Roadblock in ties

What to make of the latest setback in Indo-Pak talks? Once again, expectations were raised, preparations made, and a buzz of anticipation generated, only to be brought to an abrupt and sudden halt. Pakistan&’s representative was all set to leave for New Delhi where arrangements to receive him were more or less complete, and the uncertain process of bilateral talks was once again seemingly on track, ready for another attempt at a breakthrough. But it was not to be and after a few terse   announcements from either side, we were back at the familiar impasse. How and why this happened requires reflection, for neither party has any escape from the other, and it must be expected that despite the present setback both sides will feel the need before too long to make another attempt.

Advertisement

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}

Whatever may be the longer-term compulsions, the immediate prospects are discouraging. New Delhi&’s unpredictable diplomacy raises questions about its regional priorities. Mr. Modi started with a bang and projected himself, to considerable acclaim, as the architect of a new, inclusive, region-wide design for South Asia. But even before the early euphoria of his inaugural was dissipated he had adopted a sterner posture and brusquely cancelled a meeting between the Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan. It took a long period of repair to get matters moving again through cautious contacts at international gatherings, only to run into the further roadblock of today. And if India has been changeable, Pakistan has not lagged behind in complicating the issue. This time the feeling of letdown is stronger, for the aborted meeting between National Security Advisers had looked like a carefully considered decision, not the early impulsive initiative of Mr Modi&’s inaugural. But it came to the same end.

It is not unusual that both sides should be more than ready to lay the blame on the other, as witnessed in a number of media leaks and statements from either side. Nobody wishes to be blamed, but dialogue can be a tricky matter domestically, with hardliners all too ready to cast a leery eye on whatever may take place in the conference chamber, or, indeed, on the whole process of dialogue itself. Hence the prolonged preliminary sparring over the structure and agenda, for it seems that neither felt able to go ahead without preliminary shaping of the discourse, if only by implication, to emphasize that they were not yielding anything by agreeing to talk. In effect, the less challenging choice for a policy-maker, even though it may be clothed in strong rhetoric, is to back off from dialogue and avoid the hazards it may entail: to talk is the tougher option.

The recurrent problem, of course, is that of Kashmir, and the matter of cross-border terrorism has become no less important. Whether to talk or not on these questions, and finding the most suitable modality for the purpose, becomes an issue whenever the two sides enter into formal discussion, but nevertheless there has been plenty of dialogue between them over the years: in the post-Simla Agreement period bilateral dialogue is the chosen means for addressing all outstanding issues and several initiatives have been taken by both sides to permit fresh thinking on their disputes. Through such efforts a certain amount of progress has been possible as successive leaders have tried to find ways of bridging the gap, and their efforts have permitted the restoration of a semblance of normality in matters like travel, trade, cultural and sporting exchanges, to mention a few. But it has always been a fragile process, frequently disrupted by unanticipated incidents along the Line of Control and other developments that discourage dialogue. Even so, the general trend is towards finding a basis for better relations and to keep at bay the negative elements. During Mr Gujral&’s time a process of dialogue and an agenda were agreed between him and Mr Nawaz Sharif for regular talks on a number of issues, including Kashmir and terrorism. That process and agenda have never been repudiated and continue to provide a structure for resumed dialogue whenever circumstances permit.

Regular contact helped build confidence between the parties and it became possible to embark on back-channel talks where selected representatives who enjoyed the confidence of the leaders were able to meet quietly and exchange views in privacy. Mr Vajpayee and his counterpart provided the impulse to shape this process and much was achieved under their stewardship, well removed from the public glare. Dr Manmohan Singh and his opposite numbers at different times, Mr Nawaz Sharif and Gen. Musharraf, took the process further and gave it real substance. So much so, that some of those claiming familiarity with the back-channel discussions have expressed the view that the negotiators had come close to agreement and envisaged a series of agreed measures on Kashmir and other key issues that could transform the relationship between the two countries.

Such far-reaching concepts, whatever their significance and potential, would have to be acceptable to public opinion to have operational value, and until now no authoritative effort has been made to bring hitherto secluded discussions into the public domain. Even with high-level backing, it would not be easy to convince the public of whatever may have been agreed in the back-channel, for after the sustained hostility over so many decades there is huge skepticism about the bona fides of the other side. In the circumstances, the well-intentioned efforts in the back-channel could well be doomed to neglect and consigned to the shelf. Nor would it be realistic to expect the present government to pursue with all necessary ardour the initiatives of its predecessor, any more than previous governments have been ready to take up the ideas of their predecessors. Such discontinuity is an obvious hazard when there are alternating governments with rather different approaches to the issue.

Yet the quest for peace and cooperation must continue, and the fact that the governments have repeatedly returned to the task despite setbacks shows that they are mindful of this requirement. After the last failure when the of the NSAs could not meet, it is all the more necessary that high-level contact between New Delhi and Islamabad should be re-established. Even if nothing dramatic may be immediately achievable, there is already much in the pipeline that can be profitably addressed, including matters of trade and commerce, and people-to-people contact. Useful, practical measures in these areas have been discussed in the past and agreement in principle arrived at on more than one occasion. Implementing what has already been agreed could be a stepping-stone to a wider understanding between the two countries.

Advertisement