COMMENT: Pakistan-India peace talks: some lessons —Dr Rashid Ahmad Khan

Negotiations between Pakistan and India are always difficult and challenging for both countries as very intricate, complex and longstanding issues are involved

The July 15th meeting between Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi and his Indian counterpart S M Krishna is the fourth in a series of high level parleys undertaken by the two countries this year to reduce the trust deficit between them and to put the derailed peace process back on track. The foreign secretaries of Pakistan and India had their first meeting in New Delhi in February. Although this meeting did not produce any breakthrough, it was called a positive development by both sides as it allowed them to put across issues critical to each other. Then came the ‘Thimphu thaw’ — the agreement between Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who met on the sidelines of the SAARC Summit in Bhutan in April, to resume bilateral talks. The two leaders decided that their foreign ministers would soon meet to discuss how a full-fledged composite dialogue could be resumed. The famous 25-minute telephonic conversation between Qureshi and Krishna broke the ice and it was announced that the foreign ministers of Pakistan and India would meet in Islamabad. In order to finalise the agenda for this meeting, the foreign secretaries of both countries met on June 26th in Islamabad. Parallel to this meeting, another took place to discuss the thorny issue of terrorism between Pakistan’s Interior Minister Rehman Malik and Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram, who had arrived in Islamabad to attend the SAARC Interior Ministers’ Conference. All these meetings ended on a positive note and reflected a realisation of the urgency for removing the roadblocks to peace and normalisation.

Although, as Foreign Minister Qureshi had declared, prior to his meeting with the Indian foreign minister that “miracles” could not be expected from this meeting, the very fact that the two countries are able to hold talks in an atmosphere full of mistrust and suspicion provides ample room for hope and expectations of a positive outcome. A healthy change in the tone and tenor of the Indian leaders’ statements on relations with Pakistan, the cordiality and friendliness shown by both sides in the preceding meetings and positive comments by Manmohan Singh on the July talks, give further strength to the belief that Pakistan and India could be well on the way towards engaging each other in a comprehensive dialogue on all those issues that were covered by the composite dialogue under a stalled peace process.

Negotiations between Pakistan and India are always difficult and challenging for both countries as very intricate, complex and longstanding issues are involved. Despite all the sincerity and seriousness that the leaders of both countries have at times demonstrated for moving forward, “There can always be”, as Qureshi said, “an element that could try and scuttle the process”. He was referring to the threat of terrorism which, in the shape of the Mumbai attacks in November 2008, derailed the four-year-old peace process. India wass reluctant to resume the stalled peace process but, finding that no-talks is not a tenable option, has agreed to engage Pakistan in a series of high level talks aimed at creating what it calls “a conducive environment for the resumption of the composite dialogue process.”

From this, one can discern some lessons that the 2004-2008 Pakistan-India peace process holds for both countries. Some of these lessons are:

One: there should be no preconditions. In the past, efforts to put preconditions for holding talks failed and these will fail in the future also. In 1994-97, there was a hiatus in mutual communication because Pakistan and India stuck to certain preconditions for talks. In 1997, the two countries resumed talks because both dropped their preconditions. In the wake of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks, India refused to hold talks demanding, as a precondition, the prosecution of all those suspected of involvement. Quite expectedly, this Indian attitude led to the hardening of the Pakistani position on the issue and about 20 months were wasted in posturing only.

Two: no timeframe or deadlines can be given. Both countries will have to show patience, as — given the mistrust — the process of normalisation will be slow. It is true that, for this reason, the peace process has invited severe criticism, especially in Pakistan. But given the enormous amount of suspicion between the two countries, it will inevitably be slow paced. General Musharraf became so frustrated over the slow pace of the peace process that he issued a near ultimatum to India and demanded a timeframe for the resolution of disputes, particularly Kashmir. Sheikh Rashid Ahmad as Musharraf’s Information Minister even predicted a settlement of the Kashmir dispute within a period of three years. Ultimately, reality was accepted and both sides became reconciled to achieving progress through a protracted process of negotiations.

Three: there is no chance for the success of a threatening policy, coercive diplomacy or arm-twisting tactics. This is a lesson particularly for India to learn from its experience of dealing with Pakistan during the last six decades. In 2001-02, India failed to secure Pakistani compliance to its demands even though half a million battle-ready Indian troops marched up to the international boundary with Pakistan. Similarly, Pakistan should forget that any amount of external pressure will work on India. Ultimately, both countries will have to sort things out between themselves as neighbours who have no other option but to live in peace and mutual cooperation.

Four: only an incremental or step-by-step approach will ensure the sustainability and progress of the peace process. For years, the process of normalisation between Pakistan and India remained deadlocked because of the former’s ‘Kashmir first’ stand. The four rounds of bilateral talks under the peace process has, however, taught both Pakistan and India that their complex differences, including those over the Kashmir dispute, can be resolved only through a step-by-step approach, moving towards difficult and complex problems by taking up easy and lesser disputes first. Through this approach, the two countries have also learnt the significance of expanding people-to-people contacts for decreasing the trust deficit.

Fifth: the progressive enhancement of the level of Pakistan-India engagement in bilateral talks since early this year confirms, once again, that the peace process is irreversible because its dividends are obvious and it has created for itself strong constituencies of support at national and international levels.

It is hoped that, while continuing this engagement, both countries will keep in view these lessons to ensure the sustainability and progress of these talks.

The writer is a professor of International Relations at Sargodha University. He can be reached at rashid_khan192@yahoo.com