Once again, the US has brought India and Pakistan to the negotiating table. The “irreversible” peace process was stalled by India, following the December 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh categorically and repeatedly stated that India would be ready for a bilateral dialogue only if “Pakistan brings the terrorists to book, destroys their camps and eliminates their infrastructure.” This stance was repeated in varying tones by other Indian ministers. Pakistan kept urging that terrorism should not be linked with dialogue which must be resumed in mutual interest of both countries. The two summit meetings between Zardari and Gilani with Mamohan Singh also failed to convince India to revive the peace process.

With the fast deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan and due to the need for effective and decisive action against the Taliban, the US appeared on the scene at this stage, as its success became dependent on Pakistan’s total and undivided attention and action in support of the US operations. It kept pressuring Pakistan and during his visit to China in November last year, Obama publicly urged China to use its influence to improve Indo-Pak ties. The joint communiqué of November 17, 2009 spoke of the two powers welcoming all efforts conducive to peace, stability and development in South Asia. The coercive diplomacy of the US finally won the day. Pakistan agreed to join the negotiations despite the fact that India is not ready to make the Kashmir issue a part of the resumed talks. Pakistan has also accepted not to make revival of composite dialogue a pre-condition for the talks and a new framework has been devised in which terrorism will be the core issue in the forthcoming talks.

Indian diplomacy and guile is at its best. Pakistan has been asking for resumption of the dialogue without any preconditions. India, on the contrary, remained evasive or negative. Now, under global pressure, India has manipulated to emerge as a proponent of the peace process. My assessment is that the initial rounds would be consumed in determining the structure and framework of the talks and substantive issues won’t be discussed seriously. Pakistan has been put into an extremely awkward situation. Having repeatedly urged for resumption of the peace process, any insistence on composite dialogue would be seen as negative and disruptive. Sensing this dilemma that Pakistan confronts, the spokesman of the Foreign Office has blandly mentioned that “preconditions for resumption of the dialogue would be counter-productive.” It is strange that Prime Minister Gilani tells the nation that India is not agreeable to talk on Kashmir and yet Pakistan is able and willing to re-engage India in a process that till date has proved sterile.

The history of negotiations between Pakistan and India clearly brings out India’s strategy for an open-ended negotiating process to buy time to consolidate its position, both internationally and with the Kashmiri leadership. India has yielded to US pressure and for its own reasons. It primarily wants to secure its interests and investments in Afghanistan, both political and financial, in the changing regional situation. On the other hand, Pakistan has submitted to US pressure without securing any gains or assurances. India is in the driving seat and will determine direction and destination. I do not see India agreeing to hold talks with Pakistan outside the range of composite dialogue. The focus will be on terrorism being the be-all and end-all of the negotiating rounds. Pakistan should not expect any progress, let alone a breakthrough, for reasons spelled out above. The US, India and Pakistan, each have their own reasons and compulsions. Once the Af-pak strategy achieves its goals and the key role of Pakistan in this strategy is over, the process would be allowed to lapse into oblivion.

The writer is a former ambassador. Email: m.tayyab.siddiqui@gmail.com