How diplomacy is tested
At the meeting of Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi on the sidelines of Shanghai Cooperation Summit (SCO) meeting in Russia, Nawaz looked on the back foot. At the end of the meeting they agreed to a five-point joint declaration which could be judged as better diplomacy by Indians.
The Declaration
The main points are: a meeting in New Delhi between the two National Security Advisers (NSA) to discuss all issues linked to terrorism; early meetings of the Directors General of the Border Security Force and the Pakistan Rangers followed by that of the Directors General Military Operations (DGMO); the decision to release fishermen in each other’s custody, along with their boats, within a period of 15 days; a mechanism for facilitating religious tourism; and both sides agreeing to discuss ways and means to expedite the Mumbai case trial, including additional information like providing voice samples.
Acclaimed political analyst Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi said that Nawaz Sharif stepped back and agreed to the text of joint declaration, which in weighed in favour of India because Nawaz appeared too keen have dialogue with India. The meeting could be stated as the start of engagement between the two countries rather than the start of a dialogue. There is no commitment to start dialogue, it is simply an engagement to reduce tension in the region.
However, political analyst Anjum Rasheed thinks otherwise. “Nawaz Sharif was quite confident and he showed good diplomacy skills during the dialogue as he had managed to convince his Indian counterpart to visit Pakistan and attend the SAARC Summit in 2016 (to be held in Islamabad). Modi had not agreed previously to attend it,” he said, adding that it is a huge achievement because the SAARC summit is more important for Pakistan than India as it already enjoys better ties and trade with SAARC countries.”
Answering the question about why Kashmir was not discussed during the meeting, he said it would be discussed in the National Security Advisors’ meeting to be held in New Delhi. The informal meeting in Dhaka was just a dialogue to ease ongoing tension between the two countries.
Agreeing with Rasheed, Professor Sajjad Naseer said that the meeting was arranged by India due to international pressure of United Kingdom and United States and the joint communiqué issued at the end of informal meeting was against the existing practices of foreign policy. It showed the weakness of Pakistan’s foreign ministry. Why did it agree to the joint communiqué which was prepared by India without the input of Pakistan?
He added that the meeting was only arranged because Pakistan warned that it would take up the issue of India’s involvement in Balochistan’s insurgency, funding by RAW to carry out terrorist activities in Pakistan, and the Line of Control violation for over six months in which many innocent people lost their lives, to the United Nations. Pakistan was also uneasy about hurdles India is creating for the Silk Route and China Pakistan Economic Corridor. Therefore this meeting was arranged because of pressure from the United Kingdom, which has a huge financial stake in India.
Pakistan failed to discuss the violations of Line of Control, India’s involvement in Balochistan and other issues due to lack of proper foreign policy and guiding principles to run the foreign affairs of the country
Pakistan failed to discuss the violations of Line of Control, India’s involvement in Balochistan and other issues due to lack of proper foreign policy and guiding principles to run the foreign affairs of the country.
Agreeing to Professor Naseer, political analyst Salman Abid said that during the meeting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was definitely on the back foot and was under a lot of physiological pressure that India is a stronger and more influential country than Pakistan, due to which he failed to discuss important issues such as Kashmir and the LoC.
However, political economist Mobeen Chughtai was of the opinion that it is incorrect for any individual, whether prime minister or otherwise, to conduct any business with a country that is classified as problematic if that individual does not have complete control over foreign policy. Any such venture would always be an exercise in disaster.
“I don’t blame Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for not adequately representing Pakistan’s concerns to Modi. I do, however, blame this fundamental disconnect between the government and actual foreign policy makers. I think it is unfortunate that the much lauded “one page” that “all parties” are supposedly on is mere eyewash,” said Chughtai, adding that in order to present a strong case abroad, we must first reach representative consensus at home. Without this — this and all future Pakistan-India meetings — will be just as fruitless, disappointing and pointless.’
International Relations scholar Alina Younis told DNA that ever since Modi assumed office, Pakistan has witnessed a cold shoulder and almost non-existent level of cooperation from the Indians. However, with time the Indian government has realised that with this kind of intransigent attitude it won’t be able to attain its dream “South-Asian King” title.
Therefore, PM Modi was seen welcoming PM Sharif quiet warmly at the Shenghai Cooperation Summit despite his recent provocative statements at the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh. The meeting signified Indian concerns over major issues like the Mumbai attack investigation and Pak-China Economic Corridor. But unfortunately PM Nawaz seems to have resisted the mentioning of Kahsmir issue that has raised serious questions about the priorities of hi government, said Younis.
Is Track II diplomacy effective?
Adviser to Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs and National Security Sartaj Aziz claimed that the Track II dialogue he had mentioned was actually a plan for back-channel engagement.
Aziz had at a press conference said that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi had agreed to revive the Track-II dialogue on longstanding issues bedeviling ties between the two countries, including the Kashmir dispute.
Back-channel diplomacy is about contending parties secretly negotiating their conflicts, mostly in tandem with the front channel, whereas Track-II is a non-official and people-to-people effort for peace-making.
Commenting on track II diplomacy for improving the ties with India, Professor Naseer said that the Track II backdoor diplomacy is in practice since 1992 between the two countries, which is futile because it is an informal meeting where the technocrats, journalists, retired army officials and other experts discuss the issues but such meeting hardly produce results.
Are military and pml-n’s government on the same page?
“The army and government are not on the same page in terms of ties with India because during the 2013 election campaign Nawaz stated that he is interested in starting trade with India. However, he was forced to go on the back foot by the establishment as they do not want to have trade with India,” said Rasheed.
Professor Naseer thinks otherwise, he added that the military has nothing to do with it. The present PML-N government is not competent enough and it is clueless regarding how to move forward for better ties with India.
The present government’s relationship with the military is emergency based as it involves the armed forces in every matter which they fails to solve due to incompetence.
“Military and the present government are not on the same page and the foreign policy is under the control of the military. We must not rule out that. “The problem is that the Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, his advisors Tariq Fateemi and Sartaj Aziz, think in three different paradigms and they themselves are not on the same page either it terms of relationship with India,” said Abid.
Mumbai attacks
Rasheed said that the Mumbai incident was mentioned at the meeting because Pakistan has already been asking for proof of Lakhvi’s involvement in the.
“The situation on Line of Control is not in favour of Pakistan because its army is already engaged within the country. India wants to keep the LoC issue burning to weaken Pakistan,” said Rasheed adding that India had prepared a strong case against Pakistan for not banning Lakhvi, Hafiz Saeed and Syed Salahuddin and sanctions on Pakistan were afoot but China vetoed the resolution and saved Pakistan, prompting, however, Indian protest over the veto.
Kashmir issue
Muhsen Ali, a journalist and commentator from Kashmir, told DNA that as a Kashmiri, he believes that Pakistani and Indian leadership must shake hands and meet each other and discuss what they want, but they should not initiate formal talks on Jammu Kashmir without the inclusion of true Kashmiri leadership.
Whenever Pakistani and Indian leaders have formal or informal meetings, they always issue ‘mutually agreed’ statements that state Kashmir issue as discussed (during the meeting) just to show that they are serious
“Personally, I am happy and I welcome the recent meeting between Nawaz Sharif and his Indian counterpart. But we have to remember that Jammu Kashmir is not a bilateral issue or territorial dispute between Pakistan and India, but a human issue which must be resolved in accordance with the wishes of over 1.6 million people of the divided state. Considering Kashmir a living reality, both Pakistan and India should demonstrate pragmatic approaches for the settlement of this issue as per the aspirations of the Kashmiri people,” he said.
Ali added that we have to consider this point as well that both countries do not know exactly the wishes of the Kashmiri people because they have never counted their opinion on this issue in which they are main stakeholder.
“Pakistan and India have never asked Kashmiris, even in their parts, whether they (Kashmiris) wanted to be part of the Islamic Republic or the Indian Union or they wish to live as an independent entity,” said Ali. So the whole process is considered by some as assumptive and both the states believe in their assumptions as true but fear losing Jammu Kashmir in case of any plebiscite as well.
He added that as compared to India, he appreciates Pakistan’s policy for a peaceful resolution of the issue more, besides its moral and diplomatic support to the people of the state. But now the Pakistani leadership will have to show courage to involve true Kashmiri leadership into the dialogue process – both formal and informal.
Whenever Pakistani and Indian leaders have formal or informal meetings, they always issue ‘mutually agreed’ statements that state Kashmir issue as discussed (during the meeting) just to show that they are serious. For us, it has nothing to do with Kashmiris or the Kashmir issue until they include true Kashmiri leadership. Unofficial records and public statements by the participants are available but all the formulas and talks have remained mostly for media consumption. Practically no progress has been observed on this issue so far.
“I will say that peace in the South Asian region is not possible without the solution of the Kashmir issue because it is now a symbol of contention and the centre of competition between Pakistan and India,” said Ali adding that there is also a need to discuss Jammu Kashmir issue openly and clearly and without interference from religious parties or groups who have their own vested interests. Also, the government or the parliament of Pakistan must avoid a hidden agenda to reshape Gilgit Baltistan into the mainland in the name of ‘democracy’ or ‘democratic reforms.’
