India-Pakistan Dialogue Set to Resume: Another False Start?

June 17, 2010

The Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan will meet on July 15 in Islamabad to resume the dialogue suspended after the November 2008 Mumbai attacks.  Will this meeting finally mark the beginning of a new way forward or constitute another false start on the road to normalizing relations?

India and Pakistan have previously needed each other as adversaries.  Now they need each other to realize their ambitions. Pakistan can’t hope to be a dynamic and stable force without resolving its problems at home and with India. India can’t sustain a high rate of growth in the long run without a more cooperative relationship with its neighbors. A cooperative relationship could create constituencies for peace in the region, deepen economic integration, and ultimately provide a smooth platform for both countries to realize their ambitions.

The Composite Peace Dialogue, initiated in early 2004 by India and Pakistan, was a renewed process of normalization after years of confrontation over Kashmir which could have had catastrophic consequences. On November 26th, 2009, India suffered a major terrorist attack in its financial capital, Mumbai, resulting in the death of 172 people. After the attacks, the government was forced for domestic political reasons to suspend the composite dialogue until Pakistan made strong and consistent efforts to tackle the problem of terrorism.

It was only this April during the 16th annual SAARC summit that the premiers of India and Pakistan were urged to come to the table and put an end to the volatile relationship between their two countries. At the summit, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani agreed to resume the bi-lateral negotiations. Although this might be seen as a significant step and a decisive moment, it doesn’t solve the problem of terrorism faced by India or propose a foolproof way of doing so.

Over the last ten years, India and Pakistan have shown a willingness to meet and work on the issues that divide them. But their efforts have been halting and partial. While there has been consensus on issues related to reducing the risk of accidents involving nuclear weapons, India and Pakistan are at odds over bomb explosions in other major cities of India and over the sharing of water from rivers which pass through both countries. The water dispute is a festering concern with the potential to escalate into a war.

This on-again, off-again dialogue has been repeatedly interrupted by terrorist attacks which push the whole process back to its starting point. This has the effect of further aggravating the disinterest and disaffection of both the Indian and Pakistani people with the dialogue. To break this cycle, both countries should consider moving beyond isolated political negotiations. They should incorporate an additional track into the dialogue, for instance, including non-governmental (Track 2) diplomacy to break down prejudices and biases that have been accepted for many years. The Indians are concerned with Pakistan’s territory being a sanctuary for terrorists. For Pakistan, India’s role in Kashmir and Afghanistan is seen as being evidence of an expansionist agenda. A Track 2 dialogue can help in breaking these psychological barriers. This expanded dialogue might include, for example, youth exchange programs, easing visa restrictions, promoting literary and musical exchanges, developing trade across borders, and other such measures. These steps would help broaden public awareness about the costs of the conflict and provide more attention to the potential benefits of a solution.

A Track 2 dialogue is essential because peace deals or agreements signed may be inadequate in a hostile environment. Hence, the Track 2 initiative would not undermine the importance of political dialogue but rather contribute to the creation of a political environment more conducive to political negotiations and agreements.

In the past, successful Track 2 initiatives between India and Pakistan such as the Neemrana dialogue have included diplomats, former military personnel, NGO representatives, members of the news media, and academics from the two countries. Because of their experience in different aspects of public policy, the participants have relationships and networks in the government and are able to exercise significant influence. Also, these forums are well-informed because of the high level of expertise and experience that the members bring to the group.

It is true that the final decisions dealing with specific disagreements will be taken at the political level but it is important to recognize that without developing an environment conducive to positive outcomes, these decisions may not have a significant impact. The India-Pakistan conflict is not between few officials but between two entire countries. Interactions between civilians are required as part of the solution to the conflict.

Also, Indian security agencies have the characteristic of being reactive and not preventive in their approach. Pakistani security agencies seem more preventive but are entangled in political combat with other state institutions. For the combination of Track 2 diplomacy and official political dialogue to work successfully, India and Pakistan need to make progress in internal cooperation and security to have a favorable environment to proceed with political negotiation.

There is a lot of work to be done to improve security in the South Asian region. As the region’s biggest powers, India and Pakistan have a responsibility to create conditions for a peace that are not only meaningful but also lasting. An effective combination of political dialogue and Track 2 diplomacy could be a creative way to ensure stability in the region. As the two players indispensable to regional security, the India-Pakistan relationship can demand no less.

Photo Credit: Government of India: Press Information Bureau: Photo no. CNR – 31461: http://www.pib.nic.in/release/phsmall.asp?phid=28391