Pak-India Dialogue:
A Qualitative Change
By Dr Shireen M. Mazari
The third round of the composite
dialogue between Pakistan and India begins later
this month with the foreign secretary-level talks
in New Delhi on January 17-18. The atmospherics,
that had sustained the 'feel-good' milieu despite
no substantive movement on any conflictual issue,
have finally altered to reflect a more realistic
situation on the ground. Despite Pakistan's continuing
concessionary initiatives on Kashmir and other issue
areas, India has totally vitiated the atmosphere
by holding forth on Balochistan and expressing its
'concern' over what it refers to as the spiraling
violence and 'heavy military action'. Even though
Pakistan objected to this unwarranted meddling in
the country's internal affairs, the Indians continued
with their tirades.
Why should we be surprised at this Indian effort
to interfere in Balochistan? After all, many of
us have been pointing to the fact that India will
use its access in Afghanistan to conduct Low Intensity
Conflict (LIC) within Pakistan simply to keep Pakistan
under pressure. After all, we saw something similar
happening when India opened its consulate in Zahidan,
Iran and eventually the proof was so overwhelming
that Pakistan had to approach the Iranian government.
Regardless of the efficacy or otherwise of the present
Pakistani government's actions in Balochistan to
deal with the terrorist threat, the fact of the
matter is that there is abundant money coming from
some quarters which is allowing terrorists to purchase
sophisticated weapons. Now Iran, with its own sensitivities
on its side of Balochistan will hardly want to aid
instability so close to its borders at a time when
it is already facing other international crises.
But the US would like to see Balochistan remain
undeveloped so that Iran is not given any access
to the East -- all part of its efforts to isolate
Iran. And India has never missed an opportunity
to try and keep Pakistan bleeding. So there is logic
in President Musharraf's accusation that there were
strong indications of Indian financial involvement
in Balochistan.
But it is not just Indian statements on Balochistan
that have vitiated the atmospherics between Pakistan
and India. It is also India's continuously negative
responses to Pakistani initiatives on Kashmir that
have finally altered the atmospherics on the bilateral
dialogue. With both Pakistan and the Kashmiri leadership,
including Mir Waiz and the APHC, seeking demilitarization
as a major CBM, India has revealed its rigidity
on the Kashmir issue by not only rejecting such
proposals but also declaring that demilitarization
or redeployment of forces in Indian-Occupied Kashmir
was a 'sovereign' decision of New Delhi. In other
words, that IOK was Indian territory. Clearly India
has not moved an iota since the dialogue commenced
on Kashmir despite a continuous flow of suggested
concessions from Pakistan! Of course, demilitarization
of Kashmir has been a part of UN resolutions on
the conflict also, so Pakistan does not have to
give any quid pro quos when it demands the same.
Unfortunately, our somewhat confused Foreign Minister,
seems so eager to please what he seems to regards
as his Indian constituency that following India's
blatant snub of President Musharraf's demilitarization
proposal, he followed up by suggesting that Pakistan
was willing to remove its deployed forces from AJK.
He then added that Pakistan "also wants the
entire region to be demilitarized by both Pakistan
and India". So he has either inadvertently,
or deliberately, not linked Pakistani demilitarization
with a simultaneous move by India. Instead, he has
said that additionally -- the word 'also' is what
he used -- Pakistan would like both itself and India
to demilitarize the 'entire region'. One really
shudders to think how he envisages the composition
of this 'entire region!' Words are critical in diplomacy
but we are still not careful in how we use them.
Coming back to the dialogue process, now that the
false 'feel-good' atmospherics are over, Pakistan
needs to take a good hard look at what has been
achieved so far in the two years that are now nearing
completion, since the dialogue began.
• On Kashmir, India has reasserted its old
line of IOK being an integral part of the Indian
Union and all that India seems to be seeking is
to gain access to freer movement of people and goods
across the LoC so that this becomes the de facto
international border.
• On Siachin, the Indians want to rewrite
the agreement that both sides had almost signed
in the late eighties, so that the line from where
they would withdraw is demarcated. Effectively this
would mean that their territorial claim to that
area would be bolstered since demarcation of a withdrawal
line implies ownership over it in the first place.
* On the water dispute, India's unrelenting rigidity
on Baglihar and Kishanganga has meant that Pakistan
will have to persist in seeking international arbitration.
* On Sir Creek also India has failed to budge in
order to get an agreement.
So what has happened as a result of the dialogue?
More trade opportunities for India and greater access
for Indian politicians into Pakistan. A far more
insidious development has been the linkages moving
apace between Pakistan's Punjab and Indian Punjab.
It was strange to hear a call from US Senator Dan
Burton asking Pakistan and India to resolve the
Khalistan issue. What has Pakistan to do with this
issue unless Mr Burton is seeking support for the
notion of Greater Punjab? Could this be a new can
of worms opening for Pakistan? With Punjabi political
leaders gracing Indian Punjab's calendars and with
road development from Wagah to Indian sacred sites
in Pakistan in full swing what is happening between
the two Punjabs?
One additional factor that also needs to be brought
into the calculations is the US role now that India
and the US are strategic partners and nuclear allies.
Judging by the rather worn-out rhetoric and advice
of American scholars visiting Pakistan in recent
times, the US would like to push Pakistan not only
into accepting the Indian position on conflictual
issues but also into accepting greater curbs over
its nuclear program and ideally they would like
to see open acrimony between Pakistan and Iran.
One way is to go along with Indian covert efforts
at LIC in Balochistan even though the end game for
the two may be different at the strategic level.
Under these circumstances, while breaking off the
dialogue would serve no purpose, going into it in
a more realistic fashion is certainly the need of
the hour. Now that the atmospherics are not clouding
the ground realities, Pakistan needs to realize
that for two years its peace overtures and initiatives
have all been repudiated by an unrelentingly obdurate
India. So now we should wait for India to make the
next move. Unilateral concessions never work and
they have not done so for Pakistan. It is time to
alter our game plan as we go in for the third round
of the Pakistan-India dialogue process.
(The writer is director general of the Institute
of Strategic Studies in Islamabad. Courtesy The
News)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
