Premature celebrations

During her maiden visit to India as Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Ms Hina Rabbani Khar declared that “A new generation of Indians and Pakistanis will see a relationship that will hopefully be much different from the one that has been experienced in the last two decades.”

This is a bold claim which has so far evaded South Asia’s reach. Earlier generations too had witnessed such glimmers of hope. Let us see if our energetic new foreign minister, who acquitted herself admirably in media interactions, can prove the skeptics wrong.

In her press statement, Ms Khar also declared that henceforth the dialogue process would be “uninterruptible.” Previously the term used by Pakistani officials, in the context of India-Pakistan dialogues, used to be “irreversible”. When the process suffered several reverses, the word was eventually dropped. Apparently it has now been replaced by the equally high sounding “uninterruptible”

The foreign minister must share with the nation the factors which led her to this remarkable conclusion which in essence means that regardless of the turn of events in South Asia the peace process shall never be suspended. Realistically speaking, the word which truly captures the current state of India-Pakistan relations is “fragile”. It is difficult to question the appropriateness of this description unless serious progress in the bilateral relationship is registered, given the history and the unpredictability of this troubled region.

The contents of the joint statement belie the euphoria. Heralding the advent of a new era must be based on a concrete foundation which, in the present instance, is not visible. Two miniscule confidence building measures cannot be considered sufficient cause for the type of optimism on display. The first pertains to increasing the frequency of the cross LOC bus service and the second to raising the number of trading days from two to four.

Seen in the context of the major issues that continue to divide the two countries, these are small incremental steps which are useful within their limited context. To present them as indicators of a “mindset change” denotes diplomatic extravagance which, in the peculiar context of India-Pakistan relations, is best avoided. This is not to denigrate the importance of the dialogue but to urge some proportionality between the outcome and its projection.

The joint statement devotes a fair amount of space to terrorism and expressions of hope for the future. The hardcore issues have once again been shrugged aside revealing the superficiality of the ministerial interaction.

For example, the joint statement is emphatic on enhancing trade ties between the two countries, which is creditable. But how does the avowed spirit behind this commitment compare with India’s continued veto, in the WTO, of Pakistan’s quest for GSP plus concessions from the European Union which the latter supports and which Pakistan had earlier availed in 2002?

India stands to lose nothing from this arrangement which would bring some relief to our beleaguered economy by improving access for our products in the European markets. Regrettably, South Asia continues to operate on the “zero sum” principle, necessitating a measure of moderation in our declarations.

We should not be averse to addressing the issue of terrorism which is a common scourge. But when it is given disproportionate prominence in comparison with the longstanding issues, the joint statement acquires a lopsided character. It conveys the impression that the bilateral dialogue is drifting away from issues of core interest to Pakistan and in the direction of Indian preferences. Equality of treatment of all issues must be reflected in such communiqués.

Be that as it may, we must persevere with the process. The situation in which Pakistan finds itself today, an inflamed Western border and an angry superpower breathing down its neck, leaves no room for a tense relationship with India. In any case, self negation should not be South Asia’s destiny.

One would, however, enjoin caution against premature celebration. Projection of small advancements as a “game changer” creates an illusion of achievement which would pose serious hurdles when it comes to the settlement of real issues. In future dialogues India would expect the same “pragmatism” from us in the interest of preserving the supposed upward incline in the bilateral ties. Contrived success cannot be counted as wise diplomatic strategy as it is inimical to the spirit of patient diplomacy which is so necessary for normalising a relationship as sensitive and complex as between India and Pakistan.

Perhaps an allowance needs to be made for the fact that our new foreign minister has a Masters degree in Hospitality Management from a premier American university. Her exuberance could probably be traced to the reportedly unprecedented level of hospitality extended to the Pakistani delegation by their hosts. The Indians are far cleverer than we give them credit for.

The writer is Pakistan’s former Ambassador to the United Nations and European Union. He can be contacted at [email protected]