Harsha Kakar
Since Ufa, there has been hope that talks between the two nations would commence and progress. The setback to the NSA level talks commenced with the questioning of the Ufa statement itself in Pakistan. Farooq Abdullah recently courted controversy on his comments on the settlement of the border issue between India and Pakistan. While his approach did have logic, it was not yet the official line between the governments. Mehbooba Mufti was right when she stated that talking is the only way out for India and Pakistan. The short meeting in Paris between the two leaders did indicate a possible thaw in the relationship and thought process. This was a reverse of New York, where both stayed in the same hotel but never met.
However, Bangkok was a surprise and in many ways a pleasant one. Between New York and Paris, back channel diplomacy was hard at work, attempting to break the deadlock. Logically, between two nuclear powers, both battling militancy (one state sponsored, the other home grown), the only way forward to resolve issues is through talks. International pressure plays its role by preventing misadventures and resultant retaliation, as also in curtailing terrorism, the bane between the two. Summarizing, back channel diplomacy, accompanied by US prodding, finally produced forward movement.
Bangkok opened the doors for SushmaSwaraj to proceed to Islamabad for the Heart of Asia summit and for added measure have an interaction with her counterpart, Sartaj Aziz. Though she also met the Prime Minister, it would have been ideal had she planned on the Pakistani army chief meeting her, during her stay in Islamabad. After all, he is the one who calls the shots in Indo – Pak relations; militancy and Kashmir, thus a meeting with him could only bring forth better response or would clear the mind, if Pakistan truly means business. This action may be considered anti- democratic for India, but is a logical approach.
The dialogue now re-termed as, ‘Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue,’ would cover the entire gamut of earlier issues with fishermen and religious tourism added. Thus it is old wine in a new bottle, with newconnoisseurs; however discussions can always bring forth surprise results. The major stumbling block for talks is decades of hatred, mistrust and suspicion which would need to be discarded if forward movement is expected.
There have been numerous articles indicating possible reasons why Pakistan accepted to talk. The issue is not who accepted or why, but what could be the possible outcomes and the manner this would benefit the state. Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeedwas correct, when he mentioned in Anantnag on 9 Dec, that the main beneficiaries of the dialogue would be the people of J and K. Animosity, militancy and firing across the LoC and IB, has caused untold hardships and financial loss to the people of the state. It has even lured some misguided youth to join the ranks of militancy, thinking they were supporting a just cause. Thus the talks would only bring forth much needed relief and ultimately lead to development, reducing unemployment and thus support to an already diminishing militancy.
The present set of meetings is only the tip of the iceberg. The agenda and the sequence have yet to be decided and established, which would be done in January. This would then indicate the methodology of progress. However, the first step should be implementation of the ceasefire agreement of 2003. Peace and tranquillityalong the border is a sign of re-establishment of trust. This alone could change the lives of those residing in villages along the LOC and the IB. The next step, prior to serious talks commencing, would be the reigning in of the LET and the JuD, the two organizations responsible forexecuting the army designed and ISI planned terrorist activities in India.
These two actions would only be possible with the direct intervention of the Pakistan army. The Pakistan NSA, being a recently retired general, is the choice of the army chief, thereby would be reporting to him first, rather than the Prime Minister. Thus, action on ground is possible and the correct environment could be created. While monitoring the ceasefire is easily possible, the reduction in sponsoring of terrorism could be obtained from the status of the camps located across the LOC. Their closure or lack of activity within could be possible indicators.
The range of issues for talks are immense, some easier to resolve, while others would take time. Both negotiators would need to regularly consult their leaders, as the dialogue progresses. Ideally in such cases, those issues which can easilybe resolved should be tackled first, thus bringing forth a semblance of trust and a desire for peace. Unlike the last occasion, when talks were called off with threats of dossiers of involvement being shared, throwing the tactical nuclear card and a blame game for calling of the dialogue,this time, there appears to be a change with openness, frankness and a desire to move forward, rather than looking in the rear mirror.
There are numerous reasons why I do feel, that the moment is correct for talks to achieve progress. Firstly, the two leaders seem to strongly support a move forward, as both nations need to develop economically and bring succour to their populace. Next, the new NSA in Pakistan is an appointee of the army chief, and hence, would have the support of the military, which would be able to rein in the ISI and terrorist groups, as well as ensure a ceasefire along the LoC. The third reason is that with the SAARC summit looming close, Pakistan is keen that India participates at the appropriate level, which would not have happened had relationships not been normal. The next is that Pakistan faces a strong insurgency on its western borders, which threatens the fabric of the nation. Peace on one front, reducing chances of retaliation in case of a rogue terrorist strike, would enable them to deal effectively with their internal problems.
Finally Pakistan is in an economic mess, living on the largesse of the US and China. The threat of reduction of US financial support, unless it acts against terrorist groups and moves forward with India, would lead to further financial woes. It also needs to drastically reduce defence expenditure and enhance social schemes and infrastructure development. With peace, it could do so, as well as encourage FDI to stimulate growth. Growth would reduce unemployment and discourage the young from joining militancy. National security and national development are always linked and go together.
Thus there are hopeful indicators for talks to progress creatinga peaceful atmosphere, which would mainly benefit the people of this State, and the nation subsequently. Therefore I hope that the talks move forward and usher in an era of peace. If the two countries do manage this, it would be an historic moment and future generations would stand to gain. However, it could be a long drawn process for which I am optimistic.
(The author is a retired Major General of the Indian Army)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel