Navigation
:: Region ::
Talks for the sake of talks?
‹‹ Back
Dr Raja Muhammad Khan
In its bilateral relationship with India, Pakistan would no more like “talks for the sake of talks”. Rather, it is interested in a “result-oriented and sustained dialogue and no format of engagement other than Composite Dialogue”. These are some of the afterthoughts of the Foreign Office conveyed to media by its spokesman Abdul Basit, in his Weekly Press briefing, following the daylong inconclusive Indo-Pak secretary level talks held in New Delhi on February 25, 2001. Pakistan has handed over to India a roadmap for the resumption of the composite dialogue process during the meeting. It assured India that in case of a positive response to the Pakistani roadmap, “India will not find Pakistan wanting”. India, however, desires to maintain a emblematic relationship at the foreign secretary level without getting serious for the resolution of actual issues, which are keeping Indo-Pak relations as the hostage.
Indeed, after Indian readiness to resume the dialogue process in the beginning of February 2010, its Foreign Minister, Mr. Krishna, once again tried to disrupt the apparently plummeting gulf between India and Pakistan. On February 17, 2010, once both countries were finalizing their agendas for the forthcoming Indo-Pak dialogue, Mr. Krishna, said in a TV interview that “Let us be very, very clear that the composite dialogue is suspended. Composite dialogue is not being renewed...The brief to the Foreign Secretary is that terror would be focal point.” In a way, Indian Foreign Minister, set a new tone for the dialogue, through disruption of the composite dialogue process. Indian Home Minister however tried to bridge the gulf by promising that other issues between India and Pakistan would also come under discussion during the talks in New Delhi. Nevertheless, this too was eyewash to show the international community that India is serious to hold talks with Pakistan.
Earlier, a daylong much awaited Indo-Pak secretary level talks held in New Delhi on February 25, 2001ended without a positive outcome. People of South Asia, who in their independent history have suffered a lot at the hand of Indian hegemonic mind-set, had expected too much from these talks. However, throughout the epigrammatic talks, the pessimistic gestures remained dominant on the agenda of the negotiations. Both parties had different mindsets to proceed with the dialogue process. Considering Kashmir and water as the core issues, Pakistan emphasized on their resolutions through the comprehensive peace process. India, however, remained stick to its old rhetoric that Pakistan should end the terrorism by dismantling the so-called terrorist camps. It demanded Pakistan to take action against those responsible of the Mumbai terror attack and gave away two dossiers of the self-proclaimed terrorists as proof, in retribution to what Pakistan has handed over to India in Sharm el-Sheikh. The only positive part of the talks was that both parties agreed to continue the talks in future too.
There are a number of views about the non-cooperative Indian response during the talks. A leading group of analysts opines that, the Indian leadership is intentionally dilly-dallying the resolution of the core issues, as those have no bearing on Indian security and economy. Another group visualizes that there is a clear dissection among the Indian leadership; therefore, those at the helm of affairs are indecisive to proceed ahead with a constructive dialogue with Pakistan. Another thought prevails that owing to the domestic factors like the pressure of Hindu nationalist/ fundamentalist parties; the BJP and RSS, the Congress led UPA Government is unable to move ahead with Pakistan on the core issues. Nevertheless, the fear of losing the public support or a strong public pressure for not resuming the composite dialogue process is yet another factor, might have made the Indian leadership rickety to take a positive stance for the normalization of the Indo-Pak relationship.
Presumably, after the Mumbai terror attacks Indian Media and Hindu nationalistic elements contributed a lot in the promotion of anti-Pakistan sentiments among general masses in India. But, the biggest qualm remains, is Indian public so unrealistic and unaware that they do not like to give peace a chance even after knowing the reality that most of these attacks are nothing more than a stage managed dramas. Nevertheless, according to a public survey, an overwhelming population of the India desire peaceful settlement of all issues between India and Pakistan and restoration of the composite dialogue process. So is the desire of the people and Government of Pakistan. The inference is that Indian leadership is thinking differently, perhaps, they have the hegemonic designs and wants to dictate the terms and conditions of the talks on to its nuclear neighbour. This is evident from the statement of Salman Bashir, the Pakistani Foreign Secretary once he said after the dialogue that, “we don’t like being sermoned on terrorism and that, Pakistan does not believe that India should lecture us and Pakistan does this or that. That is not, how inter-state relations are conducted.”
Otherwise, Pakistan is not so anxious to attend the photo-sessions, meant to deceive the international community and Pakistan by giving false hopes like, “To remain in touch,” as said by Indian Foreign Secretary, Ms. Nirupama Rao, at the conclusion of the recent talks. If at all, it desires peace in the region, India need to resolve all the outstanding issues with Pakistan on merit and that too on equal grounds. How long would Indo-Pak dialogues remain hostage to the one Mumbai attack? Pakistan, indeed has suffered many Mumbais at the hands of the Indian spying network. The proofs of all these were handed over to India at Sharm el-Sheikh meet in July 2009 by Pakistani Premier, Yousaf Raza Gillani. Should not we question India for the hundreds of the terrorist attacks on Pakistani soil carried out by its spying network RAW? What about Lieutenant Colonel Shrikant Purohit of Indian Military Intelligence (MI) and his other colleagues from the Indian Army who planned and executed a number of anti-Muslim attacks including the Samjhauta Express incident in 2007, killing sixty eight innocent people. India, therefore, has no rationalization to take Mumbai as the basis to suspend the dialogue process. On one hand Indian Foreign Secretary said that, it is policy of Indian Government that “we must not shut the door on dialogue with Pakistan” whereas, on the other hand, these talks are not made result oriented. Pakistan, however, considers, that, “there is no need of secretary level talks if India remains stuck to its stand on outstanding issues.” Surely, any dialogue should be result oriented, rather a merry-go-round through the so-called open Indian doors. Undeniably, dialogue is the only option with the India and Pakistan to resolve their all-outstanding issues. Despite the fact that the dialogue process re-started under the US pressure, it too endowed India with a face saving. Was not India rapidly losing its credibility at the global level, through a lengthy phase of staying away from the dialogue process and making use of the coercive diplomacy? Why talks were held prior to the visit of Indian Premier to Saudi Arabia and his forthcoming US visit the next month. Before Indian As per Shekhar Gupta, the Editor-in-chief of the Indian Express, “India is happy with itself and at peace.” Indeed, India could not get any worthwhile achievement by remaining off the dialogue process.
As per Clausewitz, “the ultimate objective of any war is peace” and “Nuclear deterrence averts war and seeks peace,” as highlighted by Mohammed ElBaradei, the former Director General AEA. If India fails to comprehend this lesson, a time would come once it “could run out of stamina like USSR disintegrating under the weight of its own empire.” Therefore, the need of the hour is that Indian leadership should positively responds to the Pakistani offer of the peaceful resolution of all outstanding issues between them. If India considers terrorism as the main issue, between the two, then, it must stop its state-sponsored terrorist acts in Balochistan, FATA and other parts of Pakistan. Pakistan has already disbanded all those organizations suspected to be involved in the terrorism. Otherwise, these organizations have never been state sponsored. Furthermore, there is no political party in Pakistan like BJP, which plan and execute terrorism through its military wings like RSS and VHP. More so, it has no terrorist wing in the Pak Army, the way Colonel Purohit of Indian Military Intelligence has been carrying out terrorist acts against Muslims and Christians in India, over the years.
‹‹ Back
