Don’t expect any progress in ties until Pakistan’s military sees something in it for itself, says Sumit Ganguly.
Another round of Indo-Pakistani talks has drawn to a close, and, once again, there’s little to shout about. India had suspended discussions in the aftermath of the horrific terrorist attacks on Mumbai in November 2008, and, given the secrecy that surrounded these latest talks, it’s far from clear what exactly was said as they resumed.
But what we do know doesn’t give much cause for optimism.
The public statements of Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, who led the country’s delegation, were neither cordial nor helpful. Among other things, he declared that the evidence that India had presented in the dossier against Hafiz Mohammed Sayeed, the head of the dreaded Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist group, was ‘literature not evidence.’ Such a remark will only strengthen existing opposition to the talks within India (where there is little support for them) and undermine the likelihood of further discussions, something already complicated by much wariness on the part of the Pakistani military.
For her part, Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao offered little of substance in her public comments, simply reiterating the government’s known stance in demanding Pakistan eschew all ties to terror. She also made clear that while Pakistan should be commended on the steps it has taken to bring the perpetrators of the November 2008 terrorist attacks to justice, her government hoped that much more was to follow–and soon.
Such pronouncements are all too familiar–India outlines its previously stated positions and Pakistan dismisses these concerns. Yet frustrating as the outcome is, it should hardly have been a surprise. The civilian regime of Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, which faces various legal challenges at home, exists at the sufferance of the Pakistani military establishment. Under these circumstances, it was simply unreasonable to expect that any real movement would take place.
Why then is India persisting with the talks? At least three explanations of varying probability can be proffered. First, India is under pressure from the United States to renew negotiations with Pakistan. This view, popular in New Delhi, is perhaps the least plausible. Given the chill that has entered Indo-US relations following a number of awkward clashes with the Obama administration, including over the clumsy US suggestion in Beijing that China might play a positive role in easing tensions in South Asia, it’s unlikely the government in New Delhi is in the mood to heed American exhortations.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Dev Kumar Dutta
The author says, Manmohan Singh “doesn’t have a long personal history of rancour with Pakistan”. So, is Singh dealing with Pakistan at a personal level or is he representing the nation while dealing with Pakistan?
I’d also like to correct the perception of the respondent, ihero, who says that most Muslims of undivided India didn’t support the creation of Pakistan. The truth is that almost the entire lot of Muslims barring those of what is today, NWFP in Pakistan, supported the creation of Pakistan. Those that remained in India would’ve gone away had it not been for the Nehru clique that persuaded them to stay back. I agree with the first respondent, Mr. Kushwaha that India-Pakistan talks would be useless for the next fifty years (at least) if there’s no paradigm shift in Pakistan’s national orientation.
Rajinder kushwaha
Sir,
Talks? The bottom lines are defined by both the countries—a large gap exists—there is no middle ground to meet. What purpose do ‘talks’ serve other than ‘fooling’ each other. Pakistan overloaded with the baggage of the ‘past’—–it keeps harping about the ‘unfinished agenda of 1947. India wants to talk keeping in mind the realities of of 2010. There is therefore a gulf of 63 years. How do you bridge it because there is no ‘pillar’ in between to span it.
In any case, sir, what would be the fate of any agreement/pact/treaty/understanding reached ? Have a look at the agreements/treaties of yesteryears and their fate.The outcome of present round of talks will also meet the same fate as other pacts and agreements before this. The treaties and pacts have no sanctity in Pakistan ,whether it was UN RESOLUTION of 13 AUGUST 1948; DELHI PACT of 1950; TASHKENT DECLARATION of JANUARY 1966 ; SHIMLA AGREEMENT of July 1972 or even LAHORE DECLARATION of FEBRUARY 1999.
In view of the above, I do not see that any thing would emerge out of these talks—-at least not for next 50 years—–as long as Pak military is the real fulcrum of political and national power in Pakistan. Now since USA has also knet before it to get her honorably out of Afghanistan by arranging a deal with ‘Good Taliban’, THE KIYANI DOCTRINE would be fully implemented. This doctrine envisages to USE USA AND CHINA TO ISOLATE INDIA AND THEN BREAK IT UP BY USING HER ‘STRATEGIC ASSET’IN A ‘LOW KEY- LOW COST’ SUB CONVENTIONAL WAR—called WOM (War by Other Means).
I therefore think, rather than TALKING , INDIA must concentrate on her ‘Strategic Interests’ in Afghanistan to deny Pakistan the usage of her strategic asset and such somewhat putting spokes in the KIYANI DOCTRINE. Visit me at http://rajee749.blogspot.com/2010/02/should-india-allow-herself-to-be.html to understand the stakes for India in afghanistan.
Regards.
Rajee Kushwaha
ihero
The problem between India and Pakistan is not because of Kashmir. When Pakistan was carved out of India in the name of a religion, Pakistan thought that all the Muslims in British India would support Pakistan. But that did not happen (unfortunately for India). As the time passed, India became prosperous, Pakistan began to falter. To make things worse, Bangladesh was formed from Pakistan in the name of culture. This was putting salt into the wounds of Pakistan. Later, Pakistan became more jealous of India as the India became more prosperous, since the 90s. Over these years this jealousy turned into hatred not only towards India but also to Jews and the West, particularly the US. Muslims in general think that all their problems are because of these three Nations.
In the 90s it also happened that, Muslims workers who went to Gulf countries brought the conservative version of Islam- Wahhabi Islam with them, and slowly masked the more tolerant Sufi Islam of the subcontinent. This is very much visible in the most prosperous Indian state – Kerala, where the Madrasas are popping up like mushrooms.
All this period, young Hindus struggled and became educated, went to West, earned more and more money. Whereas the Muslims built Madrasas and educated young Muslims in Quranic scriptures.
At the same time, Pakistan has only one agenda. How to destroy India and how to cut India. First it supported Sikh Militancy, later Kashmir militancy which is still gaining momentum, thanks to the narrow minded Muslims.
The “babies” (HuJI, LeT, JeI, JuM, etc) created by Pakistan have grown up and now they are threatening the entire world. I felt sad when Obama declared that he will pull out the US troops by 2011 in order to save his butt.
Some part of the world thinks, why doesn’t India give the Kashmir to Pakistan? Already Pakistan is formed in the name of religion (first name in the whole universe, later Bosnia) and another bifurcation of India in the name of religion will be disastrous. Moreover, the land’s real owner, Kashmiri Pundits have been displaced for the last 20 years.
Those who support Palestinian cause must support Kashmiri Pundits also.
Karter
Until the world realizes that the reason behind the current bloodshed and hatred in the world is “Islam” rather than some political issue, the West’s conflict with Islam and India’s problem with Pakistan cannot be solved. But I am sure mentioning the magic word “Islam” will result in the so-called moderates calling me an Islamophobe and a hater, and providing a cover up to their violent co-religionist who thrive amongst them
Washingtonian Puneite
I think this analysis is spot-on. I also think the analysis illustrates the sliver of wriggle-room that exists between the maximalist demands of both countries. India has been demanding that the talks focus almost exclusively on terrorism, whereas Pakistan has been demanding a composite dialogue. One possibility would be for both countries to set up regular (e.g., once a month) meetings on terrorism, bilateral trade (which is currently almost non-existent), Sir Creek and the Siachen glacier, with the promise of broadening the talks once both sides agree that substantive progress has been made on ANY ONE of these issues. Of course this should not preclude simultaneous “back-channel” negotiations on all other issues, including Kashmir.
Such an approach would seem to allow for at least the possibility of momentum, as well as trust, to build over time.