India walks the extra mile this time

Perhaps it is a reflection of the personalities of the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan, but the meeting between the two sides was held without big promises, high expectations or, for that matter, acrimony and hostility. Not much play was given to the imponderables, as Ranjan Mathai and Jalil Abbas Jilani focussed soberly and seriously on issues at hand.

The result was more promising than it has been for a while. The joint statement has actually taken relations forward in a constructive manner and, if the promises are implemented, these could mark a better phase in the tenuous relations between India and Pakistan. For one, there was little to no effort by either side to score brownie points, either through phrasing or through off-the-record briefings. In fact, the joint statement is drafted in clean and clear language, leaving little room for these source-based interpretations.

The breakthrough was not in what was achieved in concrete terms, but in the decision to keep the terminology sober and to tackle the thorny issues of terrorism and Kashmir in language that inspires confidence and does not accentuate distrust. Mathai and Jilani recognised that both India and Pakistan were threatened by terrorism, and ‘reaffirmed the strong commitment of the two countries to fight and eliminate terrorism in an effective and comprehensive manner so as to eliminate the scourge in all its forms and manifestations.’ This is a major step forward, as one must remember that eventually it is not media headlines, but joint statements that form the basis for bilateral discussions between governments. And in this case, New Delhi has not only gone the extra mile to accept Pakistan’s longstanding claim of being a victim of terrorism, but has also ‘reaffirmed’ its commitment to fight terrorism at all levels.

This is a major concession by India, and could well lead to the next step of joint cooperation in tackling terrorism. The governments had agreed a while ago to set up a joint terror mechanism, but given the outcry in India, the proposal was shelved. The wording of this joint statement seems to suggest that it is being pulled out of cold storage.

Jammu and Kashmir apparently led to a ‘comprehensive exchange of views’ with the foreign secretaries agreeing to continue discussions on the issue. Clearly, Pakistan did not indulge in histrionics, with both sides committing themselves to ‘finding a peaceful solution by narrowing divergences and building convergences.’ Jilani did raise the usual hackles by meeting separatist leaders, but then this has become a practice allowed by the Indian government. After all, there is little said and discussed at these meetings that our intelligence agencies are not aware of.

The understanding reached on nuclear and conventional CBMs is significant, as both sides decided to hold separate meetings of the expert level groups to discuss the implementation and strengthening of the existing CBMs. That the foreign secretaries committed themselves to fix dates for these meetings shows a certain seriousness that is welcome.

If India and Pakistan are to move ahead, they have to ensure an end to the hostile propaganda against each other that is fed to the media by governments through ‘official sources.’ Stereotypes have to be challenged, people to people contacts increased, and confidence building measures implemented on the fast track.

Clearly, the foreign secretaries are serious about strengthening existing cross-LoC CBMs, as the joint statement records the decision to hold a meeting of the working group on this in Islamabad on July 19. Hopefully the working group’s suggestions to streamline these will be implemented speedily.

The path towards peace has been torturous, with incidents becoming huge obstacles that neither New Delhi nor Islamabad was able to surmount. However, both have to understand that peace is not just a commitment but an ideology and they need to build an unshakable constituency for this. This cannot be done through hostility and acrimony, but by constructive dialogue and a certain trust and confidence that only the political process can deepen. Civil society can be at best an add-on as a major pressure group, but it is for governments to develop political will to make peace happen. Those who believe that an unstable Pakistan is in India’s interests must think again, as this has never been the case in history. A stable and peaceful neighbourhood is essential for the healthy growth of a country, and India cannot develop to her full potential with unrest and violence in Pakistan.

This round of talks between the foreign secretaries has been promising and, at least for the moment, seems to have brought both sides a little closer on contentious issues. If the statement is not just rhetoric, but has a political will lurking behind it, the future for South Asian peace does not look as bleak as it did at the same time last year.

The writer is a senior New Delhi–based journalist