False word of rapprochement

The first such strike in Punjab in eight years that took place on Monday takes Indo-Pakistan ties right where they have been in a long time – in a state of suspended animation. Just days back Prime Minister Narendra Modi met his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif in Ufa, Russia, on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit. They had issued a joint statement in which they “condemned terrorism in all its forms and agreed to cooperate with each other to eliminate the menace of terrorism from South Asia.”

It would have been an ordinary meeting but for the fact that the two leaders were meeting for the first time since May 2014 and their meeting came after increased border hostilities in the past few months and the backdrop of India having cancelled secretary-level talks last year.

The two sides agreed to hold a meeting of their top security advisers to discuss terrorism. But there were other steps as well, including meetings of the Director Generals of India’s Border Security Force and Pakistan Rangers to stabilise the border, release of fishermen in each other’s custody, and a mechanism for facilitating religious tourism. Additionally, Modi accepted Sharif’s invitation to the South Asian regional summit, which is going to be held in Islamabad next year.

The trip will not only be Modi’s first visit to Pakistan after coming to power but it would also be the first time an Indian leader would visit Pakistan since A B Vajpayee in 2004. Pakistan’s agreement to expedite the 2008 Mumbai terror attack trial and no specific mention of Kashmir was viewed as a major diplomatic victory for India and a sign of changing mindset in Pakistan. But the euphoria collapsed within hours as Pakistan went back on a number of its commitments.

Sharif’s national security adviser made it clear that more information would be required to resume the trial of Zaki-ur Rehman Lakhvi, the alleged mastermind behind the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Lakhvi, the operational commander of the now banned organisation Laskhar-e-Taiba (LeT) is among seven persons charged with planning and helping carry out the 2008 Mumbai attacks. Much to India’s consternation, he was released from jail in April, after a court order dismissed detention orders issued against him. Aziz also underscored that there could not be any dialogue with India unless the issue of Kashmir was on the agenda.

There is some disappointment in Delhi at this turn of events but nothing significant as unlike its predecessors, the Modi government seemed to have recognised from the very beginning that a quest for durable peace with Pakistan is a non-starter. All that matters is the management of a neighbour that is more often than not viewed as a nuisance by Delhi even when sections of its military establishment threaten to unleash nuclear weapons on India.

For India, the real challenge is China which has pledged $46 billion worth of investment in Pakistan and recently blocked New Delhi’s move to seek action against Pakistan for release of Lakhvi in the 26/11 trial in violation of a UN resolution at a meeting of the UN Sanctions Committee.

However, Modi is a pragmatist and his agenda of enhancing regional cooperation in South Asia will remain unfulfilled without a thaw in India-Pakistan tensions. At a time when interconnectivity is the norm across the world, two neighbours cannot remain forever locked in a spiral of perpetual hostility and violence.

The Pakistani Army is clearly stretched as it battles the terror groups that are targeting Pakistan even as it continues to make a distinction between “good terrorists” like LeT who only target India and “bad terrorists” which target the Pakistani establishment. So long as Pakistan’s military continues to view terrorism as a vital instrument of state policy, there is very little that India can hope to achieve by discussing terrorism with Pakistan.

Taking on the army

Nawaz Sharif, howsoever well-intentioned, is yet to demonstrate that he can take on the all-powerful military when it comes to India. This was evident when border tensions rose after the Modi-Sharif meeting, with heavy firing from Pakistan. There were even suggestions from the Pakistani Army that it has shot down an Indian drone, which later turned out to be Chinese-made DJI Phantom 3.

Pakistan has also now alleged that India was involved in the December 2014 Peshawar school massacre in which 136 of the 150 killed were children despite Pakistani Taliban claiming responsibility for the attack. Pakistan has a revisionist agenda and would like to change the status quo in Kashmir while India would like the very opposite. India hopes that the negotiations with Pakistan would ratify the existing territorial status quo in Kashmir.

At its foundation, these are irreconcilable differences and no confidence-building measure is likely to alter this situation. India’s premise largely has been that the peace process will persuade Pakistan to cease supporting and sending extremists into India and start building good neighbourly ties. Pakistan, in contrast, has viewed the process as a means to nudge India to make progress on Kashmir, a euphemism for Indian concessions.

The debate in India on Pakistan has long ceased to be substantive. The choice that India has is not between talking and sulking. The Modi government is coming to a view that India should continue to talk (there is nothing to lose in having some level of diplomatic engagement after all) even as it has decided to underline the costs of Pakistan's dangerous escalatory tactics on the border with massive targeted attacks on Pakistani Rangers posts along the border.

Smart policy for India means not being stuck between the talking/not talking binary. It's not talking that matters but under whose terms. And, after years of ceding the initiative to Pakistan, the Modi government wants to dictate the terms for negotiations. It is far too early to tell if this strategy will work.

(The writer is Professor of International Relations, King's College, London)