The process of normalisation in the global, regional and internal perspectives needs well-considered and pertinent concepts of diplomatic manoeuvrability through internal consultations among stakeholders first. In international relations the emotional concepts of ‘loyal friends’ and ‘forever foe’ have no room. These days, states are only ‘rivals’ constantly manoeuvring relations with other states to promote their national interests. In these manoeuvres at times compromises with strange bedfellows and sleeping with enemies is not a taboo. What defines interstate relations is either an aggressive or a non-aggressive posture. Relations depend on the way nations behave with each other at a particular juncture of time for furthering their interests, either through making alliances when interests converge or dumping others when interests diverge. Indian diplomacy, which is far more mature and pragmatic by any standards, understands these norms quite well and has been practising choosing favourable allies in the best possible way.
In the backdrop of national and international compulsions, both Pakistan and India will have to come up with innovative approaches towards peace processes to break this vicious circle of stalemate caused by fixed ideas. Efforts need a clear focus on avoiding repetition of a frustrating pattern. What is happening with Pakistan-India relations — since Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s extended friendly gestures to India immediately after getting elected (even before taking oath as prime minister) and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s reciprocal response — is not an unseen initiative in the history of the two neighbours. In the aftermath of General Pervez Kayani’s statement in January this year, indicating a shift in the security paradigm from India-centric to one dealing with internal security threats, as usual, an episode of allegations from the Indian side of beheading of five of its soldiers stirred hysteria in the Indian media.
On assuming power in 2008, President Asif Zardari had also extended a hand of friendship to India. He even appeared on a media forum as part of a peace initiative by two media houses of Pakistan and India and went to the extent of stating Pakistan’s restraint in launching a first nuclear strike. In November 2008, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, the then foreign minister of Pakistan, was visiting India for a dialogue, which was stopped abruptly because of the happenings in Mumbai on November 26, 2008. The hysterical reaction of Indian media was natural but the instant finger pointing at Pakistan remains a matter of great concern. The entire effort for peace was flushed out, to be followed by a long ebb in the flow of the process of dialogue.
These high level overtures — be it prime ministerial parleys at Sharm al-Sheikh, or Pervez Musharraf’s visit to India, Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to Pakistan for the SAARC summit, or Ziaul Haq’s cricket diplomacy — have proved just cosmetic gestures that could not serve as catalysts to the peace process. They rather turned out be detrimental to finding long-term solutions to the outstanding issues due to subsequent spells of silence. During these spans of communication blockade, a baggage of problems kept on piling up for Pakistan, for instance, the Siachen Glacier and the issue of water.
Whenever a bad episode follows a good one, it has become a tradition to point a finger at the military establishment, particularly the Pakistan army, but it is done without any proof, as was the case in the unfortunate beheadings of five Indian soldiers in January 2013. The game spoilers in the region need to be identified correctly on both sides and the circle of inquiry needs to be broadened. India’s avoidance of an independent inquiry by the UN, as was offered by Pakistan, cast a shadow of doubt on the credibility of the allegations. Another logical query would be if Pakistan’s military establishment is so much opposed to good relations with India, why even the military rulers of Pakistan, both Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf, went out of their way to shake hands with India and visited the country in quest of better relations? Ziaul Haq decided to remain complacent on the Siachen issue although he would have gone for a military or diplomatic response, as Pakistan at that time enjoyed the US’s backing.
Blame on the Pakistan army after the killing of Indian soldiers this month was shaped after several somersaults from none less than Indian ministers. The killers were first identified as locals, then locals in Pakistan army uniform, and finally the Pakistan army itself. In a talk show on an Indian channel on August 15, an Indian politician in response to a question about changing position on the killers admitted that in India the official position on the killers at least changed under the influence of the public, civil society and the media and not by the army as is done in Pakistan. By admitting the change in position, he actually opened a gate to a contest of blame games.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh takes one stance and his Parliament contradicts it. The topmost leadership of both the countries has always expressed willingness for better relations but encountered frustration every time. To prevent failures, these high profile gambits must be preceded by homework to bring the actors that matter on the same page. A search of game spoilers beyond the conventional suspects is as important as internal diplomacy to deal with them. Eventual failure of commitments by high level political leadership after jumping straight on to declaratory level calls for a realistic assessment on both sides for taking a little more time to locate the elements first who may spoil the game and also change the tactics along with the sequence of the process. That requires an inward audit of all the state and non-state actors and influence of national and international factors.
Internal diplomacy and negotiations are important to plug the loops that leash fireworks at the hint of turning on the switch of bilateral talks. The internal process of taking major stakeholders on board has to be discreet rather than another hype on the media. Diplomatic efforts to rectify bilateral relations must rest on a sound base of coherence at home and finding out many of those points where both the countries have the potential of convergence of interests at present and in future, but more importantly, an assurance to the stakeholders that vital issues would not be buried forever and they will be dealt as and when processes become viable and start to yield positive outcomes. For instance, the Kashmir issue is a big threat to the peace of this region as David Miliband, the former British foreign minister pointed out. The Kashmir issue is the elephant in the room, which India needs to realise. Therefore India needs to focus its internal diplomacy on bringing aboard all the internal key players towards a solution of this problem as importantly as Pakistan needs coherence on dealing with terrorism.
The writer is the Information Group Officer and the former Press Attaché at the Pakistan High Commission, London