That India and Pakistan are neighbours but remain as distant as ever is once again reflected in the manner in which the latest peace initiative between the governments of the two countries has been received in their respective domestic constituency. One is referring to the signing of a Joint Statement on July 16, 2009 at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt on the margins of the NAM summit by Pakistan’s Prime Minister Gilani and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. And not surprisingly in India the statement has been seen as a softening of India’s stand towards Pakistan. In Pakistan it has been seen as a “victory” for Pakistani diplomacy. The reaction to past peace initiatives has also been along expected lines with political opposition in either country. In other words ‘domestic compulsion’ is turning out to be a major hurdle in the realization of peace between the two neighbours. This is indeed worrying.
Coming to the Joint Statement itself, the obvious concern among the opposition parties led by the BJP is that the statement de-links terrorism from the composite dialogue process. It says “Both prime ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.” The statement ‘could imply’ that the composite dialogue will continue uninterrupted even if there is say an attack in future by a Pakistan-based terrorist group. However no sovereign country would allow such a thing to happen. Further, it should be borne in mind that future action cannot in reality be bound by such Joint Statement. And even in the past, India has suspended the composite dialogue and nothing suggests that New Delhi will not use its veto if at all Islamabad backtracks or there is a security threat from terror groups within Pakistan. Islamabad will also be well aware that there is no guarantee for the dialogue process to continue especially if it backtracks or does not satisfy conditions set by the US and India. As far as the hullabaloo over the reference to Balochistan in the Joint Statement goes, the particular reference merely noted what was said by the Pakistani PM and nothing else. Yes making such a reference in a joint Indo-Pakistan statement may have been the first of its kind yet one should not take the reference completely out of context.
On domestic compulsion in both countries, it is worrying that hard-line political groups on both sides react in the way they do, raising xenophobic fears. The political leadership in both the country must realize that their futile path of confrontation has deprived people an opportunity for genuine social and economic development. Both have failed to recognize that the real enemy is hunger, poverty, illiteracy. And that is the reason why leaders cutting across party lines in both countries should give priority to resolving all pending problems. India should not exit from the dialogue process while Pakistan must realize that unless there is change in the ground situation, it should not expect full normalization of relations with India or for that matter the composite dialogue to restart. Islamabad should realise that the war on terror especially against the Taliban along its western borders cannot be won unless all terror infrastructure within the country is destroyed. The large constituency for peace drawn up in both countries should not be allowed to dwindle. At the end, this may be the only catalyst to sustain a peace.
