A non-meeting

Neither side expected much of the meeting in New York, on Sept 29, between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan. Yet, it need not have gone the way it did even if relations between the two countries are as strained as they are.

Dr Manmohan Singh and Mian Nawaz Sharif did not meet in private but with a full brigade of officials on each side. A talk in private between two peace-loving prime ministers was avoided precisely at a time when a heart to heart dialogue was necessary. But some result, however small, had to be achieved for a total failure would have damaged both the leaders in their respective countries. The mouse did not emerge from a mountain of labour. It was dug up from its hole and exhibited as a trophy of promise.

Ironically, it does hold some promise if only to stabilise and improve the situation with all deliberate speed so that we can move on to tackle more important issues. The directors-general of military operations of both sides — Maj Gen Ashfaq Nadeem of Pakistan and Lt-Gen Vinod Bhatia of India — will meet shortly. Their remit as announced by the officials of both countries, does not suffer from an excess of clarity.

The Indian version is that they will identify measures to restore and maintain peace and tranquillity along the Line of Control in Kashmir. “The two leaders directed the two DGMOs to come up with measures”, an Indian official said, adding pointedly that the “stage for a broader dialogue has not come” and that “both leaders agreed that peace and tranquillity on the LoC is a precondition to moving the peace process forward”.

Pakistan’s version is that the DGMOs “will meet and establish a joint mechanism for not only investigation of incidents on the LoC, but also to ensure that there is no recurrence of violence”.

It is 14 years since the two DGMOs met to defuse the Kargil crisis. Each speaks to the other on the phone every Tuesday. A lot depends on their personal approach to the task and, indeed, on the brief they receive from their governments — whether to go ahead speedily, or in slow motion.

The arrangement has potentialities though the prospects seem none too bright. The atmosphere was fouled by a series of outrages this year — the beheading of Indian soldiers near the LoC in January, the incident on Aug 6 in which five Indian soldiers were killed near the LoC, and the killing of 12 persons, including a lieutenant colonel, two other army men, and four policemen last month, on the eve of the New York meeting.

All these as also the Mumbai blasts were staged by elements in Pakistan who are opposed to their government’s efforts at reconciliation with India. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said in New York: “Such attacks will not deter us and will not succeed in derailing our efforts to find a resolution to all problems through a dialogue.”

But the pragmatic adviser to Pakistan’s prime minister on foreign affairs, Sartaj Aziz, had sensed a change of stance well before that. He told the media at Islamabad on September 17 that Pakistan had lowered its expectations and foresaw no breakthrough at the New York meeting in view of India’s reluctance to talk.

We have come a long way from the Sharm El Sheikh joint statement of July 2009 which said that “action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed”.

Things began to look up after the prime ministers of Pakistan and India met at Thimphu on April 30, 2010. Pursuant to their understanding, foreign secretaries Salman Bashir and Nirupama Rao put the dialogue back on track in February 2011. The prime ministers met twice in 2011. All that now seems to lie in a distant past. The dialogue is held ransom to terrorists.

Pakistan’s efforts to control known leaders of the militants are not particularly conspicuous. The last five years have seen no significant progress in the trial of the accused in Pakistan. The agreement on the Most Favoured Nation treatment to India remains only on paper. Pakistan’s minister of state for commerce, Khurram Dastgir Khan, told Indian correspondents last month: “We want to move forward on trade but at the moment it seems that it is not really defensible in parliament and in front of the people unless there is some political movement. One step forward on political issues will yield five steps forward on trade.”

He specifically mentioned two disputes whose resolution, he said, is “doable” — Sir Creek and the demilitarisation of Siachen. No such condition was present in the agreement.

To return to the immediate task, peace along the LoC in Kashmir, why not enlist the help of traders on both sides in the cause? Peace is very much in their interest too. Right now, the cross-LoC trade is languishing, causing frustration all around.

Moreover, it is based on the mediaeval barter system. There are no banking or communications facilities. The poor trader simply does not know the state of the market on the other side. It provides a graphic illustration of the non-seriousness of our leaders in concluding non-agreements at non-summits.

Leaders should not allow militants to foil their policies and deflect them from the course on which they had set themselves. Many years ago, on Oct 12, 1984, at 2.45 am, a bomb explosion wrecked most of Brighton’s Grand Hotel where prime minister Margaret Thatcher was staying for the Conservative Party conference. Dozens, including a minister, were injured. An MP and four others were killed. The IRA warned her, “Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to be lucky once.” She did not stop the M15 from continuing the talks with the IRA.

The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.