While details are yet to emerge, Zardari described the talks as “very fruitful”, while Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressed willingness “to find practical and pragmatic solutions on all issues”. Singh also agreed to visit Pakistan but only when “mutually convenient”. The Summit did, however, provide an impetus to the normalisation process. The challenge, therefore, will be to ensure that momentum is not simply maintained but enhanced, particularly as leadership in both countries needs to wean people away from memories of deep mutual suspicion. After all, their relationship impacts not only themselves, but a region which is home to one-fourth of the world’s population. Happily, most Pakistanis no longer look at India as an enemy; the attitude is one of envy, not enmity. A growing number of Indians, too, favour establishing cordial ties with Pakistan.
The normalisation process, however, has not moved with the resolve expected with the restoration of a democratic government in Islamabad. Admittedly, the November 2008 terrorist strike caused strong outrage in India, prompting Delhi to break off the composite dialogue process. Though a limited restoration was signalled in 2010, the talks have proceeded at a desultory pace, with no movement on issues such as Siachen and Sir Creek, where existing understandings should have led to closure.
Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar’s recent comments appeared to signal a shift in Islamabad’s stand on differences with India, more specifically on Kashmir. While some may question the wisdom of abandoning a historical position without evidence of reciprocal concession, there is growing concern in Pakistan that given its impressive economic growth rate and increasing international profile, India is losing interest in reaching a durable relationship with Pakistan.
While this may appear attractive to some in India, the harsh reality is that though Pakistan will definitely gain from peace, it is also in India’s interest to have cordial relations with its neighbours. But as the dominant power, India would need to show understanding for concerns of its smaller neighbours. Moreover, with Afghanistan entering the ‘endgame’, the urgency of Pakistan and India reaching an understanding on what their ‘objectives’ are in that country assumes critical importance. It would be tragic if, on top of the existing laundry list of disputes, differing Pakistan-India goals in Afghanistan destroy prospects of peace there.
As it stands, Afghanistan has been a historic bone of contention between India and Pakistan with both convinced that the other’s presence would be to its detriment. This pernicious zero-sum game has not served the interest of either country while harming prospects of peace and stability in the region. Islamabad and Delhi would do themselves and the world great good were they to make Afghanistan the launching pad to create mutual trust that has been lacking in their relationship so far. It is also important to ensure that the dialogue process remains “uninterrupted and uninterruptible”, as Indian National Congress Member Mani Shankar Aiyer has emphasised.
Of course, given the level of mutual suspicions, this will not be easy. Moreover, both countries would be wary of taking the first step, especially at a time when serious questions have been raised regarding the political future of both Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Manmohan Singh. But their weakness should not inhibit their imagination; instead, it should spur them on to greater resolve.
Though terrorism is of huge concern to India, America’s announcement of a $10 million bounty for the arrest or capture of Hafiz Saeed appeared to be an inept attempt to curry favour with India, while ratcheting up pressure on Pakistan for its failure to wrap its foreign policy review. But to have done so on the eve of Zardari’s visit –– of which the US could not have been unaware –– was unfortunate and evidence of its disconnect from the complexities of South Asian politics.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 10th, 2012.
COMMENTS (21)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1714024018-0/ModiLara-(1)1714024018-0-270x192.webp)
@BruteFart: "Pakistan is better off cementing relations with China rather than India. " True to your moniker, you have expelled a "brutal fart"! @Muhammad Ghalib: "Pakistan is in better position to bargain with India." How? And, bargain for what? Do not forget that you are a basket case now, not unlike North Korea. You have absolutely no clout to bargain for anything with anyone. This is the major problem. Pakistan is living in a never-never land of quixotic fantasies. You can never have normal relations with anyone until you touch solid ground!
"But their weakness should not inhibit their imagination; instead, it should spur them on to greater resolve". What imagination in regard to Gilani, you got to be kidding. This guy is led by the nose by his boss the ever smiling Zardari and Zardari has fantastic imagination how to loot the Treasury.Sure it is good to have good relation with all the neighbors and others with dignity and sovereignty of the country intact. I doubt this clique in Islamabad has any idea how to maintain good relations with India while Pakistan's interests are basis for any relationship, they will give away the store to gain some financial gains for themselves and their families.
It takes two to tango. Since India doesn't see any 'benefit' in patching up with Pakistan, so be it. We have lived pretty good without India on our side for the past 65 years and we will survive well in the future as well. No Pakistani wants to consider India as 'big brother' instead it is a 'big bully' in the region.
No pipelines to India; no trade concessions; no energy corridors; no gateway to central asia. Soon, without access to oil and gas, India will come on its knees begging Pakistan. Also, no dams in Indian Occupied Kashmir, even if we have to wage a war and destroy them. Reminder to India, you can run but you can't play hide and seek games.
Pakistan is better off cementing relations with China rather than India.
Pakistan and India should enhance the dialogue process and find out all solution on table rather on bullet and Pakistan is in better position to bargain with India.
Pakistan will be making a grave mistake if it arrogates to itself the right to decide what kind of rulers Afghans will have and who they will befriend. A wiser policy will be to help Afghanistan to have all its people wish to have.
Pakistan has no right to decide what kind of relations India will have with Afghanistan. India will not dictate the relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan and it would be wise of Pakistan to reciprocate. Otherwise this matter has the potential to become a serious source of friction.
It is entirely up to the wisdom of Pakistan to decide if it needs "Strategic depth", but it has no right to decide that Afghanistan will provide it. If this important matter is not kept in mind Pakistan is likely to suffer unimaginable problems in future. And, the chances for Afghans to live in peace will be miniscule.
The main which Pakistanis will probably never get it right is -the foundational difference in Indian and Pakistan societies. For a nation that has given birth to 4 religions, treating a religious nation like Pakistan at an equal footing will never happen. Only religious morons will expect that. To get India's respect...Pakistan will have to overturn it society and keep islam out of constitution and society. Until that day..Pakistan can never expect to be treated as an decent neighbour. If otherwise...still good as pakistan continues to prove right what experts said about it ten years ago..that it will deteriorate....as it did with a consistency that beat those experts imagination....
Why do outsiders like Indians and Pakistanis consider Afghanistan as a laboratory for whatever strikes their fancy?
After decades of failed experiments, experts still have the courage to apply their minds again on what 'to do' in or to Afghanistan.
And again, its about what they gain from those experiments - the Afghans being unintended beneficiaries or collateral damage, a tactical matter to be dealt with in the field.
'Outraged sovereignty' anyone?
@ sinclair - "you never wanted a big brother – so you will never get one" - simply brilliant!!!!!
Considering the amount of hateful comments in the press regarding Zardari's holy pilgrimage, it is evident that most rightwing religious forces in Pakistan are against everything that has to do with India. It is a shame and senseless thinking but it is so obvious and the label of pro India is used almost as a swear word.
hopeless article.
In the whole article which explains Pakistan's needs, requirements and conditions to make peace with India, the author fails to mention India's conditions, needs etc. Without mentioning them, this article sounds one sided, hollow and pleads India to show some magnanimity. India is a sovereign poor democracy which needs to answer its people for any deal struck with Pakistan. But Pakistan is run by a combination of democracy/military/dictatorship which conveniently passes the buck of reasoning to the weaker party at any point in time. Therefore it is possibly easier to divert the opinion in Pakistan. Only logic and national interest will sell in India. I am at a loss to understand the concept of big brother, dominant economy etc. Where were all these thoughts in 1947 and before. You wanted to go on your own way. You made your way and continue to live that way however illogical and stupid it may look for others. Where is the question of big brothership. You claim you are a sovereign democracy and wants US to treat u equally. Why should India be different, You were prepared to eat grass for making a thousand cuts to India. When u bleed because of the self inflicted wounds, why do u need pity from others, I also fail to understand why the author has not mentioned any point about the justice to be delivered by Pakistan on Mumbai mayhem which is of paramount importance to Indians like me.
"It is also important to ensure that the dialogue process remains “uninterrupted and uninterruptible”, as Indian National Congress Member Mani Shankar Aiyer has emphasised".
No matter what Mani Shankar Iyer says, the dialog will be interrupted if there is one more terror incident on Indian soil that can be traced back to India.
@Rizwan Gondal: "I pray that both countries relegate the issues of divergence to back burner and move ahead on issues of convergence;it will bolster the doves and discouarge the hawks which is need of the hour."
India has never concerned diversity as the problem between it and Pakistan. India has over 150 milllon Muslims who are happily and proudly living as Indians. The problem is Pakistani rulers who fan hatred against 'Hindu India', teach kids in school to hate Hindus and trains and sends jihadis to India as part of an acknowledged foreign policy to bleed India with a thousand cuts.
Until the terrorism stops, there will be no appetite in India to accommodate Pakistan.
@Sinclair: That big brother analogy seems very fitting. I never gave it much thought but, now that I think about it, I would probably be just as irritated if someone attacked Canada as I would be if they attacked the US. Though I have no good logical or political reasoning behind that conclusion.
Your statement "Happily, most Pakistanis no longer look at India as an enemy" is not borne out by the terrorist activities which seem to be supported by the highest echelons of your political and military establishment.
I second Sinclair: Our typical mentality, whenever we are on backfoot, is India being the big brother, MUST show sympathy and unilateral concessions. If we are indeed the small brother, then we must also learn to live like small brothers, be friendly and cordial, and stop interfering in India's affair. We behave like pure opportunists, changing our color from small brother to "gazwa e hind and thousand cuts" based on what suits us. If we want to see change in others, learn first to change ourselves..
I am glad that there is change on the historical stand. I hope things may change at the public level as well. There are enough morns to inflame the situation by mixing religion and ultra-nationalism. Had Pakistan came out of this back in 1950s or 1960, things would have been more favorable for both parties. It is time for both parties to move on and live like good neighbors.
There is a dire need to bolster economic relations with India as its implications for peace in the reagion are manifold. We have lived a great deal in an air of mutual distrust and enmity and history is quite clear that it had never been a good bargain. I am sure that if today both countries realise the significance of their economic ties, follow MFN, and then SAFTA, it is not far away that this region will see a new dawn that would herald a new era of peace and prosperity for South Asian people. I pray that both countries relegate the issues of divergence to back burner and move ahead on issues of convergence;it will bolster the doves and discouarge the hawks which is need of the hour.
Why do most articles about India end up at -
"But as the dominant power, India would need to show understanding for concerns of its smaller neighbours."
You know how ridiculous that sounds? If anybody in Pakistan thinks India will give up even a smidgen when it comes to its national interest, you dont know geopolitics. Also, just look at US neighbors and how they conduct themselves.
Mexico is forever complaining about US, "oh they did not give us money, they do not help us grow, NAFTA exploits us ..."
and all the time migrate illegally to US. Canada, not so much. In South America, even the dictators keep complaining about the US not being GOOD, inspite of being BIG. It is all loser talk. Grow out of it.
You can call India and Indians any four letter word that comes to your mind, but you never wanted a big brother - so you will never get one.
India is not in a position (nor does it have the inclination) to exclude Pak from a future role in Afghanistan - clearly the geographical advantage is a permanent one. Further, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what India wants, which is stability in Afghanistan (should not revert to its erstwhile role as a jihadi factory) and RoI on Indian investments. It also wants to trade with Afghanistan and the only route that makes economic sense is through Pakistan. What does Pakistan want? No India in Afghanistan. This leaves no room for discussion, and will eventually put Pakistan in a difficult position. It needs to figure out what its key concerns are, and discuss them with India - maybe Dr. Manmohan Singh's proposed trip is as good a time as any.