The big
news is not the cancellation of Sartaz Aziz-Ajit Doval – National Security
Advisors level talks between Pakistan and India – it is perhaps a little
understood fact that for the first time ever, Islamabad has canceled Talks with
New Delhi. The so called ‘talks’ always suited Pakistan obviously and whenever
talks used to be cancelled, it used to be always India.
No sooner
the Pakistan announcement was made that Sartaz Aziz would not accept the
hospitality of his Indian counterpart, Ajit Doval, who had a few "surprises" for the guest; BJP reacted with sharp tongues saying it
confirmed Pakistan is not serious on issue of terrorism. For its
part, Pakistan said they "have come to the conclusion that the NSA talks
would not serve any purpose if conducted on the basis of the two conditions
laid down by the minister". They were
responding to Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s categorical
assertion, no third party (that is the Hurriyat) should be involved in the
talks and only terror and no Kashmir will be on the agenda.
Pakistan’s
national security adviser, Sartaj Aziz, had also rejected India’s demands,
saying it could not control the guest list for the Sunday evening reception
that he said would “enable me to meet a cross section of Indian political and
business leaders”. The reference was Hurriyat leaders of Kashmir.
So where do
land from these: PM Narendra Modi's government appears to have recognised that
a quest for durable peace with Pakistan is a “non-starter”, reported BBC. It is
for the second time in a year Pakistan’s ‘obnoxious nexus’ with separatist
Kashmiri leaders – from Indian perspective – has derailed the talks.
An
ambitious man keen to deliver, Modi is also known as a pragmatist who,
according to BBC again, knows his agenda of enhancing regional co-operation in
South Asia will remain unfulfilled “without a thaw in India-Pakistan tensions”.
Kashmir: Also a battlefield for two Sharifs? |
So the hint
was he was keen for the talks and would go extra-mile and therefore amid bitter
criticism by opposition Congress and others, he held his breadth till last
moment since Gurdaspur attack and did not cancel the talks. That way, he scores
a minor victory that it is Islamabad which has cancelled the talks for the firm
stand he took that Kashmiri separatists could not meet Pakistan’s
NSA.
“Hurriyat
are important for Pakistan only as a proxy. New Delhi objected to the Pakistani
move to have meetings with Hurriyat leaders only to block the way for Pakistan
to hanker after Kashmir even at the drop of a hat,” says a longtime Pakistan
watcher and incidentally he is neither a product of hawkish Hindutva nor a Indian
military strategist. “Hurriyat
is the inducement – the bait – which Modi refused to eat,” says another expert
endorsing the view that though a momentary set back, Prime Minister Modi’s
hawkish stance on separatists would at least stump his detractors.
Even in
Pakistan, intellectuals feel the Hurriyat issue was dragged little
too far.
“The Indian
reaction is predictably knee-jerk,” said an editorial in Pakistani newspaper,
‘The Express Tribune’. But it advocated the need to keep the heads ‘cool’ and
said, “….given the importance and sensitivity of these talks, it may be wise on
this occasion to revisit our (Pakistani) stance on the matter (read Kashmir
issue)”.
columnist Irfan Hussain |
“The
reality is that nobody supports our claims over Kashmir, and even Kashmiris do
not want to join Pakistan. Indeed, those fighting there are doing so for
independence. And yet our diplomats continue banging the drum for archaic UN
resolutions calling for a referendum that limits the choices for Kashmiris to
merge with either India or Pakistan,” wrote popular Pakistani columnist Irfan
Hussain rather acidly in ‘Dawn’ newspaper.
Many in
Pakistan, fortunately, are speaking out these days. “It’s time to emerge from
the old world,” ran a newspaper commentary with the regret the thinking of
Pakistani leadership- both military and civilians – that has been shaped by the
Kashmir conflict seen through the old “narrow prism”.
So, does it
suggest Nawaz Sharif has lost a major initiative? Probably yes as he has for
the time being decided to go by the wise sentiments of his military generals
and the ISI.
How would
Modi pursue his game henceforth? In the previous blog – amid all hints that NSA
talks would not happen – this blogger mooted that PM Modi should spell out his
Pakistan policy. But insiders suggest, he already has one.
Now that
Islamabad has refused to join the combat against terror, Modi regime would push
the ‘isolate Pakistan’ more vigorously. It’s a tough assignment Modi has given
to himself despite the bravado he made at Dubai speech.
But some of
the timings suit this ‘man of destiny- called Narendra Modi’. Pakistan has
given him an opening when it refused to enter the Yemen conflict on the side of
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. India also got an opportunity in pursuing an
‘alternate path’ by talking to Iran about expanding and modernising its Persian
Gulf port of Chabahar, close to the Pakistani border. Tehran believes
Pakistan’s Shias are being persecuted, and Islamabad is in the Saudi camp in
the rivalry between the kingdom and Iran. “This increases the chances of closer
ties between Delhi and Tehran,” right sums up Irfan Hussain.
‘Hanging
fire’ issue now is = how would Modi checkmate China’s interest in Pakistan?
The allegation from Pakistan is Modi wants to disrupt the internal balance of Pakistan to give
China an excuse to desist from investing in Pakistan. This, if true, would
certainly make Nawaz Sharif’s life more miserable.
But these
do not auger well in diplomacy when both the stake holders have been in wars in
the past and are now nuclear powers. “Cross-border violence has surged in
recent months, raising new fears that the attacks could spiral out of control
and set off another war….,” cautioned an edit in New York Times. It further
said, and here Team Modi should take note of, “India,
which is considerably stronger and more successful than Pakistan, has the most
to lose if another war erupts”. The jingoism has no place in today’s world and
as they say, “If ever there was a time to display maturity, it is now”.
Ends
No comments:
Post a Comment