Karachi: There have been rare moments when the dialogue process has appeared to move in the right direction. A number of confidence and security-building measures (CSBMs) have been signed from time to time. At times the relationship seemed to be entering a more promising phase. But those hopes were never sustained. The Kashmir dispute has been at the centre of the sterility of the bilateral dialogue. Even the issue of terrorism is Kashmir-related. There are other important issues on the agenda. But sooner or later they have been adversely impacted by the unbreakable deadlock on Kashmir.
India and Pakistan have mutually exclusive and self-sufficient narratives on why talks between them end in mutual recrimination. Public opinion has internalised its national narrative to an extent that it has become very difficult to talk constructively with each other. In these circumstances, designing a dialogue strategy that both sides can commit to becomes difficult. There are reasons for this. Leaders in India and Pakistan lack a mutually acceptable vision of relations with each other. They do not have the commitment to overcome the past. They do not have what it takes to build a bilateral relationship that answers to the needs of their peoples.
There are, of course, many people of experience and vision in both countries who have argued the need for a change in the parameters of the relationship which could transform dialogue into a win-win process. The responsibilities attached to being nuclear weapon powers and the 21st-century imperatives of regional cooperation add urgency to their arguments. However, there is a near consensus among experts that given the political realities, such arguments cannot impact official attitudes.
Accordingly, it is argued, especially after the latest breakdown in talks even before they could begin, that neither country should invest in a dialogue process and, instead, merely seek to contain bilateral tensions by refraining from provocative actions. They should seek constructive exchanges on issues that are not invested with too much emotion. Should economic cooperation await a Kashmir settlement? Or should they be used to build constituencies of mutual understanding?
The India-Pakistan stand-off is not a static situation. It is dangerously dynamic. It can very quickly degenerate towards confrontation unless “core concerns” are addressed in a manner that reduces tensions. Take Kashmir. It cannot be left to fester. Alternating states of dialogue and no dialogue do not address risks in the current situation. The same applies to the issue of terrorism in the context of Kashmir. What is terrorism and what is legitimate resistance iagainst illegal occupation? These questions can be debated fruitlessly, tackled through futile “counter-terrorism”, or progressively resolved through broader approaches that take into account the interests of all stakeholders.
Currently, the chances of this happening are slim indeed. But this cannot be taken as a given because of the consequences of political imbecility in the 21st century. What is to be done? Our narratives about each other should eschew the blame game and, instead, focus on the costs of unremitting hostility and the benefits of a more rational relationship. This should provide space for principled compromise.
Each side should define its own position in a manner that does not exclude the possibility of movement on the core concerns of its interlocutor. This would apply to Kashmir and terrorism as well as other issues on which progress can further contribute to meaningful discussions and movement on the core concerns of both sides.
Based on the above, the leadership of India and Pakistan should consider statements that they will attach the highest priority to improving the quality and substance of the bilateral relationship that while staying within their constitutional parameters, they will engage constructively, sincerely and thoroughly in the search for viable and mutually acceptable solutions.
They should reactivate CSBMs that have lapsed and actively explore the possibilities, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders, on the possibility of further CSBMs and “out of the box” approaches to transforming the bilateral relationship from being a hindrance to being a facilitator for the development of their national potential. They should acknowledge that this will not be possible without progressively changing deeply ingrained and negative mindsets and projecting a more promising image of each other. This policy framework can only be an offshoot of vastly improved domestic governance.
This will be countered by the argument that power structures and vested interests in both countries will not allow such a bilateral framework to develop. History supports such scepticism. However, the future while inevitably influenced by history is never bound by it. The India-Pakistan dialogue will be transformed from its currently sterile quality into something more lasting and productive only if a much larger national transformation gets under way in both countries.
The writer is a former ambassador to the US, India and China and head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan
By arrangement with Dawn
