Track II diplomacy between India and Pakistan is virtually as old as the intractable disputes between the two estranged neighbors. Recently, leading journalists from both countries met at Bangkok for the eight round of Chaophraya (a major river which runs through the Thai capital) Dialogue.
The two-day parleys under the auspices of the Jinnah Institute and Australia India Institute covered a wide range of issues including Jammu and Kashmir, Afghanistan, terrorism and extremism, and trade and commerce. On the Pakistani side, the head of Jinnah institute, Ms Sherry Rehman, was the moving spirit in putting it all together.
The media in both countries is the freest in South Asia but perhaps not on the same page on most issues. This was manifest in the two-day discussions but with the caveat that there was an urge on both sides to improve bilateral relations by having a better understanding of each country’s positions on major disputes.
The need for newspapers and periodicals being freely available as well as electronic news channels being beamed without restrictions was unanimously felt. It was also recommended that journalists, academics and publishers from India and Pakistan be issued multi- entry long-term visas without restrictions.
In the past, such recommendations have been made ad nauseum by professional bodies and fora in both countries. But they have come to naught due to the myopic attitude of the security and intelligence apparatus of the two countries. Perhaps, India being a bigger neighbour should take the lead by easing visa restrictions unilaterally, forcing Pakistan to reciprocate.
India-Pakistan dialogue whether bilateral, back-channel or Track II cannot be complete without discussion on the mother of all disputes – the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir- that has soured relations between the two countries since independence. The Chaophraya Dialogue was no exception.
There was a consensus in the meeting that back-channel diplomacy as well as official talks should be vigorously pursued. Despite reservations and differences in perceptions on both sides about how to go about resolving the “core issue”, there was unanimous acknowledgement of the fact that, “Jammu and Kashmir remains the principal issue between India and Pakistan and renewed endeavours were required to address it”.
There was some discussion on the agreement reached between India and Pakistan through back-channel diplomacy. It was also acknowledged that during Musharraf’s rule, agreement on the Kashmir dispute had almost been clinched .It could not be implemented, however, after the regime in Pakistan lost public support as a result of the judicial crisis in 2007.
The Indian media persons acknowledged that cross-border incursions in the Kashmir valley have trickled down to a bare minimum. Despite this, there was reluctance on their part to demand withdrawal of Indian security forces from Jammu and Kashmir. Only one of the Indian participants was bold enough to concede widespread human rights violations in the valley perpetrated by the security forces.
No mention was made of the relevant UN resolutions on the dispute by either side. The wider consensus was to find a solution based upon removing existing roadblocks in crossing the LOC (Line of control), trade and travel and that media and civil society be encouraged “to enhance their coverage and discussion about human rights violations and cross-border terrorism.”
The wider consensus, reflecting the prevalent mood of the politicians and civil society on both sides of the divide, was to put the Jammu and Kashmir dispute on the back burner. The need to enhance economic cooperation and agreeing to take measures to reduce terrorism were reiterated.
Perhaps the participants underestimated the disruptive strength of the Bal Thackerays and Munawar Hasans in the media on both sides. Terrorism and extremism have soured relations between India and Pakistan, especially in the past decade or so. India, as a justification for its continued oppression in the Valley, has perennially used what it terms cross-border terrorism as a pretext for gross human rights violations.
It has blamed Pakistani-sponsored terrorists for the Kandahar hijacking in 1999, the attack on the Indian Parliament and more recently the Mumbai attacks. Islamabad in turn puts the blame on the Indian intelligence agency RAW and its cohorts for fomenting trouble in Balochistan and operating a wide terrorism network from the various Indian Consulates opened in recent years close to the Pak border in Afghanistan.
The meeting recommended that both India and Pakistan should expedite the process of normalisation to reduce incentives for policies that have created non-state groups that threaten peace. Thankfully, there has been a visible thaw between New Delhi and Islamabad in recent months and both sides have been reluctant to engage in a blame game.
Pakistan, infested by terrorist groups who are least interested in normal relations with India, is precariously placed on this count. Another outrageous incident like Mumbai can derail the ongoing peace process. Export of terrorism from Pakistani soil is a fear shared by all our neighbours, including China. Hence the urgent need to dismantle these demolition squads using our soil for their own nefarious agendas.
Interestingly, the issue of a peaceful and stable Afghanistan generated the most heated debate in the dialogue and its working groups. The Indians have invested more than two billon dollars in Afghanistan in recent years. They see the region as their legitimate sphere of influence and a conduit to Central Asia. The fact that good relations with Islamabad are a sine qua non for such unfettered access is sometimes overlooked by New Delhi.
Pakistan, on the other hand, sees the recent security deal signed by President Hamid Karzai in Delhi as contrary to its interests. The participants agreed that Afghanistan should not become an arena of conflict for India and Pakistan. They recommended a bilateral consultative framework to address such issues. In the backdrop of increasing rivalry between the two countries, it is easier said than done.
A liberal trade regime could be the biggest CBM in improving relations between the two neighbours. The Chaophraya dialogue recognised this urgent need. Pakistan recently granting the MFN (most favoured nation) to India is a hopeful sign. Notwithstanding the agenda of the vested interests, increased trade and enhanced economic ties can be a win-win situation for businessmen in both the countries.
There are apprehensions among sections of the business community in Pakistan that India will flood the Pakistani market with their goods by dumping them here. Our government should address such concerns by engaging the traders and convincing them that mutual trade is in their long-term interest.
By and large, the Chaophraya Dialogue was a good opportunity and a useful forum to bring the media persons of both the countries together to understand the genesis of the problems plaguing relations between the two neighbours for so long.
The writer is Editor, Pakistan Today