There has been much hue and cry over the Indo-Pak Joint Statement issued after Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s meeting with his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Gilani at Sharm al Sheikh in Egypt. The opposition came from across the political spectrum including the ruling Congress.
After a heated debate in Parliament, the prime minister did try to explain his and the government’s stand with his much publicised ‘trust but verify’ line, taking a leaf from former US President Ronald Reagan. But the controversy refuses to die down. The criticism has been mainly on two grounds- delinking bilateral talks from terror and the mention of Balochistan where a separatist movement has been raging for quite some time now. Islamabad accuses New Delhi of stoking the fire in Balochistan.
But critics of Sharm el Sheikh document are, perhaps, missing the fine print.
While it was important for New Delhi to suspend bilateral dialogue in the wake of the November, 2008 Mumbai attack to put pressure on Pakistan to act against perpetrators, but it shouldn’t be seen as the stand taken to continue in perpetuity.
For two nuclear neighbours who cannot go to war, the only option is to engage in dialogue and in senses more than one, Manmohan Singh’s step to resume talks doesn’t deserve the criticism it has invited from all over.
Also the mention of Balochistan by itself doesn’t necessarily give Islamabad a handle against New Delhi. If India has nothing to hide, the mention of the so-called ‘B’ word in the joint statement doesn’t mean much as it is being made out to be. In fact, it only reflects India’s openness in contrast to Pakistan’s doublespeak.
One shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that it’s Pakistan which wants to change the status quo with regard to various issues with India. Islamabad is at liberty to come up with radical formulations on various issues including Kashmir, which was particularly evident during Pervez Musharraf’s rule.
On the face of it, all this makes Pakistan’s diplomacy sound much more aggressive. But it’s a greater challenge for Indian foreign policy makers to stick, by and large, to the stated position while trying to make forward movement. India’s caution shouldn’t prevent it from making slight changes within the overall stated position to make incremental progress in bilateral talks.
The most important part is dialogue without which it’s difficult to make any progress. It becomes all the more important if the two nations are neighbours with bilateral ties permeated by an element of trust deficit.
Good diplomacy is all about dialogue management rather than avoiding it and Sharm-al Sheikh should be seen in that light.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Good piece, Sir. There is no denying the fact that dialogue is the only way forward for the two nuclear-tipped countries. But there is also no gainsaying in the fact that a plethora of such previous high level meetings between the two sides has ended in a whimper, primarily due to Pakistan’s perceived double-speaking on numerous occasions. All of which came to a head in 1999 when Prime Minister AB Vajpayee’s Lahore Bus Yatra was followed almost immediately by the Kargil incursion.
ReplyDeleteAround the same time PM Vajpayee had suggested the much trumpeted Track II diplomacy as the way forward in normalising relations between the two arch enemies wherein people-to-people contact through various cultural, academic and social exchanges should be allowed to prosper.
Now much as I may be derided for saying this but I firmly believe that no amount of such people to people contact can prove to be beneficial if the same gesture is not reciprocated by Pakistan.
Indian artistes, singers, businessmen have never been allowed to ply their trade in that country despite Pakistani nationals continuing to rake in the moolah on Indian soil. Adnan Sami has gained more popularity and paisa after shifting base to Mumbai and so have other such artistes. The Delhi-Lahore bus service as well as the Samjhauta Express has periodically been used by Pakistan as vehicles of unscrupulous business in the form of sending counterfeit notes, narcotics and worse still- human trafficking on Indian soil.
Good diplomacy may be all about dialogue management but even good diplomacy needs a nourishment of trust to keep the dialogue healthy. How much of the above issues can be resolved through pow-wow is a matter open to interpretation.
Sir
ReplyDeleteI am all for people-to-people interactions and opening of civil contact with Pakistan. But let's not forget the basic premise of Pakistan: an insecurity of India playing big brother. Now, this is not to say what has repeatedly been said, about Pakistan's creation being a flaw or it's very existence being dependent on India-bashing. What I mean is that it's all very easy to insist that people on either side of the border want peace and it's the politicians who create problems; it's also easy to feel that it's easy for Pakistan to keep changing its mind on India and dialogue but not so for India. However, the ground realities are, unfortunately, different. Indians may have moved on from Pakistan-bashing to revelling in their IT-empowered new-found status in the world, but the very mention of our western neighbour is enough to drop all veneer of being "I am too liberal to think of this". Even the most refined of people outside the media industry or politics cannot really think of Pakistan and peace together. It's the same across the line, and the common man even in places like Lahore and Islamabad -- forget about the interiors -- insists that India's "over-dominating" self and her unwillingness to consider Pak as an equal is a problem. I like Atif Aslam as much as a Lahori would love Mashuri Dixit; that doesnt make things any better.
As far as India being bound by "democratic values" or anything else to stick to its stand and still make movement is concerned, lets not forget that China has stuck to its notions of right n wrong but still moved ahead; even in the case of India, things have changed in Indo-US relations and those between India and the majority of western nations. The fact that India's IT power has played a major role in this is also to be considered. But there is no incentive for Pakistan to indulge in dialogue. Pak seeks positive and progressive dialogue with US 'coz it has its own interests. There is nothing for Pak in progressive dialogue with India.
Good diplomacy is all about dialogue management but a dialogue can move ahead only when both parties are willing to address the contentious issues and try to address each other's concerns. It hasto be a genuine effort but, more importnantly, it has to result in both parties coming out with a feeling of having gained at least as much, if not more, than what it gave. In an Indo-Pak dialogue at the moment -- and keeping the fallout of Sharm-al-Sheikh in mind in both countries -- that doesnt appear to be the case.