close
Friday March 29, 2024

Indo-Pak talks: Absence of same page mantra

By Wajid Shamsul Hasan
January 13, 2016

Following the Pathankot incident, Indian media cast a shadow of doubt about the scheduled meeting fixed for January 15 for talks between the foreign secretaries of Pakistan and India to carry forward the agenda of Composite Dialogue as a consequence of out of the box diplomacy of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Dovel, however, has not subscribed to media conjectures of meeting being put on hold.

Prime Minister Modi and Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj along with others strongly condemned the perpetrators of Pathankot incident but none of them rushed to denounce Pakistan as has been the past practice. Rather, one Minister publicly commented that why would Pakistan be involved in terrorism when it itself is worst victim.

However, Indian authorities, on the basis of evidence collected by them, suspect the involvement of Pakistan based proscribed Jihadi outfit – Jesh-e-Mohammad.

In the same spirit Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has not only condemned the dastardly act but offered to co-operate with India to help it to track down the terrorists and their master planners—if they are in Pakistan. On being provided leads Pakistani authorities too have acted promptly, complied with their report to Delhi asking for more actionable evidence to pursue investigations at their end.

Notwithstanding some intriguing machinations by those who are opposed to normalisation of relations—the earnestness shown by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to agree to probe has nipped in the bud attempts to vitiate the atmosphere of cordiality.

The two Prime Ministers have reiterated their commitment to co-operate and counter with determination the common threat of terrorism. No doubt Pakistan has to do more in a reasonable time frame. What would be the out come of probes within India about the security and intelligence lapses and the possibility of any local involvement for felicitating the attackers is also to be seen.

While hoping for the best it is too early to forecast how the things will shape up, the Pathankot incident should be taken as a warning to both Pakistan and India. It is time they put their acts together otherwise the non-state actors shall continue to dictate the agenda with disastrous implications.  The sole objective of non-state actors is to sabotage the chances and success of dialogue between the two countries.

Both shall have to make a conscious decision not to indulge in blame game for domestic purposes or undermining each other as villain of the piece in foreign capitals. For creating conducive atmosphere for peaceful co-existence point scoring as a policy tool shall have to be abandoned. Commonality of interest to defeat the forces of obscurantism with cool headed approach for evolving a permanent mechanism for uninterrupted dialogue is the need of the hour.

Retrospectively, the fundaments for lasting amity between the two neighbours never got off the ground due to reasons rooted in the past as well failure on both sides to bury deep seated legacy of distrust.

Acrimonious relationship punctuated with spurts of flirtation for friendship did never give chance to develop trust as the vehicle to move forward.

Despite 1971 both Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Indira Gandhi managed to provide peace a long breathing space to this date. What motivated them at Simla—not the position of victor or vanquished-but the realisation that the two countries could not remain hostage to their past permanently. It was nothing but trust that they had found in each other to pursue common agenda for peace.

Not that our military rulers did not try to have cordiality of relations or that India did not respond to them, our civilian leadership no doubt has been more proactive. Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and Premier Rajiv Gandhi did manage to reach an understanding on demilitarisation of Siachen in 1989. It could not be implemented because of the machinations of the vested interest that saw in it as a giant step forward towards resolution of all outstanding disputes.

In 1999 too it was the triumph of civilian leadership that Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee took a bus journey to Lahore at the invitation of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to sign Lahore Declaration for resolution of issues that have kept the two nations at loggerhead. It was too good to be true. Before it could bear fruitful result, General Pervez Musharraf’s Kargil adventure subverted it paving way for his coup to depose an elected prime minister.

By 2001 Indian accusations against Pakistan for sponsoring cross-border terrorism posing a serious threat to peace had become a cause for profound concern internationally as conflict between the two countries had the portents of a nuclear war. This worry was reflected in an appeal in early March 2001 by the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to both to retain the spirit of the Lahore Declaration, show restraint and wisdom to take constructive steps for defusing the aura of hostility.

General Musharraf considered pariah by international community for his coup just caved in to the external pressures and started negotiations with India in July 2001. According to his Foreign Minister Mian Khursheed Kasuri, the Musharraf-Vajpayee summit at Agra had resolved 90 percent of the issues. Perhaps Musharraf’s offer to bypass the United Nations resolution for the right of self-determination for the Kashmiri people in exchange of his four-point formula— was something that only a dictator could get away with. However, it is another thing that despite this mother of all offers, distrust between India and Pakistan ended Agra as much ado about nothing.

While welcoming the resumption of talks between the two countries former National Security Adviser Major General ® Mahmud Durrani had a reference to an interesting caveat.  He has reminded the difference between Pakistan and India and the role of stake holders. According to him in India the democratic establishment has the weight to veto any stake holder while in Pakistan it is the other way round.

In recent article veteran diplomat Ashraf Jehangir Qazi has put this more succinctly: “After the judicial assassination of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Pakistan lost control over crucial aspects of its foreign policy to violent non-state actors. The bill for this incredible irresponsibility is still being paid.”

Pathankot takes place after Lahore yatra. In conclusion, the absence of the often orchestrated “on the same page mantra” in the context of Modi-Nawaz Jati Umra meeting “does not necessarily mean the military appreciates the prime minister’s attempts to wrest exclusive control over Pakistan’s India policy.”  

Writer is the former High Commissioner of Pakistan to UK