Engagement is an imperative even for India despite occasional posturing by some opinion-makers and op-ed writers that their shining state can simply dispense with Pakistan. Such posturing in the context of countries with such a long land frontier and an undetermined maritime boundary as well as a heavy baggage of unresolved issues is fraught with dangers. That India and Pakistan possess notable nuclear arsenals and are forever improving delivery systems for them add to these dangers. In my own reckoning, even more important than the risks is the fact that India and Pakistan have now within their grasp a huge peace dividend. History has brought them inexorably to a point where they can achieve great things for their peoples and for the entire region if only they summon the political will for a rapprochement.
A full nine months after participating in a Track II event in Dubai, I joined another conclave on October 16-17 at Bangkok in which the Pakistani side was put together by the highly innovative Sherry Rehman. As the Joint Communique put it “leading opinion-makers from India and Pakistan including retired foreign office veterans, civil society actors, academics and political leaders” engaged in a stimulating dialogue and produced a forward-looking document of suggestions, though not without glitches en route.
Indeed, there is a certain predictability about these conversations. Pakistani participants are generally individualistic and ready to cast aside official positions. The Indian interlocutors are brilliant but prefer to sail close to the coast of government policy. At Bangkok, some Indian interventions were deliberately tough. One, there is hardly any chance of Manmohan Singh visiting Pakistan despite the recent renewal of the seven-year old invitation by Pakistan’s foreign minister and commerce minister. Two, there cannot be a Siachen agreement without authentication of present positions as demanded by the Indian Army. Three, India is no longer pushed about Safta as it already has in place bilateral and trilateral trading arrangements with Saarc states. Fourth, India is more focused on the ‘Southern Silk Route’. Fifth, India has contracted security provisions in the new pact with Afghanistan not only because Kabul wanted them but also because of the desire of the United States and Nato. Sixth, New Delhi’s dialogue with Kashmiri leaders is progressing extremely well.
Notwithstanding these formulations, the Joint Communique has many constructive recommendations. A rough and ready list would include the following: reach agreement on Siachen, resolve Sir Creek at the next round, strengthen existing CBMs and expand them, pursue a dialogue — official and back channel — on Kashmir, resurrect a joint counterterrorism mechanism, establish a joint working group on Afghanistan to discuss mutual security concerns, create conditions for an Afghan-driven national reconciliation, implement the TAPI agreement, facilitate trade with a liberal visa regime, improve infrastructure for movement of goods and seek greater cooperation in the energy sector, including wind and solar energy.
Imparting a fresh momentum to the India-Pakistan reconciliation process is a challenging task. Pakistan is deeply embroiled in the effort to contain violence linked with the war on terrorism and in reversing economic decline. In India, Manmohan Singh now has a weaker hand than ever before to pursue any meaningful initiative on contentious issues. The mesmerising national narrative of shining India has been overshadowed by a new narrative of corruption and the populist struggle against it. Nevertheless, if time is not to sit still, both sides will have to devise imaginative approaches to all outstanding problems and summon requisite statesmanship to ensure that new issues like water rights and rivalry over influence in Afghanistan do not become zero-sum games.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 24th, 2011.
COMMENTS (13)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@ R S JOHAR India's inability to match its words i.e., wanting to see a stable Pakistan with solid and sincere action could seriously hamper the continued growth and development of its society. Yes, you are right, when you say that its own establishment must revisit the hardened stances of the past. The world has changed and so must antiquated thinkings. This applies equally to Pakistan as well. A prosperous South Asia will bode well for the future generations.
@Noor Nabi: Appreciate your analysis which is well balanced and logical. There are lot of positive developments being reported between the two countries these days which I hope would continue in the future as well. India would like to see a stable Pakistan but its own establishments must review its decades old policies which are proving to be self-destructive in the present day scenario.
@Noor Nabi
Excellent analysis. The insight you put in this discourse is worthy of a seasoned foreign policy analyst.
In our time each question paper used to have about 10 questions and we were about to answer for 6-7 of them, Common sense was that we leave the difficult and lengthy questions out. I suppose same applies to Indo-pak relations. First solve the easy questions and make sure you get the passing marks. Once you have assured the passing marks, try the questions which are relatively difficult and tricky. Kashmir question is the most tricky and difficult one. Leave this questions and try other ones, you will pass with distinction. Once you graduate to higher class, may be you will be able to solve the so called Kashmir question.
You say Indian often toe, more or less, the official line and are not that flexible. Why is that, you think?
That inflexibility is born out of the strong position India has in almost every issue. A Strong state enters into negotiations only when making sure they are in a position of strength. If not the State has to accept humiliating conditions, like Germany had to after 1st World war and Pakistan had to in their negotiations with the Taliban when Mush was in power.
Get used to Indian inflexibility. It is not going anywhere. A Powerful, Stable state like India cannot afford to bow down to a middle-level power like Pakistan.
"Pakistani participants are generally individualistic and ready to cast aside official positions. " Two questions arise 1. How will the nonofficial positions taken by these Pak interlocutors be treated by the estd and army in Pak 2. Who gave them power for taking these positions?.
Or are all these just theoretical discussions and conceptual conclusions ?? Unless the Pak army is also in the loop, then it is unlikely that these junkets will achieve anything concrete.
Çlassic example of typical superior complex in article ,Bottomline at this point India should not give away anything to pakistan, Pakistan at this point in very difficult situation,we dont see any change of heart on his policy makers, india will not do any good by peace talking with pak, Unless theys see some sea change in pak policy. Otherwise india will be in big trouble.
As per Author Manmohan Singh is on weaker hand, but he is still showing favor to Pakistan like lifting objection to EU trade rebate, supporting Pakistan for UNSC seat and giving time to take action against the culprit of 26/11 Mumbai terror attack.While on other side Pakistan is announcing MFN status in theory only, even when India has given MFN status to Pakistan years ago.India can never put boot on ground in Afghanistan as India does not have contiguous border with Afghanistan, but every one in Pakistan at the top of their voice objection to the aggrement of two sovereign nation India and Afghanistan.It is fact as author have quoted, most of the Indian thinks that Indians should keep Pakistan aside.
You make sense but the inertia of past 60 years that informs Pak foreign policy and narrative in entrenched and will determine Pakistan's destiny. India is just a by-stander and watches the final chapters of the ideology.
While we appreciate the positive work being done by people like you for pakistan's (track -ii) benefit, will you please let us know if these meetings have blessing from the khakis? If not, it is a waste of time and money.
Mr T.A.Khan,your analysis is sound,focus more on what GOI faces,it has made difficult for itself by mishandling a lot of domestic policies by very poor decisions,it could have been front runner in the reform spirit which is sweeping the country,instead it has given impression it is running against those reform,the Hazare corruption was completely mishandled by calling upon such discredited leaders like Sibal,Chithambram,and not but least Digvijay singh,a poor chioce.They were spearheads of all scam which running Goi to ground,wait once the agitation to bring swiss money gets the fancy of the people,and gains momentum,this is opposition keeping its powder dry for 1914 election time.In this mess,important foreign policy initiative,economic liberalization takes back seat,and Indo/Pak recoconcileing also will be put on back burner,which is very unfortunate,both India/pakistan need to go forward,putting border issues in deep freeze for a while,while solving less contisious issues for later days when there is more goodwill and trust.In that light,Pakistan's decision to release the latest Indian copter ,was a welcome event,and if Pakistan can keep its focus and keep trouble makers at bay,will be a welcome move.For once Pakistan is not its worst enemy,if they can play constructive role,and not spoilers in afghan front and help USA get out of this mess in A'stan,there is lot Pakistan can gain,it needs imaginative players,not hot heads,and spoilers,and flame throwers,is pakistan upto it?,only time and coming days will tell.
The Track II channel has indeed served a very useful purpose. It should be kept open and broadened to include people to people exchanges between Pakistan and India. Although the “Shining India” slogan, coined by the BJP, conveys an exaggerated message there is no doubt that India, as a country, has made impressive progress on all important fronts: education, industry, economics and last, but not least, global politics. Pakistan has been more than just a laggard on all these fronts. Perhaps India’s advantage can be partly explained by the lack of adventurism on the part of its military to topple civilian governments.
Pakistan should understand that its strategic depth does not lie in Afghanistan; it lies in having a good relationship with India, a relationship that is based on mutual respect, trust and economic cooperation. India should realise that a total economic and political collapse in Pakistan, if that were to happen, will have a very serious impact on India’s growth and economic development. The two countries rather than trying to outfox each other with respect to the problems in Afghanistan should put their heads together to define an approach that is in the interests of both.
No doubt there is a lot of corruption in India but the same is true for Pakistan as well. It does not serve a constructive purpose to point a finger at India on this subject. India is one of the few countries in the world where the middle class is growing and this is a big feather in its cap. Of course there are also a few fault lines within the Indian system but none threaten its existence as a country.