Once again, the Saarc summit in Nepal will bring into sharp focus the current tension-ridden relations between India and Pakistan. Afghanistan’s recently elected President Ashraf Ghani, who for the first time is representing his country, will attract immense interest. But this would be more in the positive sense as he would be a pleasant change from Hamid Karzai. He would be an impressive personality to engage with at a time when Nato and US forces will be on the drawdown. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will surely try to develop a strong rapport with him. This would also be Modi’s first presence at the Saarc summit, but with Pakistan-India relations standing frozen, not much can be expected at the bilateral or multilateral level in this regard.
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s policy of beginning a new chapter with India has fallen by the wayside. Foreign secretary-level talks were called off on the flimsy ground that the Pakistan High Commissioner to India invited the Hurriyat leaders for a meeting. Knowing full well that the Pakistani High Commissioner has been meeting Kashmiri representatives for years to hear their point of view, and symbolically to demonstrate that the Pakistan government and people empathise with them, this was something that was completely uncalled for. But in the ‘new India’ under Modi, rules of the game do not allow such contact and this is considered an unfriendly act. The matter does not end here because the broader picture that emerges due to India’s intransigence towards Pakistan is fairly complex and gloomy.
India is not willing to talk on Jammu and Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek and issues related to nuclear and strategic stability or sharing of waters. The entire composite dialogue, according to India, can wait and will be dealt unilaterally. On terrorism, India voices its concern, but more to demonise Pakistan than to cooperate in fighting a common enemy. A recent example is the public denunciation of Pakistan’s behaviour that it is supporting terrorism and that Dawood Ibrahim has been provided sanctuary close to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. For dealing with these allegations, a more appropriate course will be to raise the matter at the government level rather than raising it in public and vitiating the political atmosphere. On nuclear and strategic matters, New Delhi’s stance has been that it can deal with Pakistan at the conventional level and its real threat is from China and engaging on matters of strategic stability with Pakistan is of low priority. India is likely to maintain pressure on Pakistan by maligning it at every international and national forum.
India, however, has its list of genuine grievances that Pakistan needs to address. Islamabad continues to deny India the MFN status because the security establishment would not agree with such a measure, only reinforcing the impression that it is the final arbitrator. The Jamaatud Dawa brazenly keeps flaunting its presence whilst New Delhi waits for an outcome on the Mumbai incident and the Pakistani courts keep dragging their feet.
Pakistan-India relations have gone through much worse scenarios and have a history of three wars and several major skirmishes, but the implications of the current tension, accompanied with frequent ceasefire violations on the Line of Control and the Working Boundary, have a different connotation. Let alone shattering the vision of a peaceful, prosperous and cooperative relationship that Nawaz Sharif had visualised, it is turning out to be a relationship that is designed by Hindu nationalism and is somewhat of a dream for those in the Pakistani establishment, who always mistrusted India and wished it to be classified as an infinite adversary.
Is Modi determined to inflict pain on Pakistan to the extent diplomatically and politically possible for it to change its behaviour? No doubt, Pakistan’s diplomatic leverage has weakened due to its chaotic internal situation, but still, a country of more than 180 million people, nuclear-armed, and strategically located with some reliable and powerful friends, cannot be pushed around. In any case, Pakistan is moving from a transition to a transformation phase, wherein realising the dangers that militancy is taking deep roots, and so is waging an all-out military offensive against the TTP and their affiliates. This has also been clearly spelt out in the speech that General Raheel Sharif made during his recent visit to the US that Operation Zarb-e-Azb is not merely confined to North Waziristan, but is much wider in scope and covers the entire country. And apart from its military dimension, it is “a concept to defeat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations”. Moreover, what is most significant is the resolve and determination that General Raheel Sharif is demonstrating in defeating militancy. This should clear the perception that the Pakistan Army is still employing ‘hedging’ tactics and using a certain category of militants as proxies.
Indian hostility is proving to be distracting and could result in Pakistan pulling back some of its forces from the western front. General Raheel Sharif, during his US trip, highlighted the implications of this policy. Despite the fact that the interests of the great powers have moved away from the region, nonetheless, their interest lies in India and Pakistan co-existing as peaceful neighbours, as this affects US and Afghan security.
Pakistan, finding itself in a bind with India, is likely to redesign its foreign policy by getting even closer to China and making serious efforts at rebuilding a strong relationship with the new government of Afghanistan. Pakistan is also seeking to significantly improve its relations with Russia. The recent visit of Russia’s defence minister and Moscow’s lifting of the embargo on arms sale indicates a thawing of relations between the two countries that will contribute towards regional stability, especially in the context of Afghanistan and Central Asia. China is investing generously in Afghanistan and this will have an impact on its three transitions. Its multibillion-dollar investment is an indication that it wants to be a key player in Afghanistan and economic interests seem to dominate its strategic orientation.
Despite the present hiatus in Pakistan-India relations, it is very much possible that India may revisit its hostile policy towards Pakistan. In the longer term, the interests of both countries are best served by normalising the relationship and not by rupturing it.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 26th, 2014.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (22)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Not so fast, Mr. Masood. USA has changed its mind about total withdrawal from Afghanistan after 2014. Also, Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi shook hands at SAARC. Isn't that a good sign? In terms of making false equivalences, the Pakistanis are real experts even though the hostilities, including all wars, have been initiated by them. Ya, gotta remember, Pakistan was carved out of India (and there was - unfairly - no referendum), not the other way around. The current land of the pure got a far larger share of the land than was warranted by its share of the population (six times more than Bangladesh!) So, all that talk about J&K and other issues is a red herring to divert attention away from the fundamental dysfunctionality of that country's governance: A so-called democracy ruled by its Army (including the informal one of extremists and/or Lashkars), and Secret Service. SAARC could be a good thing for Pakistan's economy which has been on the ropes ever since 1965. Instead of showing humility, rulers continue to indulge in rudeness and demands that muddy the economic arguments underlying SAARC. .
Since Modi came in power, South Asian fragile environment has been further deteriorated. Modi' aggressive and hawkish policies lead the region towards unending series of conflicts. Indian pursuit of regional hegemony has been instrumental in deteriorating peace in the region.
In the ultimate analysis, it needs to be understood that unlike both Pakistan and India, China is operating from a position of strength and its support for Pakistan is going to be governed by its own strategic objectives and regional agenda as a major global power. Mathieu Duchatel, for example, sees China’s priorities in Kashmir shifting from ‘weakening India, to tacitly accepting Indian power, to vigilance that Pakistan not become too weak.’ China’s more balanced position on Kashmir had less to do with its dilution of support for Pakistan than with its own strategic interests in cultivating India at a time in the 1990s, when India offered tremendous economic opportunity.
The learned General is on the ball on India's grievances. However,his suggestion is directed only for India to revisit its policy. Reading between the lines, one can surmise that "Pakistan, being a country of more than 180 million people, nuclear-armed, and strategically located with some reliable and powerful friends", can push around a country of 1.3 billion.
@Rabia: And how to settle the dispute when Pakistani PM and FO said that they would prefer to talk to Kashmiri separatists rather Indian government. Pakistani PM think that ethnic cleansing of minorities should be taken as freedom struggle. Why Pakistan doesn't use the same yardstick for Baluchistan movements, militants movements? Economic growth has no relation to disputes with Pakistan. China has disputes with almost all her neighbor but still managed to grow its economy. Who attacked Kashmir in 1947 and India in 1965, Kargil, attack on parliament, 26/11
The historical rivals have observed to be sharing number of conflicts and timely crises even after acquiring the nuclear capabilities. After going through the history of conflicts between the two nations, it can be concluded that the core issue of conflicts like Kashmir issue remained there rather both states have reached to a point once again where chances of war have maximized. This is the time to realize the regional instability and try to solve the issues through peaceful dialogues and negotiations rather threatening each other through nuclear capabilities which solely were acquired for deterrence purpose. Through peaceful negotiations and talks a positive environment in the region can be created.
@Rabia: India must realize that its successful economic journey would cease if it did not settle disputes with Pakistan.
Just how will India's economic journey cease ? Care to enlighten us ? Pakistan is not the centre of [planet, nor that important on the bigger gkobal stage !
Peace will come when the two countries desire it, till then they have to work on their internal problems. India has invested enough time and energy on its relations with Pakistan without commensurate results. Now it will be in India's interest to focus all its energy and resources on strengthening relations with those countries that share the same goals and would like to be a part and benefit from the growth. Those who are sceptical can remain so, it being their choice.
Pakistan, finding itself in a bind with India, is likely to redesign its foreign policy by getting even closer to China
Pakistan is virtually a Chinese colony now, how do you get "even closer"
Knowing full well that the Pakistani High Commissioner has been meeting Kashmiri representatives for years
Just because a thief has been stealing for years it doesn't mean it is acceptable to continue stealing
@It's (still) Economy Stupid: this article gives all clarity
@abreez: dear mr , pl dont change the issues, pl remain to the point.
India’s approach for dealing with Pakistan had revolved mainly around zero tolerance. Its inability to ‘punish’ Pakistan and to break its back economically (by creating a war-like environment in the region) had a sobering impact on the Indian mindset and led New Delhi to conclude that its conventional policies vis-à-vis Pakistan and Kashmir were getting nowhere. Its hostile attitude did not yield the desired results and Islamabad did not succumb to its pressure. India must realize that its successful economic journey would cease if it did not settle disputes with Pakistan.
26/11/2008 today is 26/11/2014 what is there to talk about .
No one predicted WW2 before Hitler and when Hitler became Chancellor of Germany everything changed and world witnessed one of deadliest war yet. Modi is another Hitler, time will prove this but for Pakistan Modi is Aurangzeb of Hindus.
India is ready to wait it out. Please tell us what progress did you make when we had Congress in power. Every government is entitled to set rules of engagement. Please let us know what purpose did it serve when your foreign secretary reached out to separatists. All Modi is saying is stop this one upmanship if you are genuinely interested in making progress. His government said not a good idea in the new atmosphere of cooperation. You stuck to the your traditional approach that did not yield results and now paying price for it.
To resolve this perpetual He says She says situation, India and Pakistan should revisit all the previous proposals of converting LOC to permanent boundary. It is clear that neither India nor Pakistan is going to compromise on Kashmir. Best is to stay happy with whatever you got and let respective nations govern the Kashmir in full democratic sense, letting the Kashmiris to live freely without the shadow of army. Don't see any other solution working. And yea, for all those crack heads who would suggest full fledge war and chest thump about their nukes and toys.......GROW UP.
Mr Modi was elected unanimously to be the new PM, and he has to now deliver what he promised the electorate. He has much to do, and quite simply put, does not want to waste his time dealing with Pakistan; which never was and never will be a "key issue" in any forthcoming Indian election.
All of Modi's major foreign visits (US, Australia) have had one key theme - investment and commerce in India.
The constant theme with Pakistan has been - we'll talk when you get serious about the talks. So India is in a position to wait, as long as it takes; Pakistan cannot. Essentially the ball is in your court.