Let us not beg anymore – Tasneem Noorani

Let us not beg anymore – Tasneem Noorani

Going by the statements of our leaders, it seems that Pakistan is begging for resumption of the so-called composite dialogue, while India is arrogantly rejecting requests and repeating the ‘do more’ advice on the Bombay incident.

In mid-July, at Sharm-el-Sheikh, Manmohan Singh, apparently having been charmed by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani, had signed a joint statement, which said that composite dialogue is the only way forward and should not be linked to the issue of action against terrorists. Having signed, he reneged immediately in the post-signing press conference.

We have not heard anything about the approach adopted in the joint statement since then. The Indian Foreign Minister recently said that Pakistan is to blame for the halt of the composite dialogue by failing to act against the perpetrators of the Bombay carnage, despite being provided with voluminous dossiers of evidence. Our prime minister has once again urged India to resume dialogue. Our foreign office continues to plead with India along the same line.

Why are we begging for the resumption of composite dialogue? Does it really have that much potential for us?

The concept was devised in February 2004 after five years of tension, starting with the Kargill fiasco, followed by the near all-out war in 2002. Composite dialogue in 2004 was then a smart move by India to start talking with Pakistan without really having to talk about Kashmir. It was like getting a diplomatic stay order on Kashmir. They said we must have “confidence building measures, people to people contact, before we can really target the main issue.” The argument was “let us solve our easier and solvable issues like Siachin, Sir Creek and Wuller Barrage, before we come to Kashmir, which of course would be discussed.” The extent to which the Indians have pushed us back in our diplomatic efforts can be gauged by the fact that we claim victory every time the Indians agree to use the word Kashmir in any joint statement.

We have been at it for more than five years now. Has there been any movement on even one of the issues? Even as simple an issue as the Wuller Barrage, where apparently only a design change was being demanded, still hangs fire. Many times one has heard that agreement on Siachin was around the corner, but it never came. Now any potential for a breakthrough remains doubtful.

The Indians keenly sought progress on the trade issue but their starting salvo was the injustice by Pakistan for not awarding them the most favoured nation status (MFN). When we would say that despite that (non provision of MFN), Indian exports to Pakistan were growing faster than vice versa, they would offer to do whatever we wanted to rectify this situation. When we would point out that it is the high tariff on products in which we are strong; they would argue that tariffs are the same for everyone. When we would say that in addition to tariffs there are non-tariff barriers, for example, the test of dyes used in the printing of textiles, they would say again that this applies to everyone but they would see what could be done. As a result, our exporters would return frustrated from India.

If we look at the run up to composite dialogue, we see that in 1999 our military strategists were thinking of taking Kashmir by force (Kargil). In 2001, our supreme commander thought he could get Kashmir (at Agra) through impressing his hosts with his glib talk. For the next three years, our rulers thought they could turn the heat on by helping the Kashmir freedom fighters. And then in 2004, we agreed to become civil and talk about other things before talking about Kashmir. Ever since then, we are more or less talking about the talks.

Seeing the performance of the composite dialogue for the last five years, there does not seem to be any justification to beg for them. As for the Bombay carnage, Pakistan should have nothing to hide. The non-state organisations, if involved, should be exposed and taken to task. If the evidence provided by India is inadequate to do anything more than is being done, it should be made public for all to see why nothing more can be done.

Pakistan is poor, disorganised, beset with terrorism and has an unstable political system. However, all that does not prevent it from maintaining its self respect and dignity. In a conflict between a rich and a poor man, it is the rich man who stands to lose more.

The writer is a former federal secretary. Email: tasneem.noorani@tnassociates.net