It is a matter of conjecture whether the meeting of the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan was deliberately scheduled to take place after a landmark round of India-US strategic dialogue. Be it as it may, it adds new dimensions to the task of the 34-year-old student of management sciences, Ms Hina Rabbani Khar, when she sits with the 80-year-old Mr Krishna as a debutante in the perplexing world of India-Pakistan talks. In her, Pakistan will speak with the voice of a new generation that is arguably untainted by the prejudices, if any, even of the middle crop of politicians to which Khurshid Kasuri and Shah Mahmood Qureshi belong.
Foreign Minister Khar, would do well to put aside the foreign office brief and just once again read the India-US joint statement and watch a recording of the statements made by Clinton and Krishna before her own meeting. The India-US strategic dialogue established in June 2010, has by its second round in July 2011 (President Obama was in India in November 2010) written out an agreed text of ambitions encompassing South Asia, Central Asia, West Asia, East Asia, a trilateral India-US-Japan relationship, the UN and even the Caribbean region. In Chennai, Clinton asked India to lead Asia, as if Washington, caught up in a frightening debt crisis and groaning under the burden of trillion dollar wars, was asking New Delhi to co-share its own challenged hegemony in Asia. The two sides made it public that they had extensively dealt with the problem called Pakistan, and Clinton, aware though she is of Pakistani sensitivity to criticism made on the Indian soil, had issued a series of tough messages to Islamabad while encouraging the two South Asian nuclear-capable weapon powers, to work for peace.
So behind the traditional agenda for the foreign ministers meeting looms large the hubris of a ‘global partnership’ set forth in the India-US joint statement — a vast architecture, somewhat shrouded in the monsoon mist. Hina Khar’s own fortress, Pakistan — the foundations of which were thoroughly rocked first by former General Pervez Musharraf, and then by an elected government unable to add much to the general’s limited vision — looks dwarfed. Not that what she faces in New Delhi is grounded in granite. Washington is seeking to reverse the erosion of its power in Asia with India’s help and New Delhi is reliving Pannikar’s dream of dominance with sky-is-the-limit type of offers made by the US secretary of state visiting, with no less than nine cabinet and sub-cabinet rank officials in tow. Neither state is at present capable of brushing aside the opposition that their grandiose plans are likely to evoke.
Two amongst the many tasks that await the foreign ministers are of outstanding importance. They need to put the revived dialogue on a productive track. For this, the current engagement needs energisers that can conceivably come from Siachin, Sir Creek and trade issues. India is not interested in any breakthrough and there could be none but the process could, nevertheless, take roots as good in itself. Secondly, there could be mutual signals of how Pakistan, an immediate neighbour of Afghanistan, and India, a secondary neighbour locating its claims on that country in historical links and the high investment made during the last few years, propose to approach the endgame in that country to mutual advantage. Secretary Clinton has dropped enough hints that Washington would revert to the policy of assigning a significant role to India in a future Afghan dispensation. Afghanistan’s own historical inclination is, justifiably, to take maximum advantage of its location. It remains for India and Pakistan not to get locked into a zero sum game. Can the two foreign ministers set up Afghanistan as an agenda item perhaps separately from the ‘composite dialogue’, to be dealt with always at a high diplomatic and political level to avoid it? Paradoxically, this seems to be the best way of fulfilling realistic American hopes while serving the national interest of India and Pakistan in a viable manner. What Washington has sought to do from time to time may not simply be viable.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 25th, 2011.
COMMENTS (18)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1713418975-0/MehwishKhans-(1)1713418975-0-270x192.webp)
@Author
A. Hubris? Hubris was when a nation living on aid sought a hyphenated relationship, believing itself to be an equal simply because the minnow was sitting in the lap of a giant. If we remember that it is the US that is wooing India and the fact that the US Secretary of state continues to woo India, not withstanding, India's refusal to place an order for fighter jets with US, the hard nosed nature of this relatioship should be very clear to even the most biased observer.
B. Pakistan was rocked to its foundations way back in 1971 with Yahya Khan at the helm. It got its foundations infused with white ants during the Zia years. And it is down on its knees because of the duplicitious nature of the Musharraf regime, where the bosom buddy of USA also turned out to be the secret lover of Al Qaeda/ Taliban combine. Blaming the civilians does not alter the facts one whit.
C. Yes,India and Pakistan are possibly rivals in Afghanistan. Both have contrasting visions of Afghanistan. While India seeks to partner an inclusive, democratic Afghanistan and is contributing to the foundation of such a socoety by building capacity- Roads, Power Plants, Schools, hospitals and yes the Parliament House too. Pakistan's vision of and contribution to Afghanistan is ,,, well, the less said the better.
The best strategy for both India and Pakistan would be to hug and make friends and stay out of each other's hair. Borders should be opened and trade, educational and cultural exchanges taken place. Pakistan should trade Kashmir for water rights. This makes sense, as the nation is not even able to properly take care of what territories it has. Too bad, the extremist elements in both countries will not let that happen.
I need to add that Afghanistan will again be abandoned by the US and will go back into the 15th century till some other power decides to invade it.
The problem with Pakistan foreign policy for all these years has been designed on "winner takes all" principle. No body wants to be seen as a looser, much less to be a looser. Meaningfull relationships are build around 'give and take' principle. One has to look for an out of the box solution which should appear to the both sides as a 'win'. That's a 'win-win' situation.
India may not be interested in solving Sir Creek and Siachen. But India would be more than willing to talk trade issues.
@Feroz: You are right.
The need of the hour is more for Pakistan to right the ship,India 's ship sailing in fairly calm waters.India will make all right moves to come across to world community as reasonable actor,they have not much to gain or get anything from negotiating with Pakistan,only one thing,cross border terrorism,that is the only card .If pakistan can not put the genie of bad actors acting from safe heaven then there is nothing much India can do.,short of limited or total war,and that India neither can or want s,it will put monkey wrench in all India's ecnomic devlopment plans,it is neither good policy ,nor viable senseable alternative,yes once in a while some bad actors will blow up bomb in some place,yes there will be outrage and so on,but the proxy's won't gain much,9/11 damazed USa,but the the terrorist lost more.America after some hic-up has security plans has put the bad dangerous people all on back heels,yes some nuts will try to show up ,they are wrong,see the time squere bomber did more damage to Pakistan and his own family,I'm sure his wife is well off without this loser,he is gone and has time on his hand in 10x10 to think about' good times' in prison cell.I some time, I labor a point as I'm dealing with not the sharpest tools in the tool box,so pl bear with me.If we can knock some sense into,or change mind set,it is all worth while act,we strive for our future generation and sanner world.If Pakistan can come out of this self imposed rut every one in this world will benifit,that is why US-India is healthy out come,even China will see the wisdom of this event.Every one thought the failure of USSR was disaster, but lot of the tension and war cloud has vanished and Russia itself has recovered from quagmire.
Excellent comments from American & Hassan. Agreed with author when he says " India is not interested in a breakthrough".
I have read so many Pakistani opinions that the ball is in India's court and being the bigger nation needs to make a grand gesture. What this essentially means is that Pakistan has no control (in negotiations with India) and cannot bring anything to the negotiating table.
Like American stated, India has chalked out a path for economic prosperity, that does not involve Pakistan and hassan stated "India is conducting these talks just to satisfy the international community and not with any solutions in mind."
As of now India is not unhappy with the status quo. Pakistan's diplomats need to think afresh to have any control in talks with India.
The reason Hillary Clinton asked India to assume a leadership role in Asia is that, like all other nations, US has come round to the view that Pakistan has put itself in a corner of contemptible irrelevance. It may look like 'hubris' to you, but to the world, this is the reality.
Someone has given a precious insight in these very pages about the changes in Pakistan "the rich are talking to immigration lawyers...' When your elite are thinking of leaving the country, how can you play the leadership role in the region?
The only point you seem to be right is in assuming that 'India is not interested in any breakthrough...'. India is conducting these talks just to satisfy the international community and not with any solutions in mind. Pray tell me, what India is going to lose by maintaining the status quo? Alternately, what India is going to gain by solving the issues (which mean gifting of Kashmir, Sir Creek and Siachen)? NIL, ZILCH and NADA.
The need of the hour for Pakistan is to address its existential issues, and not to be consumed by green-eyed monster by worrying about the growing friendship between Washington and Delhi.
The economy is reeling, the US aid is dwindling, Karachi is burning, Baloch is on the boil and the terrorists who enjoy substantial moral support of the common folk are on the loose. These are the immediate concerns, forget the hubris of US-India and be worried about the debris that Pak is about to become.
its just a rock n roll chair... that will give you something to do but will take you No-Where.
Where have you gone De'magio,it was the cry of the 60's when the Yankees were mired in losing season after season,I ask a nation of Pakistan and people like Mr Noor Nabi,where have people like you gone?Nation asks with longing eyes and prayer.I'm a student of History,I say with humility I can take any one on,in subject of history in general and Indo -pak ,Hindu/muslim affair in all its complicated aspects.Leave aside that,let me say on out sets before some jerk takes out his/her knife.India presently have much bigger fish to fry than attack or launch any adventure or misadventure now,we were never saints ever nor the worst sinners either,we acted foolish ,with short sighted acts in past,now is the time to act in responcible and mature manner.period.There is no use rehashing what could have been,too much water under the bridge,start afresh.India will meet Pakistan morethan half way,it is in their own best interest,they are not looking as a favor to Pakistan,but some one of vision and statesmanship has to emerge on some side,I rather put my bet on this young woman to bring some new fresh ideas and without baggage of old,if this time something good does not happen ,we have no one to blame.No one is or can make big gestures due political reality of the past and history,both the country have to be satisfied with half the loaf.Period,no losers all winners that is the best you can expect,a give and take,if compermise is attained,go for it clinch the deal,sign it,unlike last time a deal was almost achieved but Musharuff did not sign,best known to him only,remember yasser Arafat befor President Clinton left office,the Palestinanian reason best known to them did not sign,to this day they regret it,"TIME,TIDE AND HISTORY WAITS FOR NO ONE FOR EVER"Fortune favors the brave,if Lincoln on 10 th April 1865,, had not given General Lee the best deal,USa would be 2 nation today,for on 14th April 1865,the great Emancipator was dead,see the luck and irony?
Noor Nabi's comments make valuable reading. It is the job of any Leadership to, continually, weigh gains vs. losses and adjust course of action. To base Relationships and Negotiations on right and wrong, and self righteousness is a sure recipe to get nothing. India is dragging its feet, pretty much decided that they have nothing to gain from Pakistan, and therefore framing the discussions on curbing terrorism. They have chalked out a path for economic prosperity, that does not involve Pakistan. Pakistan has more to gain from a detente with India; if Pakistan had (has) an alternate path to prosperity, they could also ignore India, and leave them alone. But the last 30 years have shown that, not only there is no alternative, the gap between their relative strengths is widening... Is Pakistan waiting for the day when their entire GDP equals India's defense budget ? Or, for the day when extremists run over Pakistan, so you don't have to negotiate with any one ? Every succeeding year, Pakistan will likely get lesser and lesser from a negotiating session. With nothing positive to offer in negotiations, Pakistan is already taking recourse to negative propositions...if you don't give concessions, or give us aid, or help, then "it won't be good for you; we will create hell in our region and for the world" May be, at some point of time, we have to bring back Richard Armitage, out of retirement, to talk sense to Pakistan