Beating a hasty retreat

Backtracking by both sides began within two days of Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif meeting at Ufa in Russia. Past records of talks, or the absence of them, would show that this is easily the fastest retreat to status quo ante when Sharif’s National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz said there would be “no compromise.” One cannot make sense of the warm handshakes before the cameras and the ‘happiness’ expressed after the talks. All those who applauded the meeting and its outcome must be feeling foolish

When it comes to India-Pakistan relations, no matter how much they talk – what, when and where – it ends with more of the same, and worse. Backtracking by both sides began within two days of Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif meeting at Ufa in Russia.

First, with its media declaring ‘victory,’ India ruled out an early Track II dialogue on Kashmir issue. Last Monday, the entire exercise collapsed when Pakistan said it did not want a dialogue at all unless Kashmir was included. No mention of agreement to expedite the probe into the Mumbai terror attacks and much else that figured in the talks.

Past records of talks, or the absence of them, would show that this is easily the fastest retreat to status quo ante when Sharif’s National Security Advisor Sartaj Aziz said there would be “no compromise.” One cannot make sense of the warm handshakes before the cameras and the ‘happiness’ expressed after the talks.

All those who applauded the meeting and its outcome must be feeling foolish. Ufa was only supposed to have “eased tensions,” Aziz said. Even without his saying it, the change of mood and attempts at damage control last weekend had raised doubts about resumption of a dialogue.

Meetings by the border forces and the directors general of military operations (DGMOs) of the two armies may now take place if and when serious border clashes occur. Consider India using “hot pursuit” in Myanmar to warn Pakistan. Consider the exchange of fire or Pakistan’s Finance Minister promising “fitting reply” to India, which the two Sharifs – Nawaz and his Army Chief General Raheel had already said earlier.

Not new in Indo-Pak discourse before any top level parleys taking place, they underscore hostile mindsets, even if attributed to the hawks on both sides. Expectations were low before Ufa. Although he has kept contact with Sharif through phone calls, Modi has blown more hot than cold in his year in office.

He is unlikely to play ‘friends’ with Pakistan when separatists in Jammu and Kashmir are uniting to give a rough time to the State government in which Modi’s party is a constituent. Last year’s election gambit in that State that succeeded partially, but significantly, had prompted Modi to call off the Foreign Secretary-level talks. Modi is considered a “Hindu hawk” on the other side.

He proved his Pakistani critics right when he insisted on talking to Sharif on the terrorism issue and, in particular, expediting judicial process to bring to book the Mumbai attacks’ mastermind, Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi. He had not left anybody in doubt when he verbally jostled on this issue with Chinese President Xi Jinping, before he met Sharif.

That Sharif failed to counter T-word (for terrorism) with the K-word (for Kashmir) is the reason for the Ufa exercise coming to nought. Proposal to put the Kashmir issue to back-channels’ talks may or may not have been mutually agreed, but to Pakistan, it amounted to putting it on back-burner. Sharif lost on that score, allowing Modi acolytes to term it a victory.

The favourite discourse in Pakistan is that Modi is “learning on the job” and that he is “under pressure” from Obama and his other ‘friends’ among world leaders. There is talk of the Chinese President having played a role in making Modi meet Sharif.

As for the ‘pressures’ on Modi, the doves in India and the hawks in Pakistan are one in concluding that Modi met Sharif because, as columnist Cyril Almeida put it in Karachi’s Dawn newspaper, when Modi “became agitated, the world got alarmed and the influential parts of the world stepped in, saying, ‘You guys can’t squabble away like this.’”

The Indian doves and the Pakistani hawks are also one in concluding that a hard line by Modi-led India raises fears of a nuclear war in the event of a serious border clash or another Mumbai-like terror attack emanating from Pakistani soil. Hence, there are ‘pressures’ on Modi – and before him, Manmohan Singh – to talk to Islamabad.

The bottom line both accept is that neither side really has its heart in talking. But talk they must, from time to time, to let the steam off. Some tangible results, like release of fishermen caught for straying into each other’s waters, are welcome, for the domestic constituencies and the world community.

The speculation – and all sides would be right straightaway on this score – is whether Sharif had the endorsement of his top military brass before the Ufa meeting. Almeida, like most Pakistani commentators critical of the army’s overwhelming role in the country’s life, simply calls them ‘boys’. “Without the boys on board, it doesn’t matter who’s in Delhi.”

Although Nawaz has got on well with the Army Chief – widely perceived to be on the latter’s terms – he cannot deal with India without the Army’s endorsement. No expertise is needed to reach that conclusion. An additional factor clouded the talks. It was the Pakistani charge, quoting a BBC report that lacked credibility for not cross-checking information – an example of bad journalism coming from the hallowed British broadcaster.

It alleged that leaders of Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM), Pakistan’s fourth largest political party, have been receiving funds from RAW, India’s external intelligence agency. The refrain was picked up by the Pakistan government. India dismissed the whole thing. The United States’ State Department said it had received no information or evidence from Pakistan making these allegations.

And then, the London Metropolitan Police itself denied the documents on which the BBC story was based. The MQM is being targeted anyway because of its political shenanigans, especially of its London-based chief, Altaf Husain, whom the British also want for alleged money laundering and involvement in the murder of a party dissident. The BBC story came in handy. That it had quoted a single Pakistani official made it worthy of being thrown into the dustbin.

In sum, nothing happened – nothing could have happened at the Modi-Sharif meeting at Ufa. The truth is that mutual mistrust has bred brinkmanship on both sides. If India is ready to celebrate its ‘victory’ in the 1965 conflict this year, Pakistan will not lag behind. Actually, the 23-day war was a drawn match, but has left lasting scars.

That it sowed the seeds of Pakistan’s breakup has only added to bitterness in Indo-Pak relations. That bitterness is increasing as the world community views Pakistan as a failing state, while India, despite all its faultlines, is seen surging ahead. It is not likely to go away any time soon, notwithstanding pious hopes of people on both sides.