No good news for N
While, PMLN had a pretty safe 2015, 2016 seems to be jinxed for the ruling party. Beginning with Pathankot, progressing with resurging terror attacks, emergence of Yadav, and then the Panama Papers – the year seems pretty happening for N, but for all the wrong reasons.
Not in distant past, it seemed that Pakistan and India would finally make peace, however the notion seems to be vanishing. With so much trouble already flared up for N, it is highly unlikely that a diplomatic stalemate would improve things any further. Wherever this Yadav came from, things were way better without him appearing. However, appear he did, and with his appearance vanished all the hope that had risen. While his videotape might have generated oomph, and told the entire world of India’s clandestine activities in Pakistan – it did not give us any inside information. Yes, we got somewhat of an official acknowledgment – but there was nothing in it that we did not know earlier. Yes, Pakistan does not need to bow down in front of its archrival; however this incident spoiled all probabilities of PM Nawaz adding the one available feather in his bonnet – the achievement of ending or at least minimizing grudges with India.
Ironically, India – despite being the culprit – showed no signs of remorse. The peace process and the composite dialogue that had finally started stopped, and we are back to square one. However, both countries need to be mindful of the fact that the demands of geography, economy, culture and climate, they have to talk – that too constructively. A stalemate or even a checkmate for one side won’t help.
Khursheed Mahmood Kasuri, former foreign misniter and author of Neither a Hawk Nor a Dive however thinks that there is some hope still, and the two governments might be working on the back end as we speak.
“As per my experience, there might have been a secret channel set up between the two countries,” he said while talking to DNA.
Only someone who has once been the part of the system can make such an assumption.
Dawn followed by speedy dusk
With PM Modi’s surprise visit, it was highly likely that things will improve. Despite Pathankot, things did not falter dramatically and both sides showed some diplomatic insight – which they are not very fond of when it comes to one another. Later intelligence sharing was planned, and the commitment to keep up the composite dialogue was displayed to an admirable level. However, there came Yadav, and we did not really hear of Composite Dialogue after that – did we?
“Well, there was this Composite Dialogue that was talked about,” said Zahid Hussain, renowned journalist and author while talking to DNA.
“President Modi’s visit was a welcome development. But then Pathankot happened. Even then cooperation was talked about, but then came the case of the Indian spy.”
“We do not have that much tension as earlier, yes,” he stated. “However, there is neither any scope of Composite Dialogue in the near future, nor there are any signs of joint investigation.”
It is not possible – at least in the current scenario – that things remain rosy between Pakistan and India for long. Even when they do talk about cooperation, they do not follow the term in letter and spirit.
“…with PMLN already being in deep trouble, dwindling success on diplomatic front might cost the government a lot in the domestic polity as well. Surely PMLN cannot afford this.”
“When intelligence sharing was talked about,” said Kasuri, “very limited access was given to Pakistan. Well, people from ISI were also in the team and India always has had reservations regarding ISI.
Kasuri finds it rather ironic that this spy had been there even when Composite Dialogue was talked about.
“I am surprised since the activities this guy was involved in were not just spying, rather they were of terrorist nature,” he exclaimed. “So why he was not removed after PM Modi’s visit that is my question.”
And this remains the fact. There were chances of a new dawn – not very bright but still a ray of hope had started glimmering. However, in the case of Pakistan and India, as always, dawn is pretty short-lived and dusk soon follows. This is precisely what happened.
Nothing New really
While a lot of debate and analysis is going on how this situation arose, and what the unique factors are that led to it; a mere glance at not-so-distant past will make us realize that this is nothing new. Whenever the two countries make some leap forward, some incident forces them to go back to square one.
“Pakistan-India ties are prone to such things,” Kasuri reflected. “Things like this are apparently built in the script. Whenever, some development is about to happen, something negative generally follows.”
He remembered many such incidents where some positive development was overshadowed by a negative event that followed.
“Chittisinghpura incident took place, when President Clinton was about to visit for peace purposes,” he started listing down such negative developments. “Many innocents were massacred and there were a lot of speculations that followed. Again, when talk progressed in my time, the incident of Samjhota Express took place and various Pakistanis lost their lives. When y successor Shah Mehmood Qureshi visited India, Mumbai attack took place. Now when PM Modi visited Pakistan, Pathankot incident happened, and then Yadav incident took place.”
However, with PMLN already being in deep trouble, dwindling success on diplomatic front might cost the government a lot in the domestic polity as well. Surely PMLN cannot afford this.
“What is interesting is the fact how our important relationships are not really bilateral; they are trilateral.”
The dynamics
Pakistan and India share some really interesting dynamics. They are always busy in trying to belittle each other, and stay frozen in the impasse of rivalry. Memories from the partition still haunt, and the armies of both countries take pride in being hero against the other. Then various other countries act as externalities and cloud the relationship. However, various factors keep them coming back to each other.
Kasuri thinks that there are many reasons – and important ones in the dynamics of the Sub-Continent- that will drive Pakistan and India to come together.
“I have given many such reasons in my book that compel the two countries to come close,” he explained. “There is balance between the two militaries. Then there is nuclear parity. Again, both the countries are fully capable of engaging in subversive activities to harm each other. So, they will have to come close.”
While Pathankot was a major setback, there were some positive signs.
“When Pathankot took place, the governments of both countries showed maturity for a change,” Kasuri appreciated. “There was no instant reaction from India, and Pakistan too showed spirit of cooperation.”
The current government has been known in all of its tenures to make efforts to bridge gap with India, however it is important to maintain assertiveness and national dignity in its wake. It is important that the government keeps this in mind.
“We do know that PM Nawaz has always been willing to make peace with India,” Hussain gave his analysis. “However, these things cannot be done unilaterally.”
Kasuri too observes this willingness of Pakistan to get close to India. “In the Heart of Asia, Pakistan did send its foreign secretary. It could have sent some additional secretary to show its displeasure. But it did not.”
It is ironic that while it is commonly thought that Pakistan Army does not want Pakistan and India to be at peace, one of the most progressive eras in peace talk happened in the time of an army ruler. Mr. Kasuri, being the foreign minister at that time explains it.
“India holds the conception that Pakistan army will not let peace happen, because it benefits from the hostility between the two countries,” he explained. “However this is wrong. President Musharraf was willing in holding the dialogue. This can be said that an army general can do whatever he wants but this is a misstatement again. In his tenure, all the professionals from various fields gave their input, including Foreign Office and a lot of healthy debate did take place. Moreover all the army officials promoted to senior positions have to graduate from National Defence University, where they are taught that national interest is not just defence preparedness. Rather it encompasses political stability and economic prosperity as two other essential elements.”
“It is speculated that army and civil government are not on the same page any longer, however appointing General Janjua as the National Security advisor negates this fact. It is a good sign.”
Hussain however thinks differently. “There are military reservations on the issue.”
What is interesting is the fact how our important relationships are not really bilateral; they are trilateral. Pakistan-India-Afghanistan dynamics are one of these trilateral relationships that we have. With Afghanistan showing signs of some instability again, threats are automatically being posed on Pakistan and India relations.
Zahid Hussain thinks the same.
“With the situation in Afghanistan, it is highly likely that the strain between India and Pakistan might increase.”
These dynamics have to be kept in mind while taking any diplomatic step, as in such a sensitive connection we cannot be myopic and focus on limited aspects only.
The future – the would and the should
Future projection is not really difficult in case of India and Pakistan. Both of them are fond of squabbling over petty things, belittle and allege each other, try to harm each other, threat of demolition but then come back together to talk in some way.
“There is hope that there would be some improvement by the end of the year,” Hussain commented. “There are events that give this hope. For instance, SAARC Conference will take place in Pakistan in September or October, and if PM Modi comes to attend it, it will be a sign of willingness to take diplomacy forward.”
“Well I am an optimist,” Kasuri commented. Furthermore he knows out of his experience that military solution will not help. A diplomatic solution has to be figured out.
“I have said in my book that military is not the answer” he asserted. Several war or near-war situations did not force Pakistan and India to change their stance on Kashmir.”
Hussain thinks there will be some time of stalemate however things will change in future. “I don’t see any improvement in near future,” he stated. “However things will probably improve after a while.”
Diplomacy might accelerate sooner however. Kasuri thinks this way.
“I believe that dialogue will start, sooner rather than later,” he sounded optimistic. “I have given reasons in my book and both countries do not need to reinvent the wheel. Progress was done in my time, and talks were carried out simultaneously on various important issues, like Sir Creek, Kashmir and other. My book is credible as none of the personalities I quoted contradicted what I said about their participation. So this book can serve as working paper for the future.
While we may sit here and analyse, we are not aware of most action that takes place behind closed doors. Whatever happens should be planned smartly, as N being in a sensitive position already might not want to make any diplomatic blunder.
