Rewind, replay: India talks terror, Pakistan talks Kashmir

Kashmir and terror are the familiar roadblocks ahead as day two of the foreign secretary level talks between India and Pakistan get underway in Islamabad on Friday. Top diplomats on both sides are aiming to take the dialogue forward and prepare the ground for the foreign minister level talks scheduled for next month. Though diplomats on both sides are trying to ensure that the message going out of the two-day discussions convey a sense of constructive engagement in a cordial atmosphere, some avoidable and needless rhetoric by politicians from both sides has already dampened the mood. The newly appointed Pakistani junior minister for foreign affairs Hina Rabbani Khar has not done the dialogue process any good by describing Kashmir as the core issue between the two countries. It’s no secret that from the point of view of Islamabad, Kashmir remains central to any bilateral engagement. However, to say that in so many words hardly helps in taking the peace process forward. Especially when the issue of 26/11 is still unresolved, and from Delhi’s perspective, terror remains the core issue; any progress on issues like Kashmir would largely remain a function of how effectively Pakistan delivers on India’s “core concern”. [caption id=“attachment_30799” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“The tragedy of Pakistan’s leadership — both civilian and army — is that it needs the legitimacy of talks with India both for domestic consumption as well as for international approval. Reuters”]  [/caption] In diplomacy and for the benefit of domestic constituencies in both countries, such a blunt statement of one’s concern is never made public. Plain speak is done in bilateral engagements but on the eve of such a meeting, while the process is underway, a hungry media is usually fed with expressions like: it’s a “comprehensive dialogue” looking at “all outstanding issues” aimed at “enhancing people-to-people contact”. The Pakistani junior minister perhaps took a cue from her political boss, Yousaf Raza Gillani, who on the eve of foreign secretary level talks thundered: “On Kashmir, Pakistan was ready and willing to wage a one thousand-year war if necessary.” Pakistan did try and make amends by saying Gillani’s rant should be seen in the context of local politics. The suggestion was that since the prime minister was addressing an election meeting in PoK and playing to the gallery, his comments should be overlooked. But whatever be the context, such a war cry from the prime minister of the host country hardly provides an ideal backdrop for a bilateral peace meeting. Not to be left behind, the BJP and Mr. Advani have also ably done their bit in playing spoilsport. In a public meeting in Delhi on Thursday, the BJP veteran warned the government against making any secret deal with Pakistan on Kashmir. It’s unlikely a secret deal is in the offing but — in the age of live TV — Advani’s comments were played out prominently on Pakistani channels weakening the case of doves on the other side of the divide. An editorial in the Times of India today has summed up the mood best by saying the two countries need to “engage quietly” at this point. The newspaper advises a pragmatic and cautious approach in the current environment when post Osama bin Laden’s killing, anti-American sentiment is running high in Pakistan. The newspaper writes that “resultant emotions are volatile and violent, including a sharp spike in anti-India feelings. In this scenario, it’s essential that India presents a calm countenance to its neighbour and we do not expect much movement on big issues such as Kashmir and terror." The newspaper further says that it will be advisable to focus on small, pragmatic topics like smoothening visa processes and improving bilateral trade. All very sensible advise. Only there is this slight problem in India always being asked to “maintain this calm countenance” because of a prevailing uncertain, volatile and violent climate across the border. Weighed down by recent events, which keep adding to Pakistan’s to-do list, we tend to forget the point from which this dialogue process originated. There can be two cut-off dates for the sake of any discussion on this subject. One was the joint communication issued in January 2004 when Vajpayee went to Islamabad, and another was in July 2009, when a joint statement was issued after a prime minister level meeting in the Egyptian resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh. Even though Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh came in for severe criticism for that initiative, with the wounds of 26/11 still fresh, both the joint statements focused on terror not Kashmir. The tragedy of Pakistan’s leadership — both civilian and army — is that it needs the legitimacy of talks with India both for domestic consumption as well as for international approval. Go back to any stage and time in the last 12 years — post Kargil — Islamabad always clamors and all but begs for talks when the two countries are off the negotiating table. To return to talks, Islamabad would be happy to sign on any dotted line Delhi proposes. So terror always is the central point when the two countries agree to resume talks. But no sooner does India come to the negotiating table, Pakistan reverts to its old tune of Kashmir at the expense of everything else. What we are seeing is only another replay of a very familiar charade.