Daily Times

The future of relations between Pakistan and India hinges on the future of the Kashmir issue. This was the conclusion of the talk, “The future of Pak-India relations”, given by Dr V P Vaidik, Chairman for Indian Foreign Policy and an ex-editor of The Times of India. On the evening of June 1, the talk was delivered at the 29th session of Pakistan Visionary Forum, which is a think tank of the Engineers Co-operative Housing Society commonly known as TECH Society, Lahore.

Dr Vaidik made several points; however, a few of them need mentioning here. First, he informed the audience of the elation of the people of India at the electoral success of Mian Nawaz Sharif in whom they were seeing a chance of improved neighbourly ties. This point indicates that there are people in India who see a direct association between any political development happening in Pakistan and the nature of Pak-India bilateral relations, which ensue consequently. The political party of Mr Sharif, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, enjoying a simple majority in parliament, is poised for picking up the threads of bilateral relations dropped in 1999.

Second, Dr Vaidik revealed to the audience that just before the Mumbai attacks in 2008, India was mulling over an idea of offering Pakistan an economic bailout package worth two billion dollars. The Mumbai attacks militated against that idea before it could be transformed into a peace initiative. This point shows that there is willingness in the political circles of India to improve bilateral ties with Pakistan by gestures that obviate the possibility of any war in the future. Mr Sharif can cash in on the same feelings, if these still exist, to buy electricity from India to alleviate Pakistan’s energy crisis immediately. This point attains more relevance if Pakistan faces problems in continuing with the gas pipeline project with Iran. However, if Pakistan can import energy from both Iran and India simultaneously, it may come out of the current energy crisis quicker than expected.

Third, Dr Vaidik made a point that Pakistan’s tilt towards western countries including the US would not have taken place if the former had not felt insecure in its initial years. This point shows that there is a realisation in India’s intellectual circles that Pakistan’s financial and military reliance on western countries, and even on China, would not have happened if India had given Pakistan its due financial and military share in 1947. Moreover, the strategy of denying Pakistan its due share did not unravel Pakistan. Instead, the strategy became counter-productive. To balance Pakistan’s diplomatic moves, India not only had to go through a war with China in 1962 but it also had come under the influence of the former Soviet Union. Moreover, by locking horns with China, India had to increase its defence spending every year and this practice brought its social sector under immense economic pressure.

Fourth, Dr Vaidik acknowledged that in Afghanistan, India should respect Pakistan’s concerns because Pakistan was an important player in restoring peace and maintaining stability in Afghanistan. This point highlights a fact that there is an understanding in India’s trade circles that India may gain space in Afghanistan through its military prowess but cannot get safe access to the markets of Central Asia by giving Pakistan a snub. Only a serene and secure Afghanistan can allow India to trade its goods with the countries of Central Asia, especially at an affordable economic cost. If India is keen to use Pakistan’s territory as a land corridor to Afghanistan, it must be ready for seeing Pakistan playing its due role in Afghanistan, especially in the post-2014 phase.

Fifth, Dr Vaidik promoted the idea that the policy of tit-for-tat should be forsaken by both sides. The point was elaborated to include that if one prisoner is killed by the fellow inmates in one country’s jail, the episode should not be repeated in any jail of the other country. Similarly, both countries should discontinue following the policy of sending their spies and saboteurs (even in the form of non-state actors) to each other’s territories. This point indicates that there is consciousness in India’s military circles that sending Harbijit Singh to Pakistan as a spy, as has been claimed by India, worsened the cause of detente between the two countries.

Sixth, Dr Vaidik advocated against war and laid emphasis on negotiations as a measure to settle all disputes. This point indicates that there is no dearth of peace proponents in India. Negotiations as a means to settle disputes are also used at the end of a war. Hence, it is better to use them before any next war erupts.

Seventh, Dr Vaidik tried to convince the audience that the people of India did not want to eliminate Pakistan, as India was not against the existence of Pakistan. This point indicates that there is recognition in India that it is considered an existential threat to Pakistan, which engenders enormous hatred in the hearts of Pakistanis towards India. Atal Behari Vajpayee, former Prime Minister of India, tried to mitigate this abhorrence by visiting Minar-e-Pakistan in February 1999 and signing the Lahore Declaration. It is apparent now that India means to address this point further to soften the hearts of Pakistanis towards it.

In the context of Pak-India relations, one of the players is mistrust, which has outgrown exponentially bilateral mutual confidence. However, Dr Vaidik showed his optimism in improving Pak-India relations. The audience, from varied sections of society, including those from TECH Society invited by its President Zubair Sheikh, saw an optimist in Dr Vaidik who was keen on advocating an improvement in bilateral relations through negotiations. irrespective of the activity status of the hawks from both sides. In the question-answer session, both the speaker and the audience agreed on a point: the settlement of the Kashmir issue was vital for the ultimate peace and prosperity of both the countries.

The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com