Daily Times

Was it a matter of egos? For some, perhaps it was. But was Pakistan justified in the way it handled the situation? Perhaps not. Indian Home Minister Rajnath Singh, on Thursday, left the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Interior Ministers’ meeting halfway through after an alleged war of words on the floor of the summit with his Pakistani counterpart, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. In a moment of rashness, Pakistan perhaps lost a great opportunity to initiate a bilateral talk with its eastern neighbour. Even in the last meeting of SAARC premiers in 2014, many agreements remained unsigned due to strained relations between Pakistan and India.

The SAARC summit presents a huge opportunity for the member states to discuss the issues affecting the region and devise strategies to tackle them. However, the summit in invariably overshadowed by issues between Pakistan and India.

The Indian home minister had indirectly accused Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism, also criticising Pakistan’s alleged support of terrorist elements in Kashmir. The statement of Singh on security challenges in the region amid the worsening situation in Kashmir was expected, and it was not much different from what India’s official stance is on other international forums. In the current scenario where Pakistan finds itself in strenuous relations with almost all its neighbours, the response from Pakistan should have been a measured one. Although Chaudhry Nisar’s response to his counterpart was also predicable, the choice of words could have been better, considering the hostile status quo between the two countries.

The visit of Rajanth Singh to Pakistan not only presented an opportunity to restart the halted dialogue process, but also a chance to address Pakistan’s apprehensions related to Kashmir. Being the home minister of India, Singh is in the best position to discuss the issues related to Kashmir and clarify India’s stance on Kashmir. If Pakistan wished to show its sincerity towards resolving the Kashmir issue, it should have tried to arrange one-on-one meetings between the Indian minister and his counterpart in Pakistan, as well as with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. In a hardened response that could be attributed to inflated egos between the two countries, Pakistan seems to have squandered that chance.

Moreover, media blackout of the coverage of SAARC summit also created headlines across the border, and while it may be part of SAARC protocol not to cover the entire proceedings, the absence of press conferences after the summit raised questions to which there were not many satisfactory answers. This is a cooperation summit held among the eight member states to discuss regional issues of peace, security and trade, not a security advisors meeting where a full blackout could be justified.

Being the host country of a regional summit, Pakistan government’s attitude towards the guests should have been more courteous. Chaudhry Nisar, in a rather strange and inexplicable move, decided not to attend the luncheon arranged in honour of the participating ministers, citing previously-arranged engagements. In response to Pakistan’s interior minister’s absence, Indian home minister also decided to quit the luncheon. Such an attitude on the part of the country hosting a regional summit does not bide well with other member states.

Pakistan has a difficult relationship with almost all of its regional neighbour countries. In the west, the relations with Afghanistan and Iran have also deteriorated in recent times. Pakistan and Afghanistan trade accusations and not goods regularly. Moreover, Pakistan has not done much to improve its ties with Iran following the lifting of sanctions on the latter. The only regional country that has good relations with Pakistan is China, but even those relations cannot be described as balanced or on equal terms.

Pakistan needs to learn from its mistakes from the past, and should be more cautious in future if it wishes to raise its voice on an international level. Pakistan cannot expect a positive response from the international community if it continues with such an immature attitude rather than addressing the core problems. Moreover, both Pakistan and India should realise that the SAARC summit is not only about them. There are six other stakeholders involved, and both the countries should respect their presence.

At home, in India, or at any regional or international platform, Pakistan should be prepared to have proper responses to India’s or any other country’s allegations of terrorism. And responses should be fact-based, comprehensive, articulate and satisfactory. Cooperation with all countries to eliminate terrorism is a promise Pakistan has made to its people and the global community, and that includes attention to all terror-related incidents in India, of which the blame is on Pakistan. Pakistan, like a dignified sovereign state that it is, should deal with allegations with pragmatism and solution-based responses, instead of indulging in gratuitous whataboutery and a counter-productive blame-game.

In order to reiterate its sincerity to the cause of Kashmiris’ indigenous movement for freedom, and to show its solidarity for the pain and sacrifices of Kashmiris, Pakistan should make its stance a principled one, a stance that is based on moral support of Kashmiris. There should not be any endorsement — covert or overt — of an armed struggle in Kashmir, as no conflict that takes place between two unevenly matched forces ever end on a note of positivity. Dialogue is the only way forward, and the SAARC summit could have been the starting point for that. Pakistan is vociferous in its condemnation of Indian forces’ violence on stone-pelting Kashmiris, and the issue is being raised by Pakistan on all available international platforms. Refusal to engage in a dialogue with the visiting home minister of the country Pakistan has multiple issues with is merely an exhibition of churlish petulance, which in the short and long term would only aggravate the situation between the two countries, and consequently, creating more despondency in the already bleak scenario of Kashmir. *