CBM blues

Recent incidents across the LoC have underlined the futility of dialogue through ‘confidence building measures’

One notes with some trepidation that many people who matter across the globe — including the UN secretary general — have resumed the erstwhile chorus of advising Pakistan and India to settle their issues ‘through bilateral dialogue’. There is a definite aura of déjà vu about it! This calls for a dose of introspection.

The recent incidents across the LoC and the Indian establishment’s irrational reaction on other fronts have underlined once again the futility of a dialogue based on ‘confidence building measures’ as against one aimed at the settlement betimes of the contentious issues between the two countries. Pakistan’s relations with its neighbour appear to be stuck in a groove. What is hard to understand is why the world insists that we do more of the same and immerse ourselves in the sea of CBMs. Surely, should ends not be more important than the means?

It came to pass that this blessed land got so enamoured with this quest that at one stage in the past it went to the extent of advocating the cause of CBMs in the UN General Assembly. The philosophy appeared to be: what is good for the goose should be equally good for the gander. It would perhaps be a wee bit impolite to butt in and point out to the powers that CBMs are at best the means to an end and should never be confused with the end itself. Obsession with CBMs could very well make the overall picture murky and obscure.

While on the subject of CBMs between India and Pakistan, one may well be within one’s rights to pose the question as to what is happening to the backchannel, Track II diplomacy? In the words of a screaming headline in a newspaper some time back, it (Track II diplomacy) was “back to square one”. One would respectfully beg to differ. How could the process possibly ‘come back’ to square one when it was never intended to leave it in the first place? The sorry state of affairs was that the interlocutors appeared to have expended all their precious energy in merely marking time. The stage of leaping out of the starting blocks was apparently never intended to be part of their (track II) exercise. The perspicacious readers may wish to pass judgment!

Now that a new and potentially dangerous confrontation is visible on the horizon, it may be in order to peep over the shoulder and try to assess the trail traversed so far. In so far, as the composite dialogue is concerned, any ‘progress’, if at all, was neither forwards nor backwards, but rather sideways; much like that of hermit crabs on the beach. The only difference is that the crabs in question at least have a definite goal in mind that incidentally was conspicuously missing in the ‘composite dialogue’ process.

What mystifies one is not so much the Indian tactics as the somewhat inexplicable expression of optimism that had been oozed by this side over the past many years. Our spokespersons had often bent over backwards to give a positive spin even to India’s dubious assertions. The number of CBMs notwithstanding, precious little appears to have been achieved in the nature of narrowing the differences over the outstanding contentious issues.

Placing the aforesaid on record is in the hope that the policymakers of the two countries will see through the simulation and dissimulation that have characterised their past conduct. Given the state of the world today, they can ill afford to traverse the same distorted path over and over, much as some lobbies may wish them to do. The name of the game is to steer clear of the snares strewn on the path marked out by the CBMs and to get down to business! For this to happen, time may be at hand to expressly tackle the contentious issues rather than skirt around them. A switch over from ‘management mode’ to ‘settlement mode’ is what may be called for.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 27^th, 2018.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.