The foreign secretary level talks between India and Pakistan have ended, as expected, without much headway except for an agreement to ‘remain in touch’. Iftikhar Gilani reports.

The first-ever contact between the Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan after last year Sharm el-Sheikh fiasco ended on expected lines. None amongst parties had pinned much hope on its outcome.

Information trickling from the close doors and diplomatic sources, however, suggest that both countries have agreed in principle to revive back-channel contacts, which in past have borne results beyond expectations. The gaze has now shifted to April 28 SAARC summit in Bhutan, where India-Pakistan prime ministers are set to kick-start a new process of dialogue which is different from the composite dialogue that was suspended after the 26/11 terror attacks on Mumbai.

To stave off the nudging from Washington, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh has reportedly taken the personal initiative for talks with Pakistan to prevent any active involvement or interference by a third party. For over past six months India has resisted US and other western countries’ argument linking stability of Afghanistan with a forward movement with Pakistan on Kashmir.

Ahead of his US visit, prime minister had given go ahead to his home minister P. Chidambaram to conduct “quite talks” with Kashmiri separatists. But senior Pakistan diplomats told Kashmir Life that it was an attempt to smoothen ground for Dr. Singh’s Washington trip, where he was reportedly under pressure to explain roadmap for Kashmir. It is believed that media leaks about Chidambaram’s ‘quite talks’ with Mirwaiz Umar Farooq were part of game to convey seriousness and to tell the West and US that New Delhi was dealing with Kashmiris directly who are amenable to such overtures. Once that compulsion ended, talks of quite talks also were put to rest.

Marking a change in its foreign policy Pakistan has for the first time asked for inclusion of Kashmiri leaders in dialogue process. Often stumped by India on the third party mediation, Pakistan has now taken strategic decision of making Kashmiri leaders (read Hurriyat) as the third party. New Delhi would find it hard to get justification in case it refuses the parleys in presence of Kashmiris. With fear of having to literally stand against two parties, the talks would be interesting in case India accepts. Alarmed by the steep decrease in water availability, Pakistan has also officially asked for information related to status of glaciers, forests, water bodies and associated data in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The state being its water head is facing the brunt of global warming and Pakistan feels that the situation is compounded by Indian plans to take up mega water related projects. The climate change in Jammu and Kashmir would be dangerously felt in Pakistan and the nuclear country wants to ensure that the situation is not exploited by India under ‘Water War’ strategy, hotly debated in military circles.

However, the events unfolding over past few months including the arrest of David Headley and Tahawar Hussain Rana in US and releasing of tapes of an Indian national Zabihuddin Ansari alias Abu Jindal guiding Mumbai attackers has proved that network has broader tentacles beyond Pakistan. “It was not possible to zero in on Pakistan only, though the country needs to do a lot more to meet Indian expectations and its commitments,” diplomatic sources added.

They say Prime Minister Dr. Singh has now come around to the view that the talks with Pakistan must go on, terrorism or no terrorism, as that was the only way to put across India’s stand and demands with regard to terrorists in Pakistan. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee has been backing the PM to hilt.

Despite being too busy in giving final touches to the Union Budget he was presenting to Parliament next day, Mukherjee invited Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao to his North Block office and spent one hour with her.

Though both sides expressed scepticism raising tempers on the issue of terrorism and Kashmir sources here, however, said both sides admitted the significance of reviving back-channels. Ahead of April 28 SAARC summit in Bhutan. National Security Advisor (NSA) Shiv Shankar Menon is expected to don the mantle of PM’s point man to interact with Pakistan government. Though, India has been insisting to resume the channel, Pakistan has remained steadfast to keep it defunct on the ground that New Delhi wants Islamabad to nominate someone close to military and intelligence establishment rather than political or diplomatic setup. India believes that political leadership in Pakistan has little say on Kashmir or Afghanistan issues.

Back channel diplomacy was put in practice by former National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee soon after detonation of nuclear device in May 1998. The BJP led government had set some specific goals establishing India’s superiority in economic and strategic areas.

The goals they had set were to seek an entry at the UN Security Council and the elite nuclear club. Indian growing middle class had already shown its prowess to build India’s economic superiority. China with its economic reforms had already shown the way. But, before spreading its economic fangs China had settled its border disputes almost with all the 24 countries bordering it except India.

Therefore, Vajpayee, his National Security Advisor Brajesh Mishra and other top ministers had realised that a safe and secure neighbourhood and internal stability was the only guarantee for claiming economic superiority to counter China. It was also the time when Europe had speeded up settling its political disputes coming in way of its full economic integration. Soon after nuclear tests, Vajpayee started sending feelers to Pakistan. Several back channels were activated notably R. K Mishra and Niaz A Naik.

Pakistani journalist Shuja Nawaz has quoted then Pakistani foreign minister Sartaj Aziz in his latest book Crossed Swords. Aziz says, “Vajpayee had authorised Jaswant Singh to explore an agreement on Kashmir” They met in March 1999 during a foreign minister’s meeting in Nuwara Elliya in Sri Lanka. The two met privately on a bench overlooking a lake, without any notes or other participants, and made great progress on the issues, identifying issues on which they had unacceptable options as well as those that had a common good.

Jaswant Singh said he wanted to avoid division on the basis of religion. He was open to the idea of geographic division, coming closer to the ideas of the Kashmir Study Group. They agreed to continue with the parleys in the months ahead, using Pakistan’s high commissioner Ashraf Jehangir Qazi, as the contact. The fall of BJP government just a month later and Kargil war put an end to the initiative. Aziz says, when he went to call on Vajpayee when he had arrived Delhi in the midst of Kargil war, he told him “Sartaj Sahib, Yeh Aapne Kya Kar Diya”.

Kargil and later an attack on the parliament made progress almost impossible. But, the back channels remained intact. When the NDA lost and Congress came to power, Dr. Manmohan Singh on the same day when he took oath told Jonanthan Powel that he envisaged borders just on maps. He said short of redrawing borders, India can live with anything. It was the continuation what Vajpayee had left.

The watershed was however, January 2006, when the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan starting third round of composite dialogue process committed to find an amicable settlement of Kashmir problem. Much against earlier talks, where India would cut short any discussion on Jammu and Kashmir, foreign secretary Shyam Saran asked Pakistan to present ideas and proposals. “There is a willingness on our part to look at whatever is put before us,” he said.

Since then both sides have exchanged non-papers on the final settlement of the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. Though the contents of these papers are not known, they have filtered out. It seems there is more convergence in views than ever before. While Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf calls for joint management and sharing of sovereignty in Jammu and Kashmir, India has used the term cooperative management.

The pace of this process also got derailed after July 2006 train bombings in Mumbai and the very unkind attitude adopted by the BJP. Many think-tanks at the behest of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi have been bracing up for new ideas that could be acceptable to a large section of Kashmiri leadership as well as to Pakistan.

Pakistan in its non-paper gave famed four point solution publicised by Musharraf later. It offered to abandon its insistence on UN resolutions. It was indeed a big concession as directly and indirectly somehow with other factors coming in between India’s aspirations to get a seat at the UNSC.

The proposals were: Kashmir will have the same borders but people will be allowed to move freely back and forth in the region. The region will have self-governance or autonomy, but not independence. Troops will be withdrawn from the region in a staggered manner. A joint supervision mechanism will be set up, with India, Pakistan and Kashmir represented.

To sum up Pakistan policy it means (a) opt for self-governance in preference to self-determination which implies a change of borders; (b) keep the UN resolutions aside; (c) give up the options of plebiscite as well as that of independence; (d) desist from demanding any territory for Pakistan; (e) reject the communal criteria; (f) not demand Kashmir’s secession from India; and (g) encourage Kashmiris to talk to New Delhi But over the year, and repeated incidences of terrorism in India outside Jammu and Kashmir, India has toughened position on terrorism. India’s road map to peace now primarily says the steps would be taken only after Pakistan stamps out terrorism. It has lures for Islamabad.

The second step, it says would be India’s forward movement towards resolving outstanding bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir. In the third leg, India offers to build up “a lasting relationship with Pakistan that involves creation of stakes in each other’s welfare.

Former Foreign Secretary and one of the architects of his formulation Shyam Saran’s paper on “Indian approach to resolve issue of Jammu and Kashmir” also mentions these things. It actually contained India’s offers in the non-paper and in detail discusses India’s policy on Jammu and Kashmir.

He begins that “Our J&K policy must coordinate between what we pursue as domestic policy with respect to J&K as Central Government policies which mainstream political parties and the J&K State Government pursue in dealing with political, social and economic situation in the State itself—on the one hand and the treatment of J&K as an issue in India-Pakistan relations and in India’s foreign policy in general. A coherent and effective policy on J&K must bring all these components together in an internally consistent manner.”

While saying that no government in India has mandate to alter borders, he goes on that India and Pakistan agree on one thing that is the LOC as status quo is not acceptable. Nevertheless, if we are to adopt a people-centric approach as opposed to a territory-centric approach, then whatever we can do to encourage a free flow of people, goods and ideas across the LoC, whatever we can do to celebrate the cultural affinities which link the people across the LoC, all these steps are to be welcomed.

He says, our response to Pakistan’s self-governance and joint control or joint management is that let Pakistan promote concept of self-governance, not only in Pakistan administered Kashmir, but also in Gilgit and Baltistan, so that we can begin to create crosss-LoC consultative (but not joint Counter Management) mechanism between truly representative and self-governing institutions, to address shared challenges.

Saran further says, that any settlement would have to be acceptable to the people of Pakistan, it must be acceptable to the people of India, including the people of J&K. It is only by encouraging the widest possible exchange amongst our people, in an atmosphere free of violence that we can begin to change public perceptions of each other. Even the limited increase in people to people contact over the past couple of years, has brought about a welcome change in the mindset of people on both sides of the India-Pakistan divide. This is now driving, to a large extent, the peace process. We see the process of increasing people to people exchange, drawing upon the cultural affinities among our peoples, expanding confidence building, building interdependency through trade and economic relations, as integral to the process of finding a settlement of J&K; and not as distraction from that process. Once this is understood, we could move ahead very quickly, because this is what ordinary Indians and Pakistanis want.

The approach papers also envisage the establishment of a high-powered “Council for Jammu and Kashmir” jointly chaired by the heads of governments of India and Pakistan and include high functionaries from the two sides as well as from both sides of the LoC in Jammu and Kashmir. But, Indians would desist calling the arrangement as “joint management” or “shared sovereignty”.

Known expert on Pakistan and Kashmir affairs A. G. Noorani believes that Indian Constitution facilitates such an accord. But, he demands that a political will can only bring about a solution to Kashmir issue. “Such a moment has now arrived in the relations between India and Pakistan and a great act of faith is required of both,” he maintains.

Having said all this no one in South Asia has much hope left in the ability of India and Pakistan leadership to solve a problem that has hung fire for decades and has killed thousands of innocent people and introduced society on both sides to terrorism. The insurgency may have gone down but the increasing street protests and resentment in Kashmir once again demands the leaders to shake the reputation of being ineffective.

Over past one-and-half decade Europeans settled their political disputes be that Saar (France and Germany), Aaland Islands (Sweden and Finland), South Tyrol (Austria and Italy)or Northern Ireland (Britain and Ireland). They have shown the world that political disputes can be resolved though imaginative ways and without hurting the patriotic ego and sentiments of the parties involved. Therefore, a new leaf must be turned on Kashmir.

[kashmirlife.net]

Posted on 02 Mar 2010 by Webmaster