The love-hate relationship between India and Pakistan seems like a teenage romance. Since Narendra Modi took over the reins of power in New Delhi in 2014, such turnabouts have been the hallmark of his handling of ties with Pakistan. Even the most hawkish commentators in India have developed a soft corner for Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whom they see as the victim of this policy. Everything isn’t smooth in Pakistan either, but the Modi government’s Pakistan policy has delivered a blow to his image as a strong prime minister with a strong mandate.
Sunday’s surprise statement from Bangkok has rekindled hopes. It was not an ordinary meeting. It was a major breakthrough given the level to which both the countries had raised hostilities after the cancellation of the talks between the two national security advisers in August. Even a high level conference of representatives from Commonwealth countries became a casualty to the heightened tensions, when Pakistan called it off unilaterally following India’s objection on inviting the Speaker of Jammu and Kashmir Assembly.
The Bangkok meeting was also the outcome of an informal tête-à-tête’ between Modi and Sharif during the Paris Climate Change Summit on November 30. The meeting lays down a new foundation for a process of reconciliation between the two countries. Both New Delhi and Islamabad have climbed down from their positions to pave way for dialogue.
Kashmir and terrorism:
Kashmir and terrorism had emerged as contentious issues between the two sides, and they were equally concerned about and threatened with their inclusion in the dialogue agenda.
For India, terrorism is an essential point of discussion, as it sends a signal to the Indian masses that their government is serious about the issue. It also symbolizes a strong posturing against Pakistan. This has become critical in the backdrop of the verbal aggression between the various Indian political parties in the elections. The focus has to be on terrorism, or the government in power would face stern criticism. Similarly, Kashmir is very important for Pakistan. If it is not included in the dialogue, there is a commotion in the Kashmir constituency of Pakistan as well as the army, which has made Kashmir an inalienable part of its doctrine on India.
It is interesting to note that after the cancellation of the August talks, both the sides seem to have put in a lot of back-channel efforts to create a framework to deal with this knot. While Sartaj Aziz, the adviser on Foreign Policy, was simultaneously holding charge of national security adviser, Pakistan’s insistence on holding talks on both terrorism and Kashmir was not out of place.
However, to clear this roadblock, Pakistan has moved in the right direction by appointing Nasir Janjua, a retired army general, as the new NSA. He will face India’s NSA Ajit Doval, who also has a security background.
This has created space for leaving political issues to the foreign ministers or foreign secretaries. That is how the Bangkok meeting could see two foreign secretaries sitting side by side. It means that the Modi-Sharif pleasantries were not exchanged in a vacuum. A lot of homework had been done behind the scenes.
Composite dialogue:
As correctly pointed out by several commentators, the Bangkok meeting could only become possible because it took place without prior announcement and away from the media glare. In the past, even a sidelines handshake between the leaders of the two countries became a headline, and was followed by questions that would push both sides back to square one. They have found a way – holding the talks in a third country.
From 2004 to 2007, the back-channel negotiations between special envoys were held in Bangkok, Dubai and other destinations, thus creating room for negotiations that could finally bear fruit. To replicate that is a sound way of approaching the tangled issues.
With secrecy being maintained on the progress of the rapprochement, the two countries have nearly reached back to the Composite Dialogue framework that was agreed on by the governments of the past.
Although the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) opposed it at that time, it seems that the parties in power realize that there is no other viable way of approaching the outstanding mutual issues. Kashmir has been the bone of contention in the relationship. The BJP has been opposing its inclusion in the composite dialogue, asserting that it is India’s internal matter. But after the derailment of the process, the government in Delhi must have seen the merit of including all the issues in the agenda. In Ufa, it was Nawaz Sharif who did not mention Kashmir in the joint statement, although at the cost of strong opposition at home. But on the face of it, Modi could not capitalize on it. He made the cancellation of Pakistanis’ meeting with Kashmiri leaders a condition for talks between the national security advisers.
The Hurriyat factor:
For more than a year, the K-word has been replaced by the H-word. Pakistani leaders meeting Hurriyat Conference representatives in India has emerged as a new spoiler. In July 2014, a meeting between foreign secretaries scheduled in Delhi was called off only because the Pakistani foreign secretary was to meet Hurriyat leaders. New Delhi called off the talks unilaterally. It happened again in August when Sartaj Aziz was heading to New Delhi to meet Ajit Doval. Hurriyat Conference has now become a contentious factor in the management of relations between the two countries. For Pakistan, it was difficult to abandon a 15-year-old practice of meeting the people whom they consider stakeholders in resolving Kashmir. But the BJP had come under severe pressure during the elections in various states. The issue was made into an electoral rhetoric. Giving up on their demand had become nearly impossible for either side. And that is what forced New Delhi and Islamabad to hold a dialogue in a third country. It needs to be understood that both the countries have to move forward on the dialogue process, even if the Hurriyat Conference cannot be ignored in the final settlement.
A new beginning:
The Bangkok breakthrough has raised hopes for a new beginning, as Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj is scheduled to visit Islamabad. That would help create an atmosphere amenable to Modi’s visit next year to attend the SAARC summit. It will help both sides to remove bottlenecks on bilateral dialogue.
This time, the onus is on Modi to make the dialogue possible and not call it off unilaterally. His image within India is not the same as it was when he came to power. If he wants to emerge as a leader in South Asia – the message he sent out on his oath ceremony – he needs to have a working, if not friendly, relationship with Pakistan. This will help bring some change on the Kashmir issue as well.
The author is a veteran journalist from Srinagar and the editor-in-chief of
Rising Kashmir
Sunday’s surprise statement from Bangkok has rekindled hopes. It was not an ordinary meeting. It was a major breakthrough given the level to which both the countries had raised hostilities after the cancellation of the talks between the two national security advisers in August. Even a high level conference of representatives from Commonwealth countries became a casualty to the heightened tensions, when Pakistan called it off unilaterally following India’s objection on inviting the Speaker of Jammu and Kashmir Assembly.
The Bangkok meeting was also the outcome of an informal tête-à-tête’ between Modi and Sharif during the Paris Climate Change Summit on November 30. The meeting lays down a new foundation for a process of reconciliation between the two countries. Both New Delhi and Islamabad have climbed down from their positions to pave way for dialogue.
Kashmir and terrorism:
Kashmir and terrorism had emerged as contentious issues between the two sides, and they were equally concerned about and threatened with their inclusion in the dialogue agenda.
For India, terrorism is an essential point of discussion, as it sends a signal to the Indian masses that their government is serious about the issue. It also symbolizes a strong posturing against Pakistan. This has become critical in the backdrop of the verbal aggression between the various Indian political parties in the elections. The focus has to be on terrorism, or the government in power would face stern criticism. Similarly, Kashmir is very important for Pakistan. If it is not included in the dialogue, there is a commotion in the Kashmir constituency of Pakistan as well as the army, which has made Kashmir an inalienable part of its doctrine on India.
It is interesting to note that after the cancellation of the August talks, both the sides seem to have put in a lot of back-channel efforts to create a framework to deal with this knot. While Sartaj Aziz, the adviser on Foreign Policy, was simultaneously holding charge of national security adviser, Pakistan’s insistence on holding talks on both terrorism and Kashmir was not out of place.
However, to clear this roadblock, Pakistan has moved in the right direction by appointing Nasir Janjua, a retired army general, as the new NSA. He will face India’s NSA Ajit Doval, who also has a security background.
This has created space for leaving political issues to the foreign ministers or foreign secretaries. That is how the Bangkok meeting could see two foreign secretaries sitting side by side. It means that the Modi-Sharif pleasantries were not exchanged in a vacuum. A lot of homework had been done behind the scenes.
Nasir Janjua, a retired army general, will face Ajit Doval, who also has a security background
Composite dialogue:
As correctly pointed out by several commentators, the Bangkok meeting could only become possible because it took place without prior announcement and away from the media glare. In the past, even a sidelines handshake between the leaders of the two countries became a headline, and was followed by questions that would push both sides back to square one. They have found a way – holding the talks in a third country.
From 2004 to 2007, the back-channel negotiations between special envoys were held in Bangkok, Dubai and other destinations, thus creating room for negotiations that could finally bear fruit. To replicate that is a sound way of approaching the tangled issues.
With secrecy being maintained on the progress of the rapprochement, the two countries have nearly reached back to the Composite Dialogue framework that was agreed on by the governments of the past.
Although the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) opposed it at that time, it seems that the parties in power realize that there is no other viable way of approaching the outstanding mutual issues. Kashmir has been the bone of contention in the relationship. The BJP has been opposing its inclusion in the composite dialogue, asserting that it is India’s internal matter. But after the derailment of the process, the government in Delhi must have seen the merit of including all the issues in the agenda. In Ufa, it was Nawaz Sharif who did not mention Kashmir in the joint statement, although at the cost of strong opposition at home. But on the face of it, Modi could not capitalize on it. He made the cancellation of Pakistanis’ meeting with Kashmiri leaders a condition for talks between the national security advisers.
The meeting was successful because it took place without prior announcement
The Hurriyat factor:
For more than a year, the K-word has been replaced by the H-word. Pakistani leaders meeting Hurriyat Conference representatives in India has emerged as a new spoiler. In July 2014, a meeting between foreign secretaries scheduled in Delhi was called off only because the Pakistani foreign secretary was to meet Hurriyat leaders. New Delhi called off the talks unilaterally. It happened again in August when Sartaj Aziz was heading to New Delhi to meet Ajit Doval. Hurriyat Conference has now become a contentious factor in the management of relations between the two countries. For Pakistan, it was difficult to abandon a 15-year-old practice of meeting the people whom they consider stakeholders in resolving Kashmir. But the BJP had come under severe pressure during the elections in various states. The issue was made into an electoral rhetoric. Giving up on their demand had become nearly impossible for either side. And that is what forced New Delhi and Islamabad to hold a dialogue in a third country. It needs to be understood that both the countries have to move forward on the dialogue process, even if the Hurriyat Conference cannot be ignored in the final settlement.
A new beginning:
The Bangkok breakthrough has raised hopes for a new beginning, as Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj is scheduled to visit Islamabad. That would help create an atmosphere amenable to Modi’s visit next year to attend the SAARC summit. It will help both sides to remove bottlenecks on bilateral dialogue.
This time, the onus is on Modi to make the dialogue possible and not call it off unilaterally. His image within India is not the same as it was when he came to power. If he wants to emerge as a leader in South Asia – the message he sent out on his oath ceremony – he needs to have a working, if not friendly, relationship with Pakistan. This will help bring some change on the Kashmir issue as well.
The author is a veteran journalist from Srinagar and the editor-in-chief of
Rising Kashmir