It goes to the credit of the governments of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pak Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif
... served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, heads the Pakistain Moslem League (Nawaz). Noted for his spectacular corruption, the 1998 Pak nuclear test, border war with India, and for being tossed by General Musharraf...
that the Pathankot attack did not cause the rupture that it could have and both governments have kept the channels of communication open.
Yet, nearly three months will have passed since the attack by the time the Pak investigation team arrives in India later this month.
In the meantime, the Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue both countries so boldly agreed to late last year has all but stalled. It is time for that process to begin and, therefore, it is disappointing that a meeting on the sidelines of a Saarc summit in Nepal between Adviser on Foreign Affairs Sartaj
PrunefaceAziz
...Adviser to Pak Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on National Security and Foreign Affairs, who believes in goodjihadis and
badjihadis as a matter of national policy...
and Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj did not go far beyond talk of the Pathankot probe.
Resumption of dialogue -- or, technically, the start of the Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue -- hinges on two things. In administrative terms, the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistain must meet to determine a schedule for meetings of the various dialogue sub-groups and determine how a first round of talks will move ahead.
So far, the two governments appear reluctant to announce a date for the foreign secretaries’ meeting, suggesting a link to progress on the Pak side of the Pathankot investigation.
In political terms, Mr Modi and Mr Sharif will need to invest their time and capital in dialogue -- both to ensure that it restarts and, subsequently, to nudge bureaucratic negotiations towards results. Thus far, both leaders have only demonstrated a willingness to take risks in meeting each other -- but not the willingness or confidence to actually move dialogue forward. That must change.
Necessary and welcome as prime ministerial interactions are, they must go beyond tentative ideas. When Mr Modi and Mr Sharif next meet, the emphasis must be on substance. Regional hopes for peace could soon turn to a familiar disillusionment if the two prime ministers reduce their meetings to desultory photo ops.
Perhaps what India needs to recognise is that dialogue should not hinge on any single issue, especially if that issue is a bad boy attack meant to derail dialogue.
Moreover, the terrorism threat in the region can only be combated by joint action by Pakistain and India -- and dialogue alone offers the opportunity to create a robust framework for joint action against militancy and terrorism.
Yet, Pakistain needs to acknowledge the centrality of terrorism to India’s concerns about its relationship with Pakistain. The recent sharing of intelligence with the Indian national security adviser by Pakistain was a positive step. Faster action on the Pathankot and Mumbai attacks would send a stronger signal yet.