Diplomatic setback, lost opportunity

If the prime minister level meeting was not to produce any positive results, why did the two prime minister meet?


Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi October 06, 2013
The writer is an independent political and defence analyst. He is also the author of several books, monographs and articles on Pakistan and South Asian Affairs

The unsuccessful, if not failed, meeting between the prime ministers of Pakistan and India in New York City on September 29 is a diplomatic setback for Nawaz Sharif and a lost opportunity for Manmohan Singh.

The only success was an agreement to ensure peace on the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir. Was the head-of-government level meeting really needed for strengthening ceasefire on the LoC? Did they meet only for this purpose? The answer to both questions is no.

Both sides had two different priorities for the meeting. Nawaz Sharif’s main interest was the revival of the dialogue process suspended by India in January 2013, after India accused Pakistan of masterminding the killing and beheading of an Indian soldier close to the LoC. Manmohan Singh had a single-point working agenda of seeking Pakistan’s compliance with the Indian demand of taking firm legal action against the people under trial in Rawalpindi on the charge of involvement in the Mumbai attacks in November 2008. These cases have been going on in the first trial court since 2009. This and other terrorism issues were highlighted by India’s prime minister as necessary steps for the resumption of the comprehensive dialogue process.

One can argue that India shared Pakistan’s desire to resume the dialogue but it wanted Pakistan to undertake some measures to assure India that Pakistan is serious about curbing terrorism that spills over to Indian administered Kashmir or India.

The outcome of the meeting is a diplomatic embarrassment for Nawaz Sharif because he was an ardent supporter of dialogue and normalisation of relations with India. A section of Nawaz Sharif’s support base, the political far-right and Islamists, opposed his policy of friendship with India. He resisted their pressure and pursued his passion for improved political and economic relations with India.

Manmohan Singh’s insistence on preconditions for the resumption of talks has weakened Nawaz Sharif’s position vis-a-vis those who traditionally opposed a dialogue with India. In fact, it has weakened all those Pakistanis who advocated normalisation of relations with India, more visits and increased bilateral trade.

The major beneficiaries of India’s non-cooperative disposition are the people and groups whose influence and role India wants to contain. If India wants to contain the role of militants, it needs to be more forthcoming in resuming dialogue and improving relations with Pakistan. This will strengthen those favouring good relations with India.

The non-productive talks in New York are a lost opportunity for Manmohan Singh because it would now be quite difficult for Nawaz Sharif to seek another meeting with him during the remainder of his present term in office. Being the last year of his present term, Manmohan Singh could have created a positive legacy of improved relations with Pakistan.

Manmohan Singh may have made some immediate political gains in India’s domestic context by playing tough with Nawaz Sharif. However, this policy will not give any political dividend to him or the Congress party in the forthcoming state and general elections. A host of domestic issues rather than Pakistan-India relations will determine the fate of the Congress party in the general elections next year.

No Pakistani government can give a categorical guarantee to India against violent activities of militants based in Pakistan. The reason is that the Pakistan government cannot give a guarantee of security even to its own citizens against militant groups. Indians need to check how many Pakistanis have been killed and injured in terrorist attacks since the assumption of power by the new federal government in the first week of June.

Some militant groups were floated or supported by Pakistan’s security establishment in the 1980s and the 1990s. Now all of them have gone out of control, threatening Pakistan’s state and society. The militant groups focusing on Indian-administered Kashmir and India thrive on anti-India sentiments in Pakistan, especially in Punjab. The outcome of the latest prime-ministerial talks has strengthened these militant groups and the political far-right.

India is making the mistake that Pakistan made for years, that is, turning Pakistan-India relations into a single issue affair. Pakistan used to insist that no normal relations and trade could be pursued with India as long as the Kashmir problem is not resolved. Pakistan gave up this strategy and stopped insisting on the solution of the Kashmir problem as a precondition for talks on other issues.

Now, India has turned its relations with Pakistan into a single-issue affair. That is, Pakistan must satisfy India on terrorism, especially about the role of Pakistanis in the Mumbai terrorist attack. This approach is not going to help India. However, by the time India realises that it is a no-win approach, many years will be lost.

One damage control strategy is that the two prime ministers should agree to resume dialogue on the eve of the next SAARC summit conference. The initiative for this has to come from India’s prime minister.

There is a need to question the handling of the prime minister level talks in New York City by Pakistan’s Foreign Office. Pakistan’s special envoy held one meeting with India’s special envoy long before these talks were scheduled and Pakistan’s foreign policy adviser met with India’s minister for external affairs in Bishkek. India gave strong hints of adopting a tough line on the terrorism issue in the subsequent statements. These meetings and statements should have enabled Pakistan’s Foreign Office to understand India’s disposition towards the proposed talks. Official circles created the impression in Pakistan that India would agree to resume talks despite its tough public posture. This was a self-cultivated delusion.

If the prime minister level meeting was not to produce any positive results, why did the two prime minister meet in New York?

Published in The Express Tribune, October 7th, 2013.

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

COMMENTS (35)

Mango | 10 years ago | Reply

@naeem khan Manhattan,Ks: who has killed more Pakistani's in the last 66 years A. Pakistani Citizens(Taliban/Shia-Sunni-mojahirs etc blood thirsty zombies) B.USA(your landlord) C.India. Answer is A & B & you call India your enemy...get a reality check & stop reading the fiction your historians wrote in the school books & made you a puppet...

Np | 11 years ago | Reply

@Usman Aziz: You do not have a 'defense' budget. You have an 'attack budget'. If you stopped attacking India. You might have more left over for education and healthcare.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ