Subrahmanyam Jaishanker has been handpicked by the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, to be India’s new Foreign Secretary. Mr Jaishankar is scheduled to make a round of all SAARC countries upon assuming office. His visit is being billed by India as a routine assignment to “get-to-know-the-neighbours”. But no one is buying this line in India or Pakistan. Indeed, it is an open secret that the real purpose of this assignment is to restart the dialogue with Pakistan that was disrupted last August when the BJP government abruptly cancelled a scheduled meeting of the foreign secretaries that had followed on the heels of a good meeting of the two prime ministers at Mr Modi’s inauguration. India’s reason for cancelling the Foreign Secretaries’ moot – a scheduled meeting between the leaders of the Hurriyet Conference with the Pakistani High Commissioner in New Delhi on the eve of the talks – was so patently thin that many analysts wondered whether Mr Modi had had a change of heart signalling a continuing freeze in diplomatic relations between the two countries. Indeed, when both sides subsequently hardened their positions and tensions flared up along the border, many pundits were convinced that the cold war was back with a vengeance. That is why, now that the Modi government has given another flimsy reason for the new foreign secretary to visit Pakistan, the same analysts are arguing that Mr Modi had “boxed” himself into an untenable position by cancelling the talks last August and is now trying to undo his mistake without losing face at home and in Pakistan.
But there may be a simpler and more realistic reason for both the cancellation of the talks last August and their resumption possibly next month. The J&K elections were round the corner. The BJP had determined to make a strong showing based on the hardline Hindu vote. By seemingly condoning Pakistan-Hurriyet talks and also entering into a dialogue with Pakistan at such a time the BJP would have likely diluted its efforts to whip up hardline Hindu support. So a political decision was quickly taken to cancel the talks, followed by Mr Modi’s whirlwind tours of J&K. Now that the elections are over, the BJP has done well enough to negotiate a coalition government with the PDP. It is time to start the dialogue with Pakistan again, not least because one of the conditions put forward by the PDF for establishing a coalition government with the BJP is settling terms both with Pakistan and the Hurriyet Conference. This is apart from phasing out the Indian Army from J&K and putting a stop to threats to undo the Kashmir-specific Article 370 of the Indian constitution. By this reasoning, Mr Modi simply sought to postpone the dialogue with Pakistan to a more opportune time and was always in control of his ability to restart it later on some pretext or the other. In this context, we may expect both sides to agree that in future Pakistan’s High Commissioner in Delhi will certainly have the right to meet Kashmiri leaders at any time as in the past except on the eve of any high level talks between Pakistan and India, a face-saver for both countries.
This analysis would therefore lead to the conclusion that, despite the uncompromising rhetoric on both sides, Mr Modi, no less than his predecessor Dr Manmohan Singh, is interested in talking to Pakistan and diffusing tensions in the region. But what, realistically speaking, can we expect from such talks?
The old “composite dialogue” approach in which all contentious issues are to be discussed simultaneously seems difficult. For one, India doesn’t accept that, after the Kargil misadventure by Pakistan, the Siachin dispute is a “low hanging fruit” ripe for the plucking. Two, trade liberalization has already been conceded by Pakistan and the Non-Discriminatory Access regime, another way of defining Most Favoured Nation status, is ready for signature. Similarly, India has effectively counterpoised Pakistan’s “core” issue of Kashmir by its “core” issue of terrorism, both being amenable only to back-channel diplomacy rather than secretary-level talks in the glare of the media. Three, rivalry in Afghanistan has entered the equation as a new and formidable factor that must be accounted for. Therefore a “new architecture” for dialogue that is neither composite nor exclusively “core” issue oriented may be better expected to yield dividends.
Mr Sartaj Aziz, the foreign minister, has already hinted at some such re-adjustment. Certainly, Mr Modi would welcome a new architecture for dialogue that demonstrates tactical “discontinuity” with the approach of the Congress for political reasons while rapprochement with Pakistan moves ahead for strategic reasons. Mr Modi knows that without stability in the region India cannot exploit the potential economic goodwill that is earmarked for it. A “transactional” prime minister in India like Mr Modi rather than a “visionary” one like Mr Vajpayee may be just the recipe BJP needs to build peace and stability in South Asia.
But there may be a simpler and more realistic reason for both the cancellation of the talks last August and their resumption possibly next month. The J&K elections were round the corner. The BJP had determined to make a strong showing based on the hardline Hindu vote. By seemingly condoning Pakistan-Hurriyet talks and also entering into a dialogue with Pakistan at such a time the BJP would have likely diluted its efforts to whip up hardline Hindu support. So a political decision was quickly taken to cancel the talks, followed by Mr Modi’s whirlwind tours of J&K. Now that the elections are over, the BJP has done well enough to negotiate a coalition government with the PDP. It is time to start the dialogue with Pakistan again, not least because one of the conditions put forward by the PDF for establishing a coalition government with the BJP is settling terms both with Pakistan and the Hurriyet Conference. This is apart from phasing out the Indian Army from J&K and putting a stop to threats to undo the Kashmir-specific Article 370 of the Indian constitution. By this reasoning, Mr Modi simply sought to postpone the dialogue with Pakistan to a more opportune time and was always in control of his ability to restart it later on some pretext or the other. In this context, we may expect both sides to agree that in future Pakistan’s High Commissioner in Delhi will certainly have the right to meet Kashmiri leaders at any time as in the past except on the eve of any high level talks between Pakistan and India, a face-saver for both countries.
This analysis would therefore lead to the conclusion that, despite the uncompromising rhetoric on both sides, Mr Modi, no less than his predecessor Dr Manmohan Singh, is interested in talking to Pakistan and diffusing tensions in the region. But what, realistically speaking, can we expect from such talks?
The old “composite dialogue” approach in which all contentious issues are to be discussed simultaneously seems difficult. For one, India doesn’t accept that, after the Kargil misadventure by Pakistan, the Siachin dispute is a “low hanging fruit” ripe for the plucking. Two, trade liberalization has already been conceded by Pakistan and the Non-Discriminatory Access regime, another way of defining Most Favoured Nation status, is ready for signature. Similarly, India has effectively counterpoised Pakistan’s “core” issue of Kashmir by its “core” issue of terrorism, both being amenable only to back-channel diplomacy rather than secretary-level talks in the glare of the media. Three, rivalry in Afghanistan has entered the equation as a new and formidable factor that must be accounted for. Therefore a “new architecture” for dialogue that is neither composite nor exclusively “core” issue oriented may be better expected to yield dividends.
Mr Sartaj Aziz, the foreign minister, has already hinted at some such re-adjustment. Certainly, Mr Modi would welcome a new architecture for dialogue that demonstrates tactical “discontinuity” with the approach of the Congress for political reasons while rapprochement with Pakistan moves ahead for strategic reasons. Mr Modi knows that without stability in the region India cannot exploit the potential economic goodwill that is earmarked for it. A “transactional” prime minister in India like Mr Modi rather than a “visionary” one like Mr Vajpayee may be just the recipe BJP needs to build peace and stability in South Asia.