Over the past decades, relations between Pakistan and India have unfortunately been overshadowed by the hangover of history. They have been further accentuated by the whims of the hawkish elements on both sides of the divide who have been advocating hard-line positions against each other, notwithstanding the debilitating impact of this continued hostility on the socio-economic development on both sides.
This is why whenever an opportunity arises for initiating a dialogue for building an ambience of bonhomie between the two countries, a certain lobby within Pakistan gets activated to undermine the dialogue or to denigrate the government’s efforts by accusing it of having grovelled to the Indian wishes or of dancing to India’s tunes.
What these elements want is no contact with India and the continuation of hostilities between the two countries – no matter how harmful it is for both the countries as well as for peace and security in the region. This approach and thinking is terribly out of sync with the changing geo-political and geo-economic realities that demand change, and getting out of the shackles of the past baggage between the two countries.
History is witness to the fact that it was invariably through dialogue that disputes, wars and conflicts between nations were resolved and a new beginning made. Our unenviable history of relations does not mean closing the door of dialogue forever. Nations that fought against each other in the World Wars are now partners and have moved towards economic and political integration to the benefit of their people. The example of EU countries is before us.
In the wake of the Nawaz-Modi meeting, interaction between national security advisors of the two countries and visit of Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj to Pakistan to attend the Heart of Asia conference, a ray of hope and optimism has appeared on the horizon. But this particular lobby is trying to throw a spanner in the works. It is either misinterpreting the understanding reached between the two sides regarding the nature and scope of the dialogue or portraying it as an initiative that makes Pakistan a victim of diplomatic deceit by India.
That seems a preposterous proposition in view of the fact the agenda set in the meeting between the national security advisors clearly talked about comprehensive dialogue. According to the joint statement issued by the Pakistan foreign ministry, the discussions – held in a candid, cordial and constructive atmosphere – covered peace and security, terrorism, Jammu and Kashmir and other issues. It is pertinent to recall that the interaction between the security advisors that was scheduled to take place in Delhi in the wake of the Ufa declaration did not materialise due to Indian insistence that the declaration was only regarding talks on terrorism.
Pakistan stood by its position and did not buy the Indian argument. In the recent discussion between the NSAs the two sides agreed to the need for a comprehensive dialogue. The Indian foreign minister also talked about comprehensive dialogue. Contrary to the detractors of dialogue, this represents a climb-down by India and not Pakistan.
Even after the Ufa declaration, the same lobby accused the government of giving in to India and not having Kashmir mentioned in the declaration. No doubt the declaration mentioned a focus on terrorism but it also talked about the necessity and readiness of the two governments to initiate dialogue on all outstanding issues. When it said all outstanding issues it automatically implied the core issue of Kashmir.
The Indian position that the Kashmir dispute was about the Pakistani occupied territory and that the talks would focus more on terrorism – which critics have called diplomatic deceit by India – this point has never been accepted by Pakistan. And neither does the international community subscribes to this view. UN resolutions 91 and 122 are on this subject, and they negate the Indian stance on the Kashmir dispute.
Pakistan has also not shied away from exposing Indian involvement in acts of terrorism in Pakistan as is evident from the submission of dossiers to the UN and US leadership on the subject. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif very firmly and eloquently presented the Kashmir case in the UN General Assembly and also gave a four-point formula to end hostility between the two countries. There has never ever been a hint of grovelling to Indian wishes or playing to India’s tunes.
Dialogue is about reconciling the stat positions with the ground realities and finding a way forward. When Pakistan and India engage in a dialogue a whole range of issues is likely to come under discussion because they are all inter-connected with the core issue of Kashmir. Amity between the two countries is dependent on finding a plausible solution to the Kashmir conundrum; both the countries will ultimately have to recognise this reality.
Granted that the nature of relations between the two countries is very complex and we will need some time to untangle the knot but one positive step could set the tempo for achieving the desired goals. The very fact that the two countries have agreed to resume the dialogue in itself is a very positive development. And there is nothing wrong with being optimistic about it.
Pakistan rightly feels enthusiastic about the prospects of dialogue whenever they appear because it honestly believes that the only way to normalise relations and settle disputes between the two countries is by initiating dialogue. The international community also expects the two countries to resolve the issues between them through parleys on the negotiating table. Our disposition towards dialogue with India and our commitment to addressing disputes through peaceful means also reflect our respect for the opinion of the international community.
The Indian leadership seems to have recognised the fact that continued hostility between the two countries is inimical to the mutually shared vision of a peaceful and prosperous region as stated by the Indian foreign minister in the Indian parliament. That indeed provides a common ground for engaging in dialogue with each other. Even if no substantial headway is made during the current initiative, we must remain committed to our endeavours to settle disputes through dialogue.
The new narrative evolved and being vigorously pursued by the present government – on regional connectivity and living in peace with neighbours – was in consonance with the emerging geo-political realities. Therefore, pre-judging the outcome of a dialogue, creating doubts about its nature and scope and giving a skewed interpretation to the agreements between the two countries is intellectual dishonesty on the part of the anti-dialogue lobby.
The writer is a freelance contributor.
Email: ashpak10gmail.com