At times, even negative growth is considered positive. This sums up the outcome of talks between the two foreign secretaries, Nirupama Rao of India and Salman Bashir of Pakistan. The fact that they addressed a joint press conference and did not utter a word of denunciation, even after having taken a divergent stand at the day-long special session on Kashmir, shows that the two countries are beginning to care about each other’s sensitivities.
It augurs well for the meeting between the foreign ministers later this July. Both countries have an opposite stance on Kashmir and, as Bashir said at the joint press conference, they have not resiled from their known positions. Not even an optimist expected a breakthrough at Islamabad.
Still, Rao gave a peep into the future when she said that it was time that “a vocabulary of peace” rather than an ideology of military conflict determined the way the two countries viewed each other. What it indicates is that they have realised how futile the two wars of 1947 and 1965 have been. The important point is that after the hostilities they have found a common ground to sign peace agreements.
Indeed, Kashmir is a complex issue which has got more intractable over the years. First, there were two parties, India and Pakistan. Now the Kashmiris, too, want to have their say, a natural desire which has taken the shape of azadi. The Kashmiris have lost some 40,000 people in their ‘fight’ for self-determination. The solution has to have the imprint of Kashmiris’ approval.
Many solutions have been bandied about — New Delhi and Islamabad are still working at a few through back channels — but what appears more acceptable than the rest is to make the Line of Control (LoC) into the ‘Line of Peace’, as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto suggested in 1972 when he was giving me an interview as Pakistan’s prime minister. He did not pursue the proposal at the Shimla Conference. His probe in the country had made it clear that he could not sell the formation when it had lost its eastern wing a few months earlier.
More or less the same formula was retrieved by former Pakistani president General Pervez Musharraf nearly 35 years later. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reportedly endorsed it because there was no change in the Kashmir-Muzzaffarpur border, his pre-condition for accepting the solution. According to Pakistan’s former foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri, the agreement would have been signed by Singh at Lahore if the lawyers’ agitation in Pakistan had not disturbed the situation.
The two foreign ministers can bring the formula back to the table. There are enough indications to suggest that Pakistan is willing to begin from the point where talks ended during the Musharraf period.
After the Mumbai 2008 attacks, India is convinced that no militant can operate in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country without assistance from across the border. In fact, the Mumbai attacks consumed almost the entire meeting on the first day between the two foreign secretaries. Rao pointed out that Pakistan had done very little to bring the perpetrators to justice. Bashir promised to pursue the case vigorously. But since no new judge has been appointed to the Special Court for the prosecution of the killers, there is little hope for an early action.
Rao took all this in her stride to show how keen New Delhi was to normalise relations with Pakistan. Bashir responded by agreeing to set up two joint committees to discuss how to clear the nuclear shadow over the subcontinent and to suggest steps to control the excessive military build up on both sides. This initiative on the part of Pakistan shows that the army is on board.
At last, both countries have realised that people to people contact is essential to establish good relations There are proposals to liberalise visas and, at the same time, increase trade, which is negligible at present. Were the two foreign ministers to take up the implementation of the reported agreement on Sir Creek, they would strengthen a good beginning. Both countries should have concluded by this time that there is no option but peace and friendship.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 7th, 2011.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Frank: Independant India has nothing to regret about in its conduct in regards to Kashmir !!! India has never shown any aggression historically , yet Pakistan in its wisdom always tried it on many occasions and failed !!!! You are quite right, that owners of kashmir, the kashmiris should make decisions!!! I have one question for you, How come you forgot to offer this generosity, when you handed over 10% of their land to the Chinese ??? Did you consult the very people you are now stating that shoud be consulted!!! Why did Pakistan encourage Non Native population to move to POK?? Perhaps to change the demography of the region !!!! All the facts are well known to the world , and no one is listening any more, so just focus on putting your house in order first, which may take you another decade, before worrying about Kashmir !!!
I'm glad we've got that cleared up. I wasn't only thinking of Kashmir. Our liberal megaminority never tire of telling us that India regrets its conduct of the past and has now changed and that we should therefore make a peace deal. Now if you people have no regrets about your appaling conduct in the past and it's business as usual then what will be the basis of any peace deal? Don't forget it is Indians not Pakistanis who are hankering after a 'peace' deal. We are happy to go on like this indefintely.
I think we should instead be asking the owners of Kashmir, the Kashmiris themselves. The fact that you won't like there answer is neither here nor there
@Irshad Khan: Sir I identify with everything you said.Keep it up and many good wishes to you and yours, forever.
@Frankk: "How can the thief’s contrition be accepted as genuine when he insists on keeping what he stole too? Absurd." Please look up the meaning of the word "contrition" and use it in its correct meaning. India has never been contrite with respect to Kashmir. In fact it forbids Pakistan to change its status. India stole Kashmir? Ask Jinnah who tried to!
@Mukhtar Ahmed Please don't gloat over the EU parliament's resolution on Kashmir. It is a toothless parliament and its resolutions are not binding on either EU members or the EU Commissioner. Its resolutions are merely an expression of a political desire. This ridiculous parliament keeps on passing useless resolutions on issues such as human rights, democracy, environment and other blah blah thing taking place in many parts of the world. Therefore, if you are dreaming about FTA between India and EU would be blocked due to the resolution, then, I am sorry to say that a bitter disappointment awaits you. The FTA between India and EU is scheduled to be signed in 2011. It is just few months away. And let me remind you of another bitter fact. The UN resolution on Kashmir are NOT binding on India, they are merely recommending in nature.