More of the same

By Hussain Mohi-ud-Din Qadri

The developments following the issuance of the joint statement after a meeting of the
Pakistani and Indian prime Ministers in Sharm el Sheikh point to a familiar patter of
‘on and off’ relations between both countries. The dictum that “the more things seem
to change, the more they remain the same” appears to have been coined in view of
peculiar nature of relations between Islamabad and New Delhi that have seen few ups
but more downs in the troubled history of 62 years since 1947.

The grilling of the Indian Prime Minister by the opposition parties in parliament and
media over his ‘concessions’ to Pakistan in the joint statement shows that there is a lot
that needs to be done on both sides of the border at multiple levels that may encourage
governments to take bold initiatives without fear of reprisal at home. Pakistani
governments that dared cross ‘red line’ also faced similar treatment at the hands of the
conservative elements and hawkish establishment. The oft-spoken slogan of ‘sell-out
on Kashmir and compromise on the national interest’ comes to mind.

What really caused uproar in Indian media and parliament was the agreement of the
Indian government to the de-linking of peace talks from terrorism and not so unveiled
reference to ‘threats in Balochistan and other areas’. So ferocious was the reaction of
the journalists accompanying the Indian PM during the visit that the latter was forced
to put a different interpretation on the joint statement which clearly belied the facts.
While the joint statement manifestly signaled the resumption of composite dialogue
between Islamabad and New Delhi starting with the meeting at foreign secretaries’
level, Dr Manmohan Singh would have the Indians believe that it did not mean
anything to that effect and that India was wanted Pakistan to fulfill the conditions for
dialogue before it formally entered into structured talks with it.

The opposition political parties in India thought that the government was going too far
in accommodating Pakistan without getting anything in return on bringing the alleged
perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice. Their contention was that Pakistan was
able to achieve major diplomatic success through Indian readiness to resume the
composite dialogue, which also meant that her official position on the Mumbai
carnage was also correct. It is to be kept in mind that following the events in Mumbai
in 2008, India not only suspended the composite dialogue but also put forward two
preconditions for initiation of dialogue. One condition related to the complete
dismantling of the terror infrastructure in Pakistan and second was about bringing the
alleged perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice.

This brings us back to not too distant a past when the Indian establishment used the
similar trick to browbeat Pakistan into submission. In December 2001 when the
Indian parliament building was attacked, India put all the blame at the doors of
Pakistan and mobilized its forces to the borders. Pakistan was left with no option but
to follow suit. Thus there developed very explosive situation which could get out of
hand anytime due to any mistake or miscalculation by either of the sides. The eye-ball
to eye-ball confrontation between both countries that persisted till the end of 2003
coupled with aggressive Indian diplomacy to isolate Pakistan internationally and get
her declared as terrorist state was only avoided due to active American engagement.
The American backdoor efforts paid off when the leadership of both countries singed
what came to be known as ‘Islamabad Declaration’ in January 2004 sparing South
Asia what could well develop into one of the worst catastrophes of the world.

One can easily discern a pattern to this Indian approach towards Pakistan. Invoking
any untoward terrorist incident, the Indian establishment aims all the guns at Pakistan
holding it responsible for the perpetuation of the terrorist acts before any proof is
found and presented in the court of life. This is followed by aggressive media and
diplomatic offensive against Islamabad, which is meant to alienate it and prove it
culprit in the eyes of the world community. The coming of the Indian defence forces
into war mode is geared to browbeat Pakistan and cripple its fledgling economy. Then
after a certain period of protracted confrontation, de-escalation takes place, largely
due to involvement of the international players led by the US, and India agrees to
resume the stalled dialogue process with Pakistan. This cycle continues until another
incident thwarts the pace of the developments brining everything back to square one.

Thus there is something fundamentally wrong with the structure and principles of
composite dialogue framework as it exists today. Though the contention of de-linking
terrorism from talks is not new as the same was agreed to in talks of both countries in
April and September 2005, however, the reiteration of this important point could lay
the much-needed foundation to move the dialogue process forward. The
disproportionate reaction of the Indian media and conservative political forces appears
pregnant with the vested interests.

As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rightly pointed out in his speech in the Lok
Sabha, dialogue with Pakistan is the only option available to India. Both countries do
not afford the continuation of adversarial relations anymore. Pakistan, on its part, has
been more than welcome to think ‘out of box’ solutions to the disputed issues between
both countries including the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian
establishment needs to introspect and review its Pakistan policy with all the
seriousness at its disposal. Threats posed to the region could be turned into
opportunities if India felt the pulse of time and changed its policies accordingly. This
requires vision, statesmanship, dynamism and courage to take difficult decisions.