"I think the reality is that India and Pakistan cannot afford to turn their backs to each other, that they must engage in dialogue, which is as I said serious and sustainable and comprehensive," Foreign Secretary of India Nirupama Rao, who is "cautiously optimistic" about the restart of the peace talks, said. Earlier this month, the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan shook hands to finally resolve their bitter standoff and resume the wide−ranging harmonious talks that have been on hold since the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. When asked about the nature and form of the discussions, Ms. Rao has said that they are only meant to be comprehensive and refused to classify them as "composite dialogue," the official nomenclature used to describe previous India−Pakistan negotiations.
Fine Madam, call it what you like. But I believe that whatever the terminology of the talks is, it is pertinent for the countries to soon resolve the issues bracketed in the original composite dialogue. Composite dialogue is a specific negotiation process meant to give structure to the many bilateral conclaves held between India and Pakistan to discuss eight conflicting issues on Kashmir, Siachen Glacier, Sir Creek, the Tulbul/Wular Lake dispute, terrorism and drug trafficking, conventional and nuclear CBMs, and economic and commercial cooperation.
The dialogue began in May 1997 and so far, there have been four rounds of it from 1998 to 2008, with intermittent delays. These delays have been due to events such as the Kargil War, the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, the 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings and the 2008 Mumbai attacks. The serial attacks in Mumbai were meticulously planned, and what was particularly appalling was the audacious and complex nature of the operations targeting diverse groups.
Agreed, they were the most brutal attacks India has seen. But is it justified for either of the nations to stall 13 years of formal peace talks in light of such events?
I don't think so.
It is easy to break off ongoing negotiations, but it is extremely strenuous to begin a peace process. Initiating negotiations between two opposing nations requires lot of money, time, political will and public pressure and thus must not be abandoned so easily. I must admit that I do not expect India or any other country to ignore the plight of its own citizens during times of crisis, in order to continue bilateral talks, just for the sake of it. However, I do expect both of the countries to detach their problems from the people and not let the past become the prologue.
Matters on Kashmir and Siachen have been unduly prolonged and need to be resolved soon, as they concern the security of both the public and armed personnel. The countries have fought at least three wars over Kashmir and lost many soldiers as a result. Territorial disputes over the Tulbul Navigation Project, Sir Creek and Siachen — whose outcomes will have drastic effects on sources of natural resources for both countries — have significantly contributed to halts in negotiations. With regard to Siachen, both India and Pakistan have had military bases in Siachen since 1984, and the area is technically a no−man's land. As for the Tulbul Navigation Project, the people in both countries could greatly benefit from its resolution, as it would create a navigable channel for transportation to the people of Jammu and Kashmir. India has spent 360 million rupees to maintain the project from 1984 to March 2001.
On all of these affairs, Pakistan and India are incurring heavy costs in monetary and human resources. There is also a problem of these issues getting sidelined due either to extraneous occurrences or pre−conditions imposed by the countries before negotiations begin. For instance, India has argued that talks will not begin unless Pakistan undertakes visible steps against terrorist groups that threaten India. So what do other contentions on high security, stability, resources, economics and trade face?
A halt.
Like Rao said in an interview with New Delhi Television Limited, I too believe that it is pragmatic and necessary to resume the talks, as this is their only chance at progress and results. I believe it is imperative that the two neighbors maintain communication regardless of political and natural setbacks. Additionally, there are a few steps that the two nations can take to make some forward progress and recover from years of setbacks in peace talks.
The first is to forget the past. Due to the occurrences of atrocities in India and Pakistan during partition and thereafter, they have entrenched their present mindsets in the events of the past. With the exception of occasional periods of thawing, their relations as independent nations have been tense and cold. The hostilities have led to numerous conflicts, making them perceive each other with a sense of distrust and antagonism. They cannot positively move forward while being weighed down by the earlier events and estranged ties and hope for a resolution through peaceful talks. They must learn to forget the past so that they can move on and address current problems effectively.
The next step will be to put aside the Kashmir dispute. The issue of Kashmir is critical, but it is not the only fundamental conflict. While dealing with other disputes, they must postpone the talks on Kashmir for a while. This will allow them to make headway in issues that are more negotiable and have the potential to reach agreement within the near future.
India and Pakistan must also remember to treat each issue separately. The composite dialogue is a unique process but not the most effective. The Kashmir problem and terrorist attacks are not related to the Tulbul Navigation dispute. Failure in one area is leading to disruption of discussions in another. Putting all the major issues in one basket is not strategic, as each dispute has varying levels of priority to both governments and the people.
Additionally, the governments need to separate the people from the problem; they have gotten carried away with emotions and irrationality. In the book, "Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In" (1991) by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton, the authors note that, "A major consequence of the ‘people problem' in negotiations is that the parties' relationship tends to become entangled with their discussions of substance. On both the giving and receiving end, we are likely to treat people and problem as one." In such a case, important matters, such as the water issue or economic cooperation, have gotten subdued due to the estranged relationship between the rival countries.
We must give emphasis to measures on confidence building with Pakistan as it helps in the long run to develop trust and sustain regional cooperation. Confidence−building measures, such as transparency tools, data exchanges, verification, aerial inspections and thin−out zones, can be useful for both the nations to help build confidence in each other's actions and, particularly, assist India in mentally preparing to negotiate after the Mumbai attacks of 2008 in a renewed manner.
Finally, it is important for both of the countries to remove all forms of antagonism and act to secure higher and long−term regional peace and order. As they say, the show, or rather, negotiations, must go on!
--
