Vishal Sharma
Diplomacy is the tool employed to achieve the foreign policy objectives. It has its own idiom. It is often conducted in subtexts, undertones, covert messaging as opposed to in texts, overtones and overt signals. This artful communication is also transacted through subtle or aggressive body language. Sometimes, it is employed to achieve the pre decided objectives. Often it becomes an instrument of tweaking the objectives themselves when initial probing attempts reveal that the objectives to be achieved may have been set beyond the realm of possible. Being a dynamic medium, it is thus an aid for much needed self realisation in pursuit of achievables.
In the case of Indo-Pak relation, diplomacy has, however, fallen victim to the megalomania of the two countries. It has not been the first recourse to fix mutual suspicion between the two countries. It has often been supplanted with the undercover attempt more famously called as track 2 diplomacy. Track 1 has often looked for cue from its most sought after cousin, track 2, to make further advances. Unlike in other cases, diplomatic rearguard and not vanguard has led from the front in Indo-Pak context.
The recent break down of FS level talks between India and Pak has, however, collapsed both vanguard and rearguard. Just recently, during Indian journo Ved Parakash Vaidik’s meeting with Hafiz Seed, it had appeared that track 2 diplomacy was firmly on course and it was just a matter of time before track 1 initiative took over. However, slight lack of finesse in handling the talks has caused its unravelling.
Both the nations are equally responsible for the cancellation of talks. Pakistan’s problem is that it tried to move too fast in getting to its old ways of approaching the talks. Right from Narsimaha government’s days, it’s been a ritual with the Pak ambassador here in India to talk to Kashmiri separatists before talking to Indian interlocutors. Pakistanis had no reason to believe that this ritual could not be followed again. This for reasons of domestic consumption had also become necessary in view of Pak PM Nawaz Sharif’s ignoring them in his short visit to India earlier for PM Modi’s swearing in ceremony. For Pakistan to, therefore, ignore them again would have been suicidal. Also, it would have allowed a new variable to enter in the Indo-Pak talks calculus to an obvious advantage of India and avoidable disadvantage of Pak. And Pakistan would not have settled for it at any cost.
While many in Pak may see it a necessary pre-talks rite of passage, it would not have mattered much, if it had been avoided just for the time being. FS talks were in any case not going to be a game changer. They were at best going to be a prelude to FM level talks and, if possible, later to the PM level talks. If Pakistan had got past the FS level talks and got India to commit to uninterrupted and uninterruptible talks and also got them to scale it up to higher levels later, it could have easily wound up establishing gravitas of this venture and also honesty in Pakistan’s intent. Remember, all this while since Mumbai attack India has been looking for seriousness on the part of Pakistan towards the talks. This could have also prepared the ground for its informal meeting with the Kashmiri separatists in the interregnum. Surely, India would not have resisted Pakistan’s lunching and dining with the separatists if it had something to sell to its constituents. But by going ahead with talks with the separatists despite being advised against it by Indians, Pakistan has squandered the possible strategic gains at the cost of a small tactical purchase.
India on its part has also exhibited childish petulance in the way it has pulled out of the talks. It is not clear what it has sought to achieve by pulling the plug. By calling off the talks, it now stares at a virtual cul de sac. Borders are presently active and massive gunfights there are causing great deal of misery to the residents there. At this rate, with talks off the table and consequential hardening of positions, the noise of gunpowder on the borders is only going to be shrill. If India feels that it can continue to militarily contain the border fight to the level it wants and also thwart talks, then it may be indulging in wishful thinking for it may become difficult to do so after a point.
Border fights beyond a point help Pakistan. If they continue and become shriller, they will surely invite the attention of the international community. Over the years, India has meticulously kept the skirmishes at the border and the general chill in the diplomatic relations within the bilateral ambit. But when the decibels rise on the borders, India will find it hard to keep it couched under the bilateral cover, particularly when both the nations continue to refuse to talk and sulk in their respective corners. This could possibly set the stage for the internationalization of the Indo-Pak relations- an anathema to Indians.
India stood to gain more, if talks had happened. First, talks presented a platform to Indians to seek quiet at the borders at a time when DGMO level interface has ostensibly failed to yield any results. If talks could have caused peace at the border, it would have also helped border residents on either side to live peacefully. Second, talks could have helped strengthened the hands of Nawaz Sharif, who is besieged at home. India’s participation in the talks and even a little positive outcome post talks would have allowed Nawaz Sharif to redeem himself amongst its doubting constituents in Pakistan.
We all know how he was pilloried back in Pakistan when he came visiting to India during Modi’s swearing in ceremony and obliged Delhi by not meeting Kashmiri separatists. Sharif’s magnanimity has not been reciprocated by Delhi in equal measure. Allowing talks to continue and helping them to succeed albeit marginally would have shown Sharif’s adversaries and friends alike that his diplomacy has been requited by Indians. Infact if talks had happened who knows it would have helped presently besieged Sharif to later chart out a new course on the Kashmir issue.
For all the hawkish noise in the media and elsewhere, India had nothing at all to lose. There were no new conditions being imposed. No new terms were being dictated. Only the bilaterally accepted tradition was being followed. A strong government, like the one at the centre in India, should not have succumbed to irrationally belligerent media and other fringe voices of unreason and taken such a retrograde step. India may not have wanted a seat for the separatists on the negotiating table with Pakistan. But by conceding to the media’s and fringe elements’ noisy pitch on the issue, it has unwittingly allowed seats to them on this table. It is no longer a table for two now. Alas, once again, diplomacy as a tool to further cause of peace was sacrificed at the altar of misconceived national interests.
Follow our WhatsApp channel