Icebreaker of sorts
Predictably, no spectacular breakthrough was expected at the Sharif-Modi meeting on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit. But the very fact that the prime ministers of the two belligerent South Asian neighbours met is progress of sorts.
Pakistani spokesmen are at pains to emphasise that the summit took place on the specific request of Bharat. What difference does it make? Pakistani and Indian leaders routinely meet on the sidelines of such moots, albeit with mixed results. But as Winston Churchill famously said: to jaw-jaw is always better than war-war.
The meeting took place in a very tense backdrop. Relations between the two South Asian nuclear powers have been on the skids since May last year, when Narendra Modi assumed power after winning elections on an anti-Pakistan platform.
Nawaz Sharif attended Modi’s oath taking with very high hopes. He had perhaps naively assumed that this was his Atal Bihari Vajpayee moment. The octogenarian former Indian prime minister was the architect of the defunct Lahore process that was nipped in the bud by Pakistan’s hawkish military chief at the time — General Pervez Musharraf.
The general was so unhappy with the bonhomie between Sharif and Vajpayee that in February 1999, he refused to shake hands with the Indian prime minister in Lahore. The deep state also orchestrated demonstrations against foreign guests attending a banquet given by Sharif in honour of his Indian counterpart.
It only later transpired why Musharraf was so unhappy with Sharif reaching out to New Delhi. The general as army chief had already started executing the disastrous Kargil misadventure. In the end analysis, Kargil cost Sharif his premiership.
Relations between the two South Asian nuclear powers have been on the skids since May last year, when Narendra Modi assumed power after winning elections on an anti-Pakistan platform
Unlike the meeting in Ufa, Sharif’s Delhi yatra was an unmitigated disaster. Doing away with diplomatic niceties Modi badly snubbed him. Sharif on the occasion failed to raise the Kashmir issue or to articulate Pakistan’s traditional stance on other bilateral matters. He even declined to meet the Hurriyat leadership lest it annoyed his Indian hosts.
This was not taken very kindly back home, especially by the military leadership that took umbrage at this one sided demonstration of geniality. According to some analysts soured civilian-military relations last year can be traced back to Sharif’s disastrous bid to mend fences with the Indians.
Since then Sharif’s relations with his army chief have considerably improved, and by all accounts both khaki and mufti Sharif are on the same page. Indian intentions towards Pakistan have also become amply clear since then.
Modi and his hawkish cabinet members have walked the talk on Pakistan. The Indian prime minster on his recent visit to Bangladesh, gloating over the fall of Dacca in 1971, was not taken very kindly by Islamabad.
The situation had become so tenuous that Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif recently created a mini storm by reiterating that Pakistan was willing to use nuclear weapons to ensure its survival. This is not taken as an empty threat as Islamabad in response to New Delhi’s cold start doctrine has successfully developed tactical nuclear weapons. Unlike India and China that maintain no first use doctrines, Pakistan has always reiterated that it would resort to nuclear weapons to blunt a conventional attack from India.
In this backdrop it is no coincidence that the recent Modi-Nawaz summit took place after back channel prodding by the Russian hosts and with a little help from Beijing.
A somewhat chastened Nawaz Sharif raised all the outstanding issues with his Indian counterpart, including Kashmir and Pakistan’s concerns about alleged RAW interference in its internal affairs. Obviously Modi did some plain talking as well, including India’s concerns regarding Pakistani courts releasing the alleged perpetrator of Mumbai attacks in 2008, Zia ur Rehman Lakhvi.
There are a number of issues mostly in the domain of economic and trade liberalisation and visa regimes that need to be implemented. These CBMs (confidence building measures) are pending owing to lack of political will on both sides of the divide.
If on the Indian side the hardliner Hindutva-driven government is an impediment to cordial ties with Pakistan, there are very strong lobbies within Pakistan who do not want good relations with India.
Unfortunately, the hawks on both sides have strengthened each other’s case by their belligerent rhetoric and deep influence over policy. The Modi government, despite clamouring for a permanent seat at the UN Security Council, is simply unwilling to outgrow its Pakistan-centric rhetoric matched by shenanigans of its intelligence apparatus.
Nawaz Sharif as a businessman is well aware of the fact that better relations with India are a sine qua non for economic growth. Despite tall claims to the contrary, Pakistani economy is still in the doldrums. The IMF, by revising Pakistan’s economic growth down to 2.6 percent for 2015 and growth estimates for 2016 remaining at 3.8 percent, threw cold water on those boasting that Pakistan has turned the corner.
Unfortunately, in the past incremental economic and trade CBMs have not worked owing to growing political tensions
The Institute of Policy Reforms, a think tank headed by former Commerce Minister Humayun Akhtar Khan, in a recent seminar on trade with India has advised that incremental and cautious approach towards trade with India is beneficial for Pakistan.
The IPR warns that Pakistan’s present trade policy with declining exports as its bedrock will only result in loss of prosperity. Islamabad would risk further growth loss if it was left out from recent moves towards South Asian integration.
Unfortunately, in the past incremental economic and trade CBMs have not worked owing to growing political tensions. Terrorism is the scourge of the subcontinent. Pakistan, especially, has suffered immensely at the hands of terrorists of all hues and colours. And who knows better than Islamabad that using terrorism as an instrument of state policy is simply counter-productive.
Unless understanding is reached on these existential issues not only lasting peace but strong economic ties will remain elusive. Modi will visit Pakistan in 2016 to attend the SAARC summit. Both sides have agreed to discuss all issues connected to terrorism. They also decided to expedite 26/11 Mumbai attack trial.
However, the mother of all disputes between India and Pakistan remains the outstanding issue of Kashmir. Of course Sharif raised the issue with Modi. But unless New Delhi has a change of heart (virtually impossible under any Indian regime but more so on BJP’s watch) peace will remain elusive.
On a global level India is too closely aligned to the US as a bulwark to China’s rising military and economic power. Washington wants to extract its pound of flesh for supporting India’s case for permanent seat of the UNSC.
Pakistan, on the other hand, is firmly in the Chinese camp. Both the US and India do not hide their disdain of Islamabad’s close alignment with Beijing.
However, thankfully the Chinese leaders counsel Pakistan to emulate them by improving trade and economic ties with India, notwithstanding the Kashmir dispute. They want an economically strong and viable Pakistan for lasting peace in the region. Since the only option to peace is Armageddon.
