COMMENT: This talk ain’t going nowhere —Shahzad Chaudhry

The need for peace in South Asia is as much India’s as it is Pakistan’s. Under a nuclear umbrella and a strategic equilibrium of sorts, there is neither a threat, nor a probability of an insane military mind dreaming of a limited war, or even a conflict

“Two roads diverged in a wood. And I took the one less travelled by. And that has made all the difference” — Robert Frost.

These Track II dialogues are interesting events. One gets to mingle with all sorts: young, old, the not-so-old diplomats, academics, generals, hacks entrenched within the establishment and the not-so-entrenched liberals and progressives, conservatives and the rightists, spooks — old and new — but, importantly, all well drenched in the colours of their standards, Indian or Pakistani. And it makes you wonder, as one sits and observes the various hues and shades of human exposé, if one really rises above the make-up that one gathers in years past. A constant reminder that one needs to imbibe for the sake of what is perhaps falsely perceived as a joint future — since neighbours invariably are impacted by what goes on, on the other side of the wall — is to rise above one’s shallowness, which in reality is how the subcontinentals must be characterised, in order to secure a more peaceful and congenial future, not for one’s self, but for one’s children. An impossible dream or a possible mission statement — depends what colour of glasses you are wearing that day.

What stands between the dream and its realisation is another motley group: Hafiz Saeed, Lakhvi, Kasab, Headley, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Mumbai, S M Krishna and a host of others on both sides of the divide whose day is made by keeping both sides quarrelling. Those who are left by the wayside, as this crowd travels the beaten path of the last 63 years, include the grandfatherly Manmohan Singh, meaning well, with a bias for resolving issues with Pakistan, but without a political constituency that clips his ambitions considerably and makes him dependent on his political masters. He is equally benign and harmless to his own political and bureaucratic machinery that chugs along the familiar track, unable to take the road less travelled for fear of chancing upon the unknown, howsoever innovatively promising and refreshing. And, his Pakistani colleague, the equally spare Yousaf Raza Gilani who studiously conveyed to his Indian colleague in Thimphu the strategic change in Pakistani thinking and the desire to think anew the relationship with India. From the Pakistani side, the president needs no convincing on the need to turn the chapter in Pakistan-India relations; he believes in it as a creed, and guides the political process in this endeavour. The foreign minister is an assiduous supporter of the cause: enlightened, progressive but a tad over-ambitious. He is also pragmatic and cautious with a budding political career, and must therefore give voice to all opinions within the establishment.

The army, as an organisation, is like a lumbering bear: slowly moving, awakening to the thought of a new construct — a war may never happen unless things become hopeless. There is no chance in the 21st century as the nature of war has changed irreversibly. A nation must look beyond traditional security constructs to survive challenges. Finally, there is the military might, including that ultimate leveller of differentials, nuclear might. These are now diminishing as measures of relevance in a constantly evolving world. They cautiously watch the process as it unfolds, hoping on one end that a change may actually proffer a different set of conditions where perennial security considerations morph into cooperative regional efforts to provide against threats of a combined hue of terrorists, drug traffickers, money launderers and cyber vandals. While, on the other end, in failure remains the comfort of a familiar operational environment, of large established forces, set-piece battle moves and a mindset that travels from one generation to the next — operational focus being a given. When some, therefore, want to factor in the Cold-Start dynamics as a game changer in the Indo-Pak operational environment, I cannot help but suppress my anguish at the naiveté that is intended to befuddle the uninitiated and seek an unworthy cause of eminence in search for newer relevance. The two countries, in actual fact, are always in a perpetual Cold-Start position. Try saying “go” one of these days.

It was in such a backdrop that a ‘well-entrenched’ Indian journalist of eminence shared the Indian belief that Pakistan must “provide” India with a schedule of actions along a time-line that would bring to justice the perpetrators of Mumbai, inclusive of action against Hafiz Saeed, reassuring India that Pakistan had indeed delivered on what has all of India seething against the 26/11 planners and perpetrators. My refrain is simple: on first impulse, how may Pakistan, another sovereign country with whom India has neither an arrangement nor an understanding or a history of such preferential interaction, seek entreaties expected mostly of vassal states? Forget about the legal or investigative fidelity entered into only in India on the basis of a partial inquiry, the expectation of Pakistan to ‘deliver’ is quixotic. The need for peace in South Asia is as much India’s as it is Pakistan’s. Under a nuclear umbrella and a strategic equilibrium of sorts, there is neither a threat, nor a probability of an insane military mind dreaming a of a limited war, or even a conflict — cold start or lukewarm notwithstanding. And pray, what might happen, were Pakistan not to ‘deliver’? A continuation of the current situation, tbe status quo! So be it. We have learnt our way through it, we will learn a little more.

There is a lot to do within in both countries. Kashmir burns, again, as does the entire east and northeast. India will do well to get a handle on these burning issues. They also have to contend with an indigenous Taliban-like movement that will soon embroil the over 150 million Muslims of India and the state. Pakistan already has her hands full. Today it is useless to recount the genesis or the nurturing entities of what ails the region in the terrorism context. What is of utter urgency is to counter the trend. But, if only Mumbai was to encapsulate the entire extent of terrorism and its manifestations in South Asia, India must revert to some basic lessons in statecraft.

A commentator on Indian media exclaimed surprise over the fact that when India’s newest rising profile has been well registered in Washington and in Beijing, how were the Pakistanis so indignant as not to notice the same and ended up treating the Indian foreign minister with such disdain?

Diplomacy is a tango of the two. Imagine S M Krishna and Shah Mehmood Qureshi doing the tango. What will be the result? A lot of clinks and clanks — typical of two straitjacketed, iron-clad (literally) entities entangling each other as they go through their steps. Why the din then on the recently concluded ‘peace dialogue’ between India and Pakistan air in, air out. South Block and Shiv Shankar Menon, both equally iron-cast, rule the roost. The political leadership in India remains a bystander and the poor S M Krishna must bear the brunt of ridicule. It is not only in Pakistan, even in India the security establishment calls the shots — except that the bureaucracy adds even more weight in Indian stubbornness. Free the poor Krishna from his captivity. Let him relax and smile, and enjoy his grandchildren — or allow him some flexibility.

Shahzad Chaudhry is a retired air vice marshal and a former ambassador