Daily Times

Hope is a precious commodity in the contentious relationship and endemic hostility between India and Pakistan. Both countries, bound by geography and a shared inheritance, seem unable to shake the baggage of history. The partition of India was based on the belief that Hindus and Muslims could not live together. In the six decades since this idea has transformed into two sovereign and independent states unable to live side by side. Despite the sorry record in bilateral relations, a rationale for dialogue was articulated by the distinguished Indian diplomat and politician late Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, who once said: “The more we sweat in peace the less we bleed in war.”
In both countries, political and institutional acceptance of a sustained peace process is difficult. Whenever there appears an opportunity for a thaw in bilateral relations, one or the other side decides that the risk of moving forward is too great. Sadly, but perhaps understandably, India has been more risk averse in recent times. Moreover, both states have exhibited inflexibility over the years, their respective positions bolstered by vested interests that include unyielding civil and defence establishments. Furthermore, the manipulation of popular opinion helps to ensure unremitting hostility between the two countries. India, with its growing global role, military and economic clout sees little advantage in dealing with Pakistan. On the other hand, Pakistan, India’s neighbour and nemesis, continues to seek parity with its adversary, which by every yardstick is an unrealistic proposition.
Third-party engagement is deemed futile and hopeless, as India and Pakistan themselves display little desire for peace. The international community sees little upside in getting involved in resolving longstanding and seemingly intractable disputes. However, it makes little sense for the world to wait for some fundamental social or political changes to actively engage with India and Pakistan. In fact, a relationship exacerbated by fear, hatred and distrust, and a smouldering powder keg requires immediate attention. Peace between two nuclear-armed states, whose volatile borders are a constant flashpoint for major conflict, should be a pressing international issue.
Without external involvement, the stalemate in India-Pakistan relations is likely to continue indefinitely. The small peace lobbies in both countries have to overcome significant negative perceptions such as: a) India has never reconciled to the creation of Pakistan and therefore wishes to destroy it, and b) Pakistan and its military brass in particular cannot be trusted to talk genuine peace. Only a third party can try to moderate Pakistan’s phobia about India, a nation perhaps seven times as populous and four times as large, with an army twice as big and governed by a Hindu nationalist party known for anti-Pakistan views. Similarly, realistically, only a third party is in a position to allay some of India’s fears about Pakistan, in particular Pakistan’s rapidly increasing nuclear weapons’ stockpile. It can apply pressure on the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment to end the use of anti-India militants as useful proxies. Only third parties can validate that there can be no outright winner in a battle between two nuclear-armed states.
Despite the depressing outlook, there are some immediate initiatives that could improve the atmosphere, leading to a more meaningful and constructive dialogue. For instance, Pakistan must punish the plotters of the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attack. There is growing evidence this attack was orchestrated from Pakistan. This would signal a change of attitude towards India, which has long accused Pakistan of aiding and abetting cross-border terrorism. On its part, India can revive sporting ties between the two countries, starting with cricket. This soft gesture would confirm that India, despite harbouring serious doubts about Pakistan’s intentions, was above mixing sports and politics.
These initiatives could lead to direct talks. There is simply no better way then talks to convey authoritative statements of position or to hear responses. If initial talks are fruitful, they can result in dialogue on more substantive subjects of mutual concern like more open and secure borders, demilitarisation and denuclearisation, governance, intolerance and education, gender and other related issues, globalisation, business and trade, cultural exchange and sports, and eventually Kashmir. Ultimately, both countries need to focus on the mutual challenges of poverty, hunger, illiteracy, water, health, shelter, education and unemployment, religious extremism and fundamentalism.
With failure not an option, Prime Ministers Modi and Sharif should take the risks that most leaders shun. The way forward is demonstrating pragmatism and zeal in addressing issues, keeping in mind what long-term peace could mean for the people of the subcontinent. Much of the public in both countries are rightly sceptical because past peace efforts have yielded little of substance. Both governments will need to show results from their efforts. The initial priority in the talks can be regional conflict management, stopping cross-border attacks and creating better conditions for a permanent peace. One has to believe that seemingly intractable disputes can be resolved, or ameliorated, by patience, outside encouragement and, above all, a strategy that will address the many dimensions of the complex relationship between India and Pakistan.

The writer can be reached at shgcci@gmail.com