The illusion of dialogue

The curious phenomenon of cancelled meetings between Pakistan and India continues, with the PTI government being the latest to be reminded that dialogue with India is practically a no-go area.

The last time a serious dialogue actually took place was in the second half of Musharraf’s rule with the help of America’s influence with India and an aging premier Vajpayee’s wish to leave a legacy of reconciliation with Pakistan.

The Congress government, led by Manmohan Singh, persevered with the composite dialogue, but came under immense pressure from the BJP-led opposition against any deal with Pakistan. Backchannel talks on Kashmir withered away with Musharraf’s weakening grip on power. The PPP and PML-N governments that followed were unable to resume dialogue as their Indian counterparts took the plea that there could be no dialogue in the presence of terror.

New Delhi’s maintained its tough stance despite the inclusion of terrorism as one of the themes to be covered in the composite dialogue. Its position that terrorism against India should be eliminated before talks are resumed has practically doomed the process. This happened even though there were more frequent terrorist killings in Pakistan reportedly caused by groups secretly backed by RAW and the NDS.

One may be puzzled as to why successive governments in Pakistan have ardently tried to hold a dialogue with India while the latter climbs on a high horse, pretending that talks with Pakistan are a favour that can only be granted if terrorism is ceased. It may be that our governments wanted to demonstrate their good faith to India – and, particularly, to the important foreign powers which counsel both countries – to resolve differences through peaceful means.

There were rare occasions when Pakistan stated that it is happy to engage in talk, but not beg for a dialogue with India. In this background, what propelled Prime Minister Imran Khan to promise two steps forward if India took one step toward Pakistan? Why did he ask for the resumption of dialogue when it is clear that a dialogue has scant chances of succeeding? India obliged by accepting the request for a meeting between the two foreign ministers, but took the position that the meeting on the sidelines of the UNGA did not represent a resumption of dialogue between both countries.

By the next day, everything changed, with India calling off the meeting in New York and attributing evil designs to Khan and the latter retaliating by alluding to Modi as a “small man”. While it is hazardous to predict the future, Islamabad may still favour a dialogue and India will most likely come up with terrorism charges and other ruses to avoid this – despite Modi’s pledge of a “constructive engagement” with Pakistan.

Pakistan’s policymakers, including the military command, need to give serious thought to whether there is anything in store for us in a dialogue with India. Given the latter’s position on various issues, particularly terrorism, there is the risk that the talks will result in a stalemate or complete failure. In diplomacy, a setback caused by dialogue is worse than not holding a meeting. Bide your time and see if the bigger party shows interest in talks.

Currently, the situation was worsened by Indian Army Chief General Bipin Rawat’s chastisement of the Pakistan Army and his avowed wish to inflict “pain” as a form of revenge. That was followed by a riposte from our side with a reminder of the country’s nuclear capability. If India insists on terming Pakistan its enemy, then let’s have the courage to accept that status. Blowing hot and cold is not going to result in anything other than high drama in TV talk shows on both sides.

A study should also be carried out on the factors leading to India accepting talks with Pakistan and then cancelling them. A possible explanation is the usual allegations of terror attacks. However, the role of the Indian intelligence in thwarting dialogue by bringing up fresh excuses like the brutal killing of Indian soldiers or the issuance of stamps to pay tribute to Kashmiri martyrs cannot be ruled out.

The fact that India refused to treat the Qureshi-Swaraj meeting as a resumption of dialogue, before cancelling it, also indicates that the BJP-RSS won’t show any sign of rapprochement toward Pakistan before the 2019 general elections in India. The BJP diehards, on the contrary, take pride in dealing sternly with Pakistan, Kashmiri Muslims, and the Muslim minority in India.

The Modi camp believes that their anti-Pakistan and anti-Muslim stance will pay off in the elections, and the run-up to the polls is not the time to modulate this stance. By dividing Indian society into Hindus and non-Hindus, the BJP has effectively divided the country and would like to cash in on these divisions to guarantee its Hindu vote and retain power for another term.

While the BJP fans divisions in the name of Hindutva, the Congress Party has launched a campaign about Modi’s corruption in the multibillion dollar deal to buy French combat aircrafts. It also aims to mobilise the minority vote to punish the government for its discriminatory tendencies and attacks on the secular system.

Pakistan should mobilise international support against India’s support for terror networks attacking Pakistan. It is ironic that while Pakistan continues to suffer more deaths at the hands of terrorists, India plays the cry baby over an insignificant toll in Indian Occupied Kashmir that is a result of its killing of young Kashmiris.

It is far more important to expose India’s repression in Kashmir and its support for terror groups in Pakistan than seek a dialogue without any signs of success.

Email: saeed.saeedk@gmail.com