Harsha Kakar
In an interview to the Dawn newspaper on 05 Jul, Imran Khan, amongst the front runners for the post of PM of Pak stated, ‘Nawaz Sharif tried his best to mend relations with India. Nawaz tried everything, even personal gestures including calling him (Modi) to his house, No one got in his way. But I think it is the policy of the Modi government to try and isolate Pak. They have a very aggressive anti-Pakistan posture.’ His comments convey the general perception of the people of Pak that it was Pak which took the first step.
India’s version has always been that it was PM Modi who undertook the journey on his own initiative, while returning from Afghanistan. The date selected, 25 Dec, also was the birthday of Nawaz and the day of marriage of his grand-daughter. He was severely criticized by the opposition for this move, as Pathankot attack followed soon after.
Similarly, it was Modi who took the initiative of inviting Nawaz for his swearing in. He commenced his governance hoping to break the ice with Pak and recommence talks. Thus, clearly there are opposite perceptions between the two countries.
Similar has been the issue with talks. India has been openly demanding Pak stop supporting anti-terror groups and bring the perpetrators of Mumbai to book prior to even considering commencement of talks. Pak on the other hand has been claiming that India is not desirous to talk on Kashmir, seeks to isolate Pak and is blaming it for its failures to control Kashmir. Pak desires talks while it continues to support terrorist groups operating in Kashmir, while India is clearly against it.
There are two opposite perceptions on supporting terror groups operating in each other’s countries. Pak is of the perception that it is India which is behind the funding and equipping of the TTP and the Baluch movement. It claims its proof is Kulbhushan Jadhav, who has confessed too this act. It is also accusing the peaceful PTM (Pashtun Tahafuz Movement) of receiving backing from India. At the same time, it denies the involvement of the deep state in supporting the insurgency in Kashmir. It has refused to persecute the perpetrators of Mumbai, claiming lack of proof.
India on the other hand has denied any involvement in supporting any terror groups operating in Pak, nor has anything to do with the Baluch militancy or the PTM movement. It claims that it has provided Pak with numerous dossiers containing irrefutable proof of its involvement in the Mumbai attacks. On the other hand, India has accused Pak with supporting militant groups operating in Kashmir. India has been consistently claiming that Kulbhushan Jadhav was kidnapped from Chabahar port where he was conducting legitimate business and he was not an Indian spy.
It was the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which in its monitoring noticed the lack of controls by Pak on curbing terror funding and decided to place Pak into its ‘Grey List’. There is no doubt that India voted against Pak and even promised to back China in its bid to become the Vice Chair of the organization if it drops support to Pak. Pak, on the other hand has been projecting that it was India’s push which forced the US to convince other nations and the organization to proceed to chastise Pak for its failures.
On Kashmir, the perception of the two sides is so different, that convergence is very unlikely. Pakistan considers the present unrest in the valley to be a cry for joining them, despite all cries of locals seeking ‘Azadi’. It has always harped on the implementation of the UN resolution. It has considered terrorists like Burhan Wani to be leaders of the movement and has even praised him in the UN. It has denied funding and infiltrating terrorists. Pak has always requested for international intervention in facilitating talks with India. For them, the integration of Kashmir is the sole reason for their survival. India has on the other hand always blamed Pakistan for the present condition in the valley. It has considered the Hurriyat to be an anti-national group created and funded by Pak, though has still indicated a desire for talks with it. India would never let the valley accede and has now begun demanding the inclusion of POK and Gilgit Baltistan. In India’s perception, the UN resolution has outlived its time and is no longer valid. India has, since the Shimla agreement stated that the issue remains bilateral and it will not accept any third-party mediation.
In international relations, for any two nations to move forward in dialogue to resolve pending issues and build consensus for talks, there must be somepoints of convergence. If between the two nations, there are almost no points of convergence the possibility of any progress in talks is remote. It is this atmosphere of doubt, divergence and distrust between the two nations which would ensure that relations remain cold and distant. Any government which claims that it would seek to mend relations and restore peace between the two countries is only talking out of their hat.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel