India-Pakistan talks: How Modi and Nawaz Sharif fell into a trap

Mainly four arguments have emerged after the latest Pakistan-India diplomatic fiasco (jokingly referred to as the Pakistan-India "tennis match") and annulment of National Security Adviser (NSA)-level talks scheduled for August 23-24 in New Delhi between Sartaj Aziz and Ajit Doval.

One, for Indian nationalists and sections of the hyperactive ultra-jingoistic media, India’s hard posturing is a sign of diplomatic victory over archrival Pakistan.

Is it really so?

Broadly, they argue on the lines that the Srinagar-based pro-freedom alliance All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) has been “cut to size” and that by acting tough India has further “shrunk space for the Kashmiri separatists”.

They also reason that any talks with Pakistan should be preconditioned, which implies that India, before moving forward on all other outstanding issues, including Kashmir, wants to discuss and address the issue of “terrorism” with Pakistan. Progress on other issues of bilateral interest is possible only once trust is developed.  

Sushma Swaraj, India’s minister for external affairs, has also made it clear that Kashmir is a “bilateral issue” between India and Pakistan and there is no place for a “third party like the Hurriyat” in the dialogue.

This argument may be self-soothing, but is essentially flawed. The trust deficit between India and Pakistan is there since both nations gained independence more than 68 years ago. They have fought two full-fledged wars (in 1947 and 1965) and a mini war in the shape of Kargil in 1998. Trust deficit can’t vanish in thin air, especially when the world’s largest democracy prefers to behave like a dictator.

Confrontation can never be a substitute for fruitful engagement and reconciliation.

Two, for Pakistani ultra-nationalists and sections of patriotic media, it seems that their country has given a “befitting” reply to adversary India by refusing to accept any preconditions for talks.

Really?

They make a case that India’s “aggression” and “rigidity” remain the main impediments vis-à-vis meaningful dialogue, which may be the fact of the matter, and therefore, unless India mends her ways, no substantial dialogue is possible.

This argument may bring some temporary relief, but is not the ultimate solution.

Like India, Pakistan too has to realise that dialogue and reconciliation is the way forward. Only willingness to engage in dialogue can throw open all channels of further communication and present opportunities for conflict resolution, mutually beneficial trade and tourism ties, people-to-people contacts, permanent peace, tranquillity and prosperity, et al.

Three, whether the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) has survived as an idea and pro-freedom amalgam, and is APHC a major or minor stakeholder - first, second or the third party to K-dispute. Has the Hurriyat been “cut to size” or “emerged as a star”?

Leaders of Hurriyat Conference are not important here; they will keep coming and going. But Hurriyat as an idea holds significance vis-à-vis Kashmir’s final resolution.

Yasin Malik, chief of pro-independence Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), has reacted sharply against Sushma Swaraj’s statement that “Hurriyat is a third party”. According to Malik, Kashmiris are the “principal party” to the dispute and major stakeholders. He has a point.

There are a couple of points that the Hurriyat Conference has scored over the last two months.

After being “snubbed” by the Pakistani high commission earlier in terms of cancellation of the scheduled Iftar party to “facilitate” a smooth meeting between Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi in Russia in July, the Hurriyat Conference had a “sense of achievement and satisfaction” as Pakistan soon extended an invitation to the conglomerate for Eid Milan.

Prominent resistance leaders like Syed Ali Shah Geelani and Mohammad Yasin Malik boycotted Eid Milan while the moderate head priest Mirwaiz Maulvi Umar Farooq attended the function hosted by the mission in New Delhi.

Displeasure regarding the skipping of the K-word from the Ufa joint statement and cancellation of the Iftar party was aptly conveyed to Pakistan - by the boycot of Eid Milan (by Geelani and Malik) and participation of the Mirwaiz.

India objected to Pakistan’s decision to meet the Kashmiri leadership twice, coincidentally, both times in the month of August, in 2014 and 2015.

The "world’s largest democracy", India, cancelled the scheduled foreign secretary-level talks last year while the "emerging democracy", Pakistan, refused to accept India’s preconditions before the talks to eventually call off the scheduled NSA-level talks this year.

How can India and Pakistan as neighbours afford to celebrate acrimony, confrontation, hatred, animosity and cancellation of talks?

Then there is the fourth argument that, in the end, Kashmiris are the ultimate "losers", because if India and Pakistan do not engage, no breakthrough on Kashmir is ever possible.

This argument too is flawed in the sense that the two nuclear powers have had many engagements during the past nearly seven decades, but status quo on Kashmir has remained unchanged.

Yes, the leaders of India and Pakistan have occasionally sported broad smiles for television cameras and also exchanged mangoes and bouquets, but very little has been achieved beyond photo-ops and cosmetic Confidence Building Measures (CBMs).

The only perceptible symbolic relief arrived as the trans-Kashmir Srinagar-Muzaffarabad road was reopened after the yawning gap of 58 years in April 2005. That became possible when India’s then Prime Minister AB Vajpayee extended a hand of friendship to which Pakistan’s then President General Pervez Musharraf reciprocated in kind.

Some of Narendra Modi’s fans and followers argued that PM wants to carry forward the Vajpayee legacy, but there has not even been a figurative gesture from him that could suggest that he wants to adopt Vajpayee’s legacy. His politics appears to be driven away by media frenzy, rhetoric and populism.

Statesmanship demands courage from a leader to make bold decisions with a broader picture in mind, not based on TRPs that keep changing on a day-to-day basis.

Legacy is not served on a platter. One earns it by going against the tide. It requires guts and determination to take decisions which may not be popular and Modi lacks that courage in spite of being ever so boastful about his “56-inch chest (chappan inch ki chaati)". Unfortunately, he has fallen into the trap of media image and populism.

Unfortunately, Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif are facing severe deficiency of the political "vitamin" called courage that differentiates ordinary from extraordinary and domestic appeasement from legacy!