Smiles and frowns


Written by S.G. Jilanee • Cover Stories • August 2010

The new generation in both Pakistan and India, born on 15 August 1947, is now past its middle age. It did not witness the horrors of the communal bloodbath and the agonies of homelessness of millions associated with Partition. Yet, the older generation continues to poison the latter's minds and bequeath to it the bitterness of its own times.

Thus, the two countries remain prisoners to the past. The exercise of alternating smiles and frowns has gone on as a routine that sometimes offers a touch of faux amusement. Most notably, Pakistan released an Indian man accused of being a spy in 2008: he had been detained since 1975. Then there was the introduction of a bus service between the two parts of Kashmir. And so forth.

Eruptions of violence alternate with diplomatic brinkmanship and military posturing as a routine. Even though leaders of the two countries have sometimes met at the highest level: Liaquat-Nehru, Ayub-Shastri, Bhutto-Indira and Vajpayee-Musharraf and there have been meetings galore at minister and secretary levels, buttressed by confidence building measures and back-channel diplomacy, but the result has been zilch. The lack of faith in each other's intentions remains alarmingly high, which accounts for both sides keeping their military options open.

Each new round of talks begins with hype and gusto, only to degenerate into a slanging match. The latest meeting in Islamabad between Indian external affairs minister S.M. Krishna and Shah Mahmood Qureishi, Pakistan's foreign minister, is an example.

It started as usual with smiles but ended on a rather sour note because, on the one hand, India's home secretary queered the pitch when he ranted some nonsense about ISI and Mumbai attacks and, on the other, Qureishi churlishly derided Sharma for receiving instructions from home during the talks. Neither had any business to say what they said.

There is a veritable mountain of issues between India and Pakistan, including trade and sharing of river waters. Indeed the latter is quite volatile. Free trade could benefit both, immensely. It is also envisaged in SAFTA. Educational and cultural exchanges could be another source of mutual advantage.

But Jammu and Kashmir remains a running sore. It overshadows all other problems. It nixes efforts to improve relations. For Pakistan, it is the touchstone of India's sincerity. True, Pakistan was wrong in encouraging tribal bandits to invade Srinagar in 1948. Triggering the 1965 War and starting Kargil were also questionable acts. But, it was India that took the issue to the Security Council, yet failed to implement the decision. In view of India's calculated intransigence, therefore, Pakistani leaders felt that fomenting trouble was the only way to force India to the negotiation table. These were reckless acts, no doubt, but driven by frustration.

India's ceaseless repression in Kashmir spawned "private" outfits, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. They indulged in violent acts against India, when state agencies and political leaders withdrew support for such activities. The Mumbai carnage of 2008 is the latest example. Allegedly masterminded by LeT, it continues to impede improvement of bilateral relations. India demands action against the suspects. It sends dossier after dossier to Pakistan while the latter finds them flawed.

For India to resume dialogue, the minimum requirement is action by Pakistan against the alleged culprits of the Mumbai carnage that killed 166 people on 26 November 2008. "If they take credible steps to bring the perpetrators of the horrible crime of 26/11 to book, that's the minimum that we expect," Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told a joint news conference with Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani during their last summit in Washington. "If Pakistan does that, we would be very happy to begin talking once again about all issues."

When Yousuf Raza Gilani, said he was waiting for further evidence against Lashkar-e-Taiba, Singh countered him with the remark, "I always hate to enter in an argument with him in a press conference, but I think the American intelligence and the forces themselves pointed to the role of Lashkar-e-Taiba," adding, "I don't see that there is any need for any further evidence."

Meanwhile, realizing, the threat that continued Indo-Pak hostility poses to the progress of "US goals in the region," President Barack Obama is reported to have asked his administration in a secret directive, to intensify efforts to make India resolve its tensions with Pakistan. According to the Wall Street Journal he has asked his officials to intensify American diplomacy aimed at easing tensions between India and Pakistan, asserting that without detente between the two rivals, the administration's efforts to win Pakistani cooperation in Afghanistan would suffer.

Quoting ‘people familiar with its contents' the paper said that the directive, issued in December, concluded that "India must make resolving its tensions with Pakistan a priority."

Meanwhile a new line of thinking is emerging among a section of Indian intellectuals to end the perennial standoff between the two neighbors with nuclear power. This is a new idea that favors the option of military to military engagement between the two countries. In their opinion it may help India better understand Pakistan's world view and in particular its insecurities vis-à-vis India.

This is a bold approach, full of promise and merits serious reflection by India's policy makers. India has established defense cooperation with all its neighbors, including China. But it has excluded Pakistan from the gamut of military diplomacy. There may be factors, such as the Indo-Pak wars, yet, that argument fails to stick when it is observed that successive Indian military commanders responsible for the Eastern Theatre have engaged in talks with their Chinese counterparts in Chengdu Military Region, despite the Indo-China war of 1962. There is no valid reason therefore that they should hesitate to start a similar exercise with Pakistan. Nor is such an exercise unique, because, many countries, including the United States, routinely use their military commanders in a variety of mutually beneficial military exchanges.

Why several well intended peace initiatives between the two countries involving people to people contact did not take off was because India failed to engage Pakistan Army, which, beyond any question, remains the architect of Pakistan's destiny. In fact Kargil happened because Pakistan Nawaz Sharif in his exuberance did not take the Army into confidence in his amorous overtures to India's prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

The objectives of building peace in the sub-continent would be better served if India opts for change to engage with this powerful constituency in Pakistan. So far all other channels have been explored. Yet the differences seem irreconcilable. The new school of thought posits that it may be logical therefore to probe the efficacy of possible military to military engagement, because, it might help "assuage Pakistan's insecurity about India's intentions and even assist in promoting developing a cordial or at least a less hostile atmosphere in bilateral relationship."

The above may appear difficult to achieve at first glance. However, the process could begin with a visit to Pakistan by the Indian defense minister or the Service Chiefs. Having broken the ice at that level the initiative could be given further momentum by undertaking such exchanges at different levels, such as exchanges of military delegations, visits to premier training establishments, increased frequency of border meetings and conclaves and non-military interactions at other levels.

In the quest to seek peace in the neighborhood, no option should be left un-exercised. A military to military engagement is the only option never before explored. Though a high dividend from this initiative may be premature to expect given the long history of hostility between the two militaries, yet it does hold out the promise of some dividends in a relationship that refuses to thaw.

However, if India makes the move, Pakistan will accord it appropriate welcome.