The 18th SAARC Summit in Kathmandu has ended with a whimper. All the leaders spoke passionately about the necessity of regional cooperation to alleviate the misery of 1.6 billion South Asians below the poverty line. This region accounts for a mere 3% of global output and 2% of world exports — in which intra-regional trade is only 5% of total trade compared to 66% in the EU, 53% in NAFTA, 32% in the Pan Pacific region and 25% in ASEAN. Yet they couldn’t agree to sign a single multi-lateral agreement on trade, commerce, energy or transport. Indeed, the leaders of India and Pakistan, whose attitude underlines the recurring failure of SAARC since it was founded 29 years ago, couldn’t even exploit this opportunity to talk about talks, even as each highlighted a critical dimension of the issues confronting them. Pakistan’s PM Nawaz Sharif exhorted his regional colleagues to resolve simmering political disputes (an indirect reference to Pakistan’s dispute with India over Kashmir) in order to pave the way for economic cooperation while India’s PM, Narendra Modi, talked about the need to tackle the menace of terrorism (an indirect reference to the 26/11 Mumbai attack originating in Pakistan) as a prelude to normalization of relations.
In essence, Pakistan’s position is that composite talks on all issues should begin simultaneously without any pre-conditions. But India’s position is that Pakistan must first unilaterally act against India-oriented Pakistan-based terrorist groups in general and the 26/11 accused facing trial in particular before any talks can begin. The irony is that until 1999 (when India’s proposal for a composite dialogue was accepted by Pakistan at the Lahore summit), it was Pakistan that had consistently pre-conditioned a dialogue with India on the core issue of Kashmir and spurned the composite dialogue approach.
Interestingly, from 2004-2007, a back channel between India and Pakistan made significant headway in trying to find a working “out-of-the-box solution” to Kashmir. But 26/11 terrorism derailed it. Equally, another back channel between the two countries after the election of Nawaz Sharif as prime minister of Pakistan in 2013 would have delivered MFN trade status to India if PM Modi had not abruptly cancelled the foreign secretary level review talks scheduled in August this year. Why did India cancel the talks?
India says it asked Pakistan’s High Commissioner in New Delhi not to meet with the Kashmiri Hurriyet leaders in the Pakistan embassy prior to the talks. But the fact is that India’s Foreign Secretary called up the Pakistan High Commissioner when one of the Hurriyet leaders, Shabbir Shah, was already in the embassy and another was scheduled to arrive the following day. Therefore the advice was not heeded on the grounds that it would have publicly embarrassed the Hurriyet leaders and soured relations with Pakistan. If the message had been delivered well in advance, before the Hurriyet leaders were invited, Pakistani sources say it might well have acceded to it in order to keep the secretary talks on track, as when Nawaz Sharif met with Narendra Modi during the latter’s inauguration ceremonies and didn’t meet with Hurriyet leaders. Why did India make this an issue at the last minute and is still refusing to reschedule the talks?
Clearly, the state elections in held-Kashmir have influenced Mr Modi’s decision to hold off on talks with Pakistan. Since becoming PM, he has visited the state five times in a bid to whip up the Hindu vote in Jammu and the Muslim vote in parts of the Valley at the expense of the Congress, enabling the BJP to cobble a majority of the 87 seats in the state assembly with the help of Muslim independents or anti-Hurriyet groups and parties. Under the circumstances, his policy may be to deny importance to the Hurriyet by cutting off its contacts with Pakistan.
But this line of reasoning would also suggest that once the elections in held-Kashmir are over in January, whatever their outcome, Mr Modi might be ready to restore the foreign secretary talks and get back on track for obtaining MFN trade status from Pakistan. The fact is that India benefits much more than Pakistan from an opening of trade and the pro-Modi business lobby in India is smacking its lips in anticipation of MFN status (whatever its formal denomination). Such an opening would, apart from giving India a slice of the 200 million Pakistan market, also automatically pave the way for Indian manufactured goods to reach the 300 million Central Asian markets via Pakistan even if Pakistan doesn’t allow India direct overland road access to Afghanistan.
This deadlock must be broken. India needs foreign markets. Pakistan needs stable borders. Both are hurting from terrorism in the region. Pakistan’s war against terrorism is now a reality in FATA. But the trial of the Mumbai accused also needs to be speeded up as a signal of our credibility vis a vis India.
In essence, Pakistan’s position is that composite talks on all issues should begin simultaneously without any pre-conditions. But India’s position is that Pakistan must first unilaterally act against India-oriented Pakistan-based terrorist groups in general and the 26/11 accused facing trial in particular before any talks can begin. The irony is that until 1999 (when India’s proposal for a composite dialogue was accepted by Pakistan at the Lahore summit), it was Pakistan that had consistently pre-conditioned a dialogue with India on the core issue of Kashmir and spurned the composite dialogue approach.
Interestingly, from 2004-2007, a back channel between India and Pakistan made significant headway in trying to find a working “out-of-the-box solution” to Kashmir. But 26/11 terrorism derailed it. Equally, another back channel between the two countries after the election of Nawaz Sharif as prime minister of Pakistan in 2013 would have delivered MFN trade status to India if PM Modi had not abruptly cancelled the foreign secretary level review talks scheduled in August this year. Why did India cancel the talks?
India says it asked Pakistan’s High Commissioner in New Delhi not to meet with the Kashmiri Hurriyet leaders in the Pakistan embassy prior to the talks. But the fact is that India’s Foreign Secretary called up the Pakistan High Commissioner when one of the Hurriyet leaders, Shabbir Shah, was already in the embassy and another was scheduled to arrive the following day. Therefore the advice was not heeded on the grounds that it would have publicly embarrassed the Hurriyet leaders and soured relations with Pakistan. If the message had been delivered well in advance, before the Hurriyet leaders were invited, Pakistani sources say it might well have acceded to it in order to keep the secretary talks on track, as when Nawaz Sharif met with Narendra Modi during the latter’s inauguration ceremonies and didn’t meet with Hurriyet leaders. Why did India make this an issue at the last minute and is still refusing to reschedule the talks?
Clearly, the state elections in held-Kashmir have influenced Mr Modi’s decision to hold off on talks with Pakistan. Since becoming PM, he has visited the state five times in a bid to whip up the Hindu vote in Jammu and the Muslim vote in parts of the Valley at the expense of the Congress, enabling the BJP to cobble a majority of the 87 seats in the state assembly with the help of Muslim independents or anti-Hurriyet groups and parties. Under the circumstances, his policy may be to deny importance to the Hurriyet by cutting off its contacts with Pakistan.
But this line of reasoning would also suggest that once the elections in held-Kashmir are over in January, whatever their outcome, Mr Modi might be ready to restore the foreign secretary talks and get back on track for obtaining MFN trade status from Pakistan. The fact is that India benefits much more than Pakistan from an opening of trade and the pro-Modi business lobby in India is smacking its lips in anticipation of MFN status (whatever its formal denomination). Such an opening would, apart from giving India a slice of the 200 million Pakistan market, also automatically pave the way for Indian manufactured goods to reach the 300 million Central Asian markets via Pakistan even if Pakistan doesn’t allow India direct overland road access to Afghanistan.
This deadlock must be broken. India needs foreign markets. Pakistan needs stable borders. Both are hurting from terrorism in the region. Pakistan’s war against terrorism is now a reality in FATA. But the trial of the Mumbai accused also needs to be speeded up as a signal of our credibility vis a vis India.