Peace prospects with India
Both need to recognise that the establishment of goodwill and beginning of cooperative relations would benefit both.
The forthcoming Delhi meeting later this month between the foreign ministers of Pakistan and India has renewed speculation about the prospect of an improvement in relations between the two South Asian neighbours.
Observers see a thin sliver of hope in a few small developments, including the absence of acrimonious exchanges in the recent meeting of the foreign secretaries of both countries in Islamabad. It was however, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao’s comments that have given rise to the anticipation of a change. The first was her remark that perhaps it was wrong on India’s part to freeze the dialogue process with Pakistan after the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Later, she observed that “the prism through which Pakistan sees the issue of terrorism has definitely been altered”.
Given the history of their relations — one heavy with deep mistrust and mutual suspicions — it would, however, be injudicious not to remain cautious. Admittedly, a lot of water has gone down the Ganges since India decided, in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, to vent its not unjustified outrage with Pakistan, ending all official contacts and adopting a minatory posture. However, even if justified at that point in time, remaining a prisoner to this policy has brought diminishing returns to India, with many of her friends constrained to suggest, albeit diplomatically, that India needed to move on.
What, then, explains this seeming shift? It could be tactical; to refurbish its image and satisfy the desire of foreign powers for such a change. But it may also be on account of an impression that the Pakistani leadership had begun reading the writing on the wall, as regard the world’s increasing concern about its half-hearted anti-terror strategy, coupled with growing domestic challenges, evident from the PNS Mehran base fiasco. New Delhi may therefore wish to probe whether a policy of ‘engagement’ may help convince Islamabad that, with domestic problems piling up and growing international opprobrium, an improvement in relations with India is worth undertaking.
Sadly, Pakistan’s relations with the US have begun to unravel at a time when the two should be enhancing their understanding and cooperation, especially with Afghanistan having entered the ‘endgame’. A helpful gesture from India at this time may find greater receptivity in Pakistan. It would also serve to debunk the frequent charge that without active involvement of the great powers, the two neighbours are unable to make even a small move. India has never liked this ‘foreign intervention’; it now has the opportunity to prove its ability to resolve its problems, with no outside help.
India, however, has to move away from its obsession with the Mumbai attacks and accept Pakistan’s assurances of corrective measures. Some Indians may believe that Pakistan’s fears and worries about her are either misplaced or exaggerated. Even if that is the case, India needs to calm these concerns by reducing its involvement in Balochistan and appreciating Pakistan’s worries about India’s increasing presence in Afghanistan. Pakistan, too, has to show greater resolve in tackling the militants, if the aim is genuine normalisation with India. Mere protestations of innocence and disclaimers of responsibility, as regards activities of non-state actors in India, will no longer suffice.
So far, India’s interest appears to be focused only on issues of primary interest to her, such as terrorism and trade, with minimal movement on issues of importance to Pakistan, namely Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek and water issues. The talks need to focus on the ‘doables’ in order to build a base of trust and Siachen and Sir Creek are eminently suited for a positive initiative. Both need to recognise that the establishment of goodwill and the beginning of cooperative relations would bring great benefits to them, while a continuation of hostility is likely to be harmful to both, possibly more to Pakistan though, given India’s size, military strength and growing economic progress.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 13th, 2011.
Observers see a thin sliver of hope in a few small developments, including the absence of acrimonious exchanges in the recent meeting of the foreign secretaries of both countries in Islamabad. It was however, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao’s comments that have given rise to the anticipation of a change. The first was her remark that perhaps it was wrong on India’s part to freeze the dialogue process with Pakistan after the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Later, she observed that “the prism through which Pakistan sees the issue of terrorism has definitely been altered”.
Given the history of their relations — one heavy with deep mistrust and mutual suspicions — it would, however, be injudicious not to remain cautious. Admittedly, a lot of water has gone down the Ganges since India decided, in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, to vent its not unjustified outrage with Pakistan, ending all official contacts and adopting a minatory posture. However, even if justified at that point in time, remaining a prisoner to this policy has brought diminishing returns to India, with many of her friends constrained to suggest, albeit diplomatically, that India needed to move on.
What, then, explains this seeming shift? It could be tactical; to refurbish its image and satisfy the desire of foreign powers for such a change. But it may also be on account of an impression that the Pakistani leadership had begun reading the writing on the wall, as regard the world’s increasing concern about its half-hearted anti-terror strategy, coupled with growing domestic challenges, evident from the PNS Mehran base fiasco. New Delhi may therefore wish to probe whether a policy of ‘engagement’ may help convince Islamabad that, with domestic problems piling up and growing international opprobrium, an improvement in relations with India is worth undertaking.
Sadly, Pakistan’s relations with the US have begun to unravel at a time when the two should be enhancing their understanding and cooperation, especially with Afghanistan having entered the ‘endgame’. A helpful gesture from India at this time may find greater receptivity in Pakistan. It would also serve to debunk the frequent charge that without active involvement of the great powers, the two neighbours are unable to make even a small move. India has never liked this ‘foreign intervention’; it now has the opportunity to prove its ability to resolve its problems, with no outside help.
India, however, has to move away from its obsession with the Mumbai attacks and accept Pakistan’s assurances of corrective measures. Some Indians may believe that Pakistan’s fears and worries about her are either misplaced or exaggerated. Even if that is the case, India needs to calm these concerns by reducing its involvement in Balochistan and appreciating Pakistan’s worries about India’s increasing presence in Afghanistan. Pakistan, too, has to show greater resolve in tackling the militants, if the aim is genuine normalisation with India. Mere protestations of innocence and disclaimers of responsibility, as regards activities of non-state actors in India, will no longer suffice.
So far, India’s interest appears to be focused only on issues of primary interest to her, such as terrorism and trade, with minimal movement on issues of importance to Pakistan, namely Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek and water issues. The talks need to focus on the ‘doables’ in order to build a base of trust and Siachen and Sir Creek are eminently suited for a positive initiative. Both need to recognise that the establishment of goodwill and the beginning of cooperative relations would bring great benefits to them, while a continuation of hostility is likely to be harmful to both, possibly more to Pakistan though, given India’s size, military strength and growing economic progress.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 13th, 2011.