Daily Times Editorial Sept 15, 2013

Getting dialogue back on track Pakistan and India’s desire to improve relations, as expressed by the PML-N government soon after coming to power and the positive response from Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh got derailed because of the incidents on the Line of Control (LoC) last month, starting with the killing of five Indian soldiers and then escalating into an exchange of firing from both sides. It is therefore a matter for satisfaction that Pakistan’s Adviser to the Prime Minister on Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz and India’s External Affairs Minister Salman Khursheed in their meeting on the sidelines of the 13th Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meeting in Bishkek has yielded some positive signs and statements. After the meeting, Sartaj Aziz expressed his view, or rather disappointment, that the peace process between the two South Asian neighbours has lost momentum and the composite dialogue has been arrested by the tensions on the LoC. That problem was addressed by the two sides through a reiteration of their resolve to respect the 2003 LoC ceasefire, which has held by and large, despite the odd incident. Sartaj Aziz emphasised to his Indian counterpart that the peace and dialogue process should not be held hostage to electoral considerations or derailed by a single incident. Both sides agreed to use the existing mechanisms such as the Directors General Military Operations (DGMOs) hot line and confidence building measures on the LoC. On the desired meeting between the two prime ministers on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York, Pakistan has suggested September 29 as the date for this interaction. On the other hand, Salman Khursheed underlined the need for a conducive atmosphere for the success of such a meeting. Inevitably, because of the recent tension on the LoC, all the old ghosts standing in the way of a Pakistan-India rapprochement were resurrected from the closet. The main issue of contention remains the lack of progress on providing closure to the Mumbai attacks. Sartaj Aziz attempted to reassure Salman Khursheed that a new prosecutor general was being appointed to pursue the case against seven men accused of training and guiding the Mumbai attackers. Also, a Pakistani Judicial Commission is scheduled to visit India on September 23 to cross-examine witnesses regarding the Mumbai attacks. This visit of the Judicial Commission has fallen foul of the ups and downs in relations generally, and therefore is much delayed. In this context, the two sides discussed post-Mumbai attacks developments to try and push the dialogue process forward. It should not be forgotten that the Nawaz Sharif government, soon after taking over the reins of power, had initiated back channel diplomacy to unfreeze the stalled dialogue and peace process. That interaction too seems to have yielded at least the melting of the ice. Pakistan’s argument that domestic political considerations such as elections, etc, and odd incidents like the LoC exchange should not be allowed to hold hostage or derail the dialogue and peace process cuts to the heart of the role of ‘spoilers’. In any peace process, let alone one so fraught and long standing as the Pakistan-India conundrum, ‘spoilers’ are forces with a vested interest in continuing conflict. In the Pakistan-India context, this includes various jihadi groups engaged in the Kashmiri struggle. Most knowledgeable observers are of the view that the raid across the LoC that killed five Indian soldiers and sparked off a brief but intense exchange of firing across the boundary may be attributed to such a group. In days past, any such activity, timed to take the wind out of the sails of any attempt to get the dialogue back on track, would have invited suspicion that the ‘deep state’ was behind it. In the current context, although these matters are wrapped in layers of obfuscation and even deception, it is not clear where the military establishment stands. If outgoing COAS General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani’s formulation that the existential threat to Pakistan currently does not lie to the east but stems from the terrorist threat within is taken at face value, it would lead to the conclusion that the military understands the need for peace with India while Pakistan handles its terrorist problem. Only if the civilian and military stakeholders are in agreement on this as the way forward and the best direction to safeguard Pakistan’s best interests can the dialogue and peace process have any chance of success. At present, on the face of it, necessity seems to dictate just such a posture. Let us hope that the good atmospherics in Bishkek are carried forward to New York and the long delayed and derailed dialogue process is helped to get back on track in the interests of both neighbours, with the concomitant collateral benefit to the region and the world in terms of positing trade and economic cooperation.