Prime Minister Narendra Modi held meeting with his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif at the sidelines of BRICS summit at Ufa on July 9 signals the resumption of dialogue process which was broken down since August 2014. It once again emphasised that there is no alternative to continuous process of dialogue between the two neighbours. Inviting Sharif for the swearing-in ceremony of Modi was a master stroke but then cancelling August 2014 Foreign Secretary level meeting and shutting doors on future dialogue was a sign of diplomatic immaturity on the part of new government and in the process, we had wasted lot of goodwill created over the years.
Diplomacy greatly depends on personal equations and trust and in this department we lost quite a lot. Having very closely observed Sharif for a decade, I would say that he was genuinely interested in improving relation with India and in several years since his return from exile he had not given a single anti India statement. We must recognise the fact that civilian governments in Pakistan has limited say in Indo-Pak relations and General Headquarters Rawalpindi plays its own games and probably India by disrupting the dialogue has played into GHQ hands.
The meeting of two leaders has produced a joint statement which has nothing new other than that it was jointly read by the two Foreign Secretaries. Meeting of DGs of border guarding forces or of DGMOs did not require intervention of two PMs. It could have been settled over phone by the two Foreign Secretaries. Joint Statement emphasised that two countries have responsibility to promote peace and development and "to do so, they are prepared to discuss all outstanding issues" which is a euphemism used for inclusion of Kashmir in the agenda, a key demand of Pakistan in every dialogue process. Religious Tourism appears to be a very curious inclusion in this joint statement and there is already existing 'Protocol on Visits to Religious Shrines' between two countries beside provisions in Indo-Pak Visa Agreement.
Pakistan, Since 2009 in every Bilateral exchange Pak has been giving commitment of expediting 26/11 Mumbai attack trial but it has not proceeded anywhere except grant of bail to principal accused Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi. Pakistan ISI would ensure that trial do not progress and no action is taken against LeT. Terrorism against India is the most powerful tool in the hands of Pakistan army and ISI to assert their supremacy in Foreign Affairs. Therefore India would have to live with some level of Pakistan inspired terrorism and would have to adopt alternative strategies to counter it without disrupting dialogue process.
Civilian governments in Pakistan have been favoring better relations between two countries. Frankly Indo Pak relations are a matter of Optics as resolution of real issues would not be easy. As long as both the countries appear to be talking to each other, the optics would improve and India being a mature and bigger country has a bigger responsibility to better these optics. Improving economic relations is the best way forward to improve ties between the two neighbors. Poverty, unemployment and inflation are the common problems in both the countries. The economies of both the countries could be complementary to each other.
Inflation is one area where both countries could co operate as most often many essential commodities like vegetables, fruits, sugar, cereals and several other commodities of general use while in short supply in one country might be in excess at a particular time in other country and easy movement could control shortages as well as increase public welfare. It is not the Most Favoured Nation status which would facilitate better trade relations but the easy movement of the traded items. It is only through this route that we could make Pakistan army and ISI irrelevant and it would not possible in a year or two but would take a decade of sincere efforts.
Disclaimer: Rajinder Kumar is former Special Director of Intelligence Bureau. The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not reflect the stand of CNN-IBN/ IBNLive.
Comments
0 comment