Opinion Talking terms
India and Pakistan have broken their silence. But it will require focused effort to break the impasse.
In the first formal diplomatic engagement between the two countries after India called off secretary-level talks last year, Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar met Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on Tuesday. The word emerging from the meeting has been positive. Nawaz said the two countries “must think together, act together and move forward with the spirit of bringing the two nations closer to each other”. It remains unclear, though, if the two countries know how to turn these fine words into reality — and, indeed, whether they have the intention of doing so. New Delhi says the meeting will not be necessarily followed by a resumption of the composite dialogue process begun by the UPA government, but has not spelled out its alternative vision. The two countries’ communiques, too, broke no new ground. Islamabad said it had raised the alleged Indian funding of terrorist groups; in turn, Delhi brought up the slow pace of the 26/11 trial.
The short-term purpose of these talks, it doesn’t take much to see, isn’t to solve intractable problems. Instead, the fact of diplomatic engagement adds a crisis-management cushion to the arsenals of both governments. For months now, Pakistan has feared that a terrorist attack against India could lead Prime Minister Narendra Modi to order military counter-strikes — catching it at a moment of special vulnerability, when a large part of its armed forces are tied down fighting terrorists in its northwest. Now, it hopes, Delhi will first address its problems through diplomatic channels, making rapid escalation of conflict less likely. For both countries, this is a pragmatic step. In the throes of severe economic challenges, India can ill afford a conflict, and near-bankrupt Pakistan can do so even less.
But it would be dangerous to mistake this diplomatic breathing space for bedtime. Islamabad has scaled back jihadist operations in Kashmir, and placed restraints on organisations targeting India. It hasn’t, however, dismantled the infrastructure of groups like the Lashkar-e-Toiba — leaving open the prospect of a future attack sparking off a crisis. The last two years have, notably, seen the first uptick of violence in Kashmir in over a decade. Delhi, for its part, has not unveiled just what it is willing to bring to the diplomatic table. The engagement of Kashmiri secessionists in dialogue, the demilitarisation of Siachen, and the settlement of the Sir Creek issue — the government’s position on all these remains unclear. Barring focused effort, this latest engagement could also end in that depressing place both know so well — impasse.
Share
