to accept Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and India has to accept ground realities. An economically stronger India will automatically attract separation forces as afterall, it is the basic survival mentality will count. Hope that Govt of India does not sleep over this.
With continuous dialogue at least a placebo effect is sure.Both the countries are involved in a paradox from which extrication is really difficult.The only prime criteria must be assuring peace around border line by any means. Administration must ensure that public of both the countries are involved in this. A new set of rules ought to invent to deal with boundary issues.Violence must not be tolerated at any cost.
Engagement between these two neighbours cannot be successful until the environment inside both countries changes. Both countries try to find a solution of their issue first and neither country is interested in the other's issue. Since both countries have internal problem, for example in India various scandal like 2G spectrum scam, and in Pakistan killing of administrative officer, they cannot give their best effort to Peace talks. So Engagement and Peace Talk has no meaning for Pakistan. So we have to revive our strategic planning and give some time to Pakistan.
Siddharth Varadarajan again ignores facts to weave his own tales on India and Pakistan. Pakistan is a state that in cold blood murdered millions of its own citizens in East Pakistan. It's the same state and military in power in present West Pakistan. It's the same state, that protects and arms numerous criminal groups from Lashker-e-toiba to Jaish-e-Mohammad to Taleban. It's the same state which has killed, expelled or converted millions of its minorities, such that Hindus who made 20-25 % of population of Pakistan territories, now make up only 1% of Pakistan. Its a genocide that has been more total than the cleansing of Jews from Germany by Hitler. Many people are reluctant to accept these stark facts. What does India hope to achive by engaging in talks ? Is India going to alter the nature and character of the Pak state? India is better of not engaging in anyway with such an entity. It's just common sense. Its not necessary to engage all your neighbours in your neighbourhood you live, if you know a certain neighbour to have the character of Pakistan.
For any peace to prevail anywhere there needs to have some pre-requisits such as,1]mutual transparent and verifyable TRUST, 2]economic and political stability, 3]Authority to not only negotiate but FOLLOW through between the INTERLOCUTORS. In the case of Indo-Pak only one side has them all and the Pakistanis lack them ALL. So it will just be the wish of the political&editorial pundits it shall remain.
"But India has nothing to lose by following their prescription' Yes, India has 'time' to lose/waste. With the kind of instability Pakistan govt is in, it is utter non-sense to engage Pakistan in any kind of meaningful negotiation. Indian diplomats would be better advised to sleep in their offices than holding futile talks !
It is indeed very desirable to follow the path of engagement else we will be left on the path of confrontation but Indian government does not find any trust in their Pakistani counterparts. The repeated terror attacks which are balatantly supported by groups in Pakistan and failure of Pakistani authorities to bring them to justice leave us frustrated. To solve the problems a will and courage is necessary which is lacking in Pakistani government. I am not against the engagement but what kind of engagement are we expected to see?
I may not be the best judge to give a final answer on the need for talks; but one thing is definite, I remember reading when the 26/11 attacks happened how we should cut off all talks and do coercive diplomacy or an attack on Pakistan to bring it to justice.But all that has failed rather terribly. Neither do I think for one bit the Cold War Doctrine of the army will even work for an attack, not because of the army's fault but our political indecisiveness. Hence to sum up, there is no immediate need for talks with Pakistan, which is just 'mutilating' itself into death. We need to reinforce our internal security situation to ward off potential terrorist attacks and others. Finally as we progress into development and fast growth just show that we mean business in whatever action we take (miliatary or diplomatic) but alteast for once take the China example and stand for what you want and not bring Uncle Sam and co for support!
This dialogue process is not necessarily for us to achieve a lot from Pakistan -- the process can continue so that there is some ray of hope left open for the battered liberals in Pakistan to do something constructive in the direction of peace, you never know what can happen. So no harm in trying without expecting much.
Any official dialogue between India and Pakistan at present would be a complete waste of time. I wonder if the circumstances would change at any time in the near future. Siddharth Varadharajan's suggestion of resuming back channel contact may be of some value, even though a genuine breakthrough is highly unlikely. As for Pakistan's alleged concerns about the Samjhauta Express tragedy, well I believe the powers that be in that country would simply like to use it as a counterweight to India's legitimate concerns about bringing the perpetrators of 26/11 to justice. The 26/11 attack involved Pakistanis, most probably with links to the Pakistani military establishment, carrying out a planned massacre of Indians and other people. It can actually be seen as a cold-blooded act of war. Under these circumstances the Government of India cannot concede or be seen to be conceding anything to Pakistan, be it even the offer of a composite dialogue. Back channel or no channel, the ball's still in Pakistan's court.
There is nothing to talk really. Kashmir is an integral part of India. If Pakistan still wants use terror policy against India, get ready for counter measures and defend the country. That should be govt's duty by peoples mandate.
@Raza, Pakistan was created for muslims. If there is enough affection for you for Pakistan, please do pack you bags to Pakistan. As for Kashmir, the LOC being a de facto border is the best possible solution. Those Kashmiris who don't wish to stay with Indian side of it, they can choose to go to Pakistan side. As for the shame of Punjab, the partition of India was itself a shame, another minor partition won't matter much!
Its in our interest that we make peace with Pakistan. That we are yet to normalise our relationship with it shows our weakness and the strength of the vested interests in Pakistan who thrives on anti-India rhetorics and postures(the army and the mullahs). The whole of West Asia and Central Asia, oil pipelines, trade routes etc remains inaccessible to us due to an unfriendly Pakistan. Certainly as an enemy Pakistan is only an irritant that perhaps India can afford to ignore. But the gains from a friendly Pakistan is worth aiming for.