[FridayTimes] The recent killing of five Indian soldiers in an ambush along the Line of Control (LoC) has cast a shadow on the bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistain which was to resume after a hiatus of over six months, and a meeting between the prime ministers of the two countries on the sidelines of the United Nations...a formerly good idea gone bad...
General Assembly session later next month.
The reaction on both sides has been typical. Neither side seems to understand the intricacies of their very delicate relationship.
On the Indian side, the electronic media, especially a couple of television channels, stopped short of calling for a war with Pakistain. All debates on ties with Pakistain during times of tension have a very typical pattern. Anchors call for ending relations with Islamabad and it is fashionable to adopt a rather simplistic George Bush like 'either you are with us or against us' attitude. Anyone who has a balanced perspective and speaks in favour of dialogue and engagement with Pakistain is seen as anti-national. Aspersions are cast on individuals working for better ties between the two countries, and references are made to their 'cocktail circuits' and their cottage industries. It is conveniently forgotten that the cottage industry of conflict is far more lucrative than that of peace.
What strengthened war mongers on the Indian side was a statement made by Defence Minister AK Antony in Indian parliament, in which he did not directly implicate Pakistain Army but said that men in Mighty Pak Army uniforms were behind the attack. This enraged the opposition and the media. The defence minister had to revise his statement and also spoke about giving a befitting reply to Pakistain if such incidents occurred again. This satisfied the opposition BJP.
Panelists from Pakistain with liberal leanings and the right intentions also make arguments that further strengthened the hawks in India. They either delve into the past, or put forth the argument that Pakistain itself is a victim of terror - which is true, but does not justify terrorist acts in India which emanate from Pakistain. In the midst of this polarized discourse, it is imperative that Pak liberals and elements within the civil society realize that it is virtually impossible for the Indian government to carry on the dialogue as if nothing happened, more so in the aftermath of 26/11.
If one were to look ahead, the newly elected
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...
government in Pakistain would do well to at least take some tangible steps to bring some of the perpetrators of 26/11 to book, and order an inquiry into the recent killing of Indian soldiers. It is indeed worrisome that the Pak prime minister speaks of both countries reducing their defence budgets one day, and on the next day such a misadventure takes place. Either the PML-N government is running with the hare and hunting with the hounds, or Sharif, a pragmatic politician, is still not in control of his army. Pak liberals and the civilian government should realize that by speaking about engagement without any forward movement on the above issues, hard-line elements within and outside the Pak establishment are let of the hook, and the relationship between the two countries does not benefit in any way.
On the Indian side, it is important for leaders of the opposition and the media to come up with constructive suggestions rather than criticizing the government for talks with Pakistain. Senior opposition leaders, analysts and sections of the media trivialize the debate by repeatedly referring to what is served to Pak dignitaries when they visit India, or by continuously taking a dig at peaceniks, who are referred to as mombattiwallahs.
It is important to realize that mere dialogue with Pakistain is no favor to Islamabad. If talks are carried out on Islamabad's terms and 26/11 and other events are ignored, only then can it be said that the dialogue is of no use to India. Apart from this, basic diplomatic courtesies have to be maintained. So if External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid extended courtesies to the erstwhile Pak prime minister or if the Indian premier has a one-on-one meeting with Nawaz Sharif on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly session, it does not necessarily imply that the national interests are being compromised. Instead, it would make more sense for the Indian prime minister to actually broach the issue of LoC violations, as was done in the case of China. The broader dialogue can also be on issues which are of mutual interest to New Delhi and Islamabad, such as trade and people-to-people contact.
Despite a number of dastardly acts over the past few years and the dominant voice of hawks in both countries, some rational voices have emerged. An example of that is the appetite in Pakistain for closer trade ties with India. It is vital that these sane voices begin to find their rightful space in the discourse in both the countries. This can only happen if there is more interaction, not less.