How Nawaz fared in India

Shouldn’t have said what he did, should have what he didn’t?

So much of politics is about symbolism, especially high profile events like the Nawaz-Modi meeting, when nothing intrinsic is expected to be achieved, yet the posturing and body language speak volumes about the scheme of things to come. And while there was broad agreement in political circles that the PM must go, with only the jamat and the like not in favour, his behaviour while there has led to some skepticism.

Some of his actions, especially taking the mike while the Indians talked through the foreign secretary, are being interpreted as showing weakness, besides betraying unpreparedness on the part of the foreign ministry.

“Nawaz Sharif could have avoided the press”, said Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi, veteran political analyst. “When the Indians chose the foreign secretary to interact with the press and our prime minister opted to do it himself, he exhibited more enthusiasm than the Indians, who showed restraint and also used some stiff language”.

Although Sharif took no questions and made a generalised speech stressing “cooperation not confrontation” as the way forward, the Indian foreign secretary told reporters that New Delhi’s concerns about terrorism, etc, had been clearly relayed to the Pakistani delegation. Yet the Pakistanis, it is reported, did not bring up contentious problems like Kashmir and water issues because “they were not on the agenda” (Sartaj Aziz).

“Political symbolism is very important” said Khurshid Kasuri, former foreign minister and an integral part of the Musharraf government’s outreach and later agitation with the Indians.

“It seems these things were not discussed before hand, which is very important. The PM’s should not have spoken in the first place, and then his softness was in marked contrast with the Indian foreign secretary’s very blunt interaction with the press”.

The Indians too, Kasuri says, should have been more circumspect, and instead of adopting a front-foot position while Sharif was still in New Delhi, it would have been wiser to leak select information to the press once he had left.

Although Sharif took no questions and made a generalised speech stressing “cooperation not confrontation” as the way forward, the Indian foreign secretary told reporters that New Delhi’s concerns about terrorism, etc, had been clearly relayed to the Pakistani delegation.

“Building political consensus is a long drawn process”, he added. “In our time in government, it took three years of back channel work and appeasing concerned stakeholders before we could make strides towards peace. And with the kind of political posturing the Indians have exhibited, such processes become harder to advance”.

Triangular balancing act

But talking to the Indians is never just as simple as talking to the Indians alone. Nawaz has a tough juggling act ahead of him. His constituency comprises two core groups, industrialists and religious right conservatives, especially the deobandi clergy and its adherents. And while the former are all for opening up to India, the latter groups is staunchly opposed. And there are concerns N might not have the hands to juggle the two.

“This is a very serious dilemma for Nawaz”, said Dr Rizvi. “Since both supporters and those who oppose this move comprise his own constituency, this may be the case of him posturing loudly but moving slowly”.

It doesn’t help that the prime minister is not exactly known for quick and assertive decision making in the most straight forward of matters. And his habit of delaying action, as in the Geo case, creates unnecessary space where other actors can jump in and play politics.

Then there is also the military to contend with. It is no secret that civ-mil differences have been increasing over Taliban talks and the Musharraf issue. And the army is not in favour of Nawaz’s apparent wish to open up to India too much too soon. The army chief invoked Kashmir during his recent Martyrs’ Day speech, and the PM’s team leaving it out altogether, even as the Indians repeated their terrorism concerns, could only have rubbed the brass the wrong way.

“This is a triangular balancing act for Nawaz and he will need to be a leader of determination to pull it off”, added Dr Rizvi. “There was considerable progress on Kashmir in the Musharraf days, but Pakistan’s internal problems ’07 onwards made India drift away. We have to be very careful in these matters”.

Signs of recalibrating

But Nawaz has shown signs of recalibrating priorities within his inner groups.

“The Delhi speech might not have been the smartest thing to do, but there are definitive signs in some of the prime ministers statements that he his reorienting his approach”, said Salman Zaidi, deputy director at Jinnah Institute, an Islamabad based think tank.

“The yom e takbir speech, for example, was very progressive, and sent a very important message, clearly implying a break from the past”.

Despite the setbacks, pro-talks lobbies in both countries seem to eye increasing trade as the way forward, instead of taking up the thorniest issues first, which has always led to breakdowns.

The speech was indeed a novelty. While N appreciated the nuclear achievement, he also pointed out, for the first time, that economic growth was more important than atomic power, and the people’s needs must take precedence.

Such progressive, pro-people rhetoric is also mirrored in Modi’s new outlook, Zaidi noted. “But Nawaz is walking a much tighter rope”, he added. “He is inhibited by too many players. Jamat ud Dawa, LeT, etc, operate with an open mandate and do not take cue from Islamabad, and they are not happy with the thaw with New Delhi. So Nawaz must placate all these forces”.

Mistaken on trade?

Despite the setbacks, pro-talks lobbies in both countries seem to eye increasing trade as the way forward, instead of taking up the thorniest issues first, which has always led to breakdowns. That is probably why the Pakistanis kept mum about Kashmir, water, India’s own cross border terrorism, etc. But that would be a tough sell to the military and religious lobby in the best of times, and it didn’t help that the Indians did not reciprocate, and adopted a deliberately provocative stance.

“Nawaz’s going may have been right, because if the enemy extends the hand of friendship it is obligatory to respond in kind”, said Gen (r) Hamid Gul, former ISI chief, head of the ex-servicemen society and part of the Difa e Pakistan council, an umbrella coalition of more than 40 political and religious groups advocating conservative policies.

“But when the other side has other designs, and begins charge sheeting you, then it is stupid to adopt such a soft position”.

Sartaj Aziz, according to Gen Gul, should not have said Kashmir was not on the agenda. Instead, considering Indian belligerence, the Pakistanis should have mentioned their core concerns and put the Indians on the defensive.

“He (Nawaz) lost a great opportunity”, he added. “By demanding focus on Kashmir, at least on the lines of his UN speech, he would have trapped Modi. But the way he is behaving, he is continuously shooting himself in the foot. He appears completely frozen”.

There is no way conservative circles will let trade advance at the cost of other, more pressing problems, added Gen Gul. For India, Pakistan is the intermediary route to billions of dollars worth of trade in Afghanistan and central Asia.

“Why should we facilitate this trade when India refuses to move forward on issues of our concern?”, he asked, reflecting conservative opinion not in sync with Nawaz’s trade aspirations across the eastern border.

********

Chronology of new beginnings

Despite long standoffs, cross-border exchanges, and periods of isolation, a meeting of Pak-India heads of states isn’t exactly breaking news, and going by precedent, neither are hopes attached to numerous ‘new beginnings’.

Now, as centre-right parties with heavy mandates establish themselves in both countries, both with core constituencies opposed to opening up and also business lobbies demanding more trade, a look at past interactions is instructive.

1. Liaquat Ali-Jawaharlal Nehru, Delhi, 1950

2. Zulfikar Bhutto-Indira Gandhi, Shimla, 1973

3. Gen Zia-Morajai Desai, Nirobi, 1978

4. Gen Zia-Indira Gandhi, New Delhi, 1982

5. Benazir Bhutto-Rajiv Gandhi, Islamabad, 1988

6. Nawaz Sharif-Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Lahore, 1999

7. Gen Musharraf-Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Agra, 2001

8. Gen Musharraf-Manmohan Singh, New Delhi, 2005

9. Yousaf Gilani-Manmohan Singh, Mohali, 2011

10. Nawaz Sharif-Narendra Modi, New Delhi, 2014