Back to Sharm el-Sheikh

With the agreement by India to hold talks at the foreign secretaries' level, the two neighbouring countries are back to where they ended up at Sharm el-Sheikh. This means New Delhi is willing to hold talks without any riders. They would, however, be short of where the eight point composite dialogue had taken them after four comprehensive rounds till India suspended it unilaterally after November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai.
New Delhi has suggested February 18 and 25 for the talks. The thaw in the relations should be welcomed. After 14 months of steadfastly refusing to resume talks with Pakistan until Islamabad brought those behind the Mumbai attacks to justice, India has finally dropped the demand as a precondition for talks.
How has the change of heart taken place? Is it due to international pressure or a realisation on the part of India that it is counter-productive to shut the door on talks? Presumably both factors have played a role. During the presidential campaign in 2008, Obama had promised "working with Pakistan and India to try to resolve the Kashmir crisis in a serious way." The Mumbai attacks, taking place only months before the induction of the new administration in Washington, however, added to the existing complications in South Asia.
The attacks, conducted by non-state actors, turned the world's attention to the dangers posed by terrorism and the need by both Islamabad and New Delhi to jointly fight against it. Over the last year, both sides were consistently pressed by friendly countries to yield ground.
While India failed to pressurise Pakistan to accede to its irrational demand to hand over persons named in a long list, it succeeded in getting the West's support on one point. The US and its Western allies leaned on Pakistan to cooperate with New Delhi in the investigation. A Washington Post report last year told of Indian and Pakistani spy agencies co-operating secretly in India's investigation of the Mumbai attacks, sharing highly sensitive intelligence, with the CIA serving as arbiter and mediator.
Pakistan, consequently, announced criminal charges against men accused of having links to the attack and acknowledged that some of the planning for the three-day assault occurred in Pakistan. A continued suspension of talks between the South Asian neighbours was against the interests of the US and its Western allies as it diverted Pakistan's attention from the fight against the militants.
India was, therefore, politely advised to restart the talks. As Assistant Secretary of State Philip J.Crowley told a briefing at the State Department last week, "We certainly have been encouraging steps that both Pakistan and India could take to address mutual concerns." International developments concerning Afghanistan also contributed to India's decision to revise its policy.
The US announced a date when the withdrawal of its troops would start. This led Washington to ponder over the possibility of talks with elements among the Taliban. It was also recognised that Pakistan was to play a key role in the resolution of the Afghan conundrum. The London Conference that took place after two moots in Turkey turned out to be the game-changer. Pakistan was able to leverage its new importance in the region to secure its own interests vis-a-vis India.
There was also a growing realisation in New Delhi that instead of strengthening peace, the indefinite suspension of dialogue and continuation of rhetoric would help strengthen forces of extremism. A part of media had also by now stated supporting the resumption of dialogue. So was a section of the business community, which hopes to reach the Central Asian markets for which friendly ties with Pakistan are inevitable.
The hype that the Indian administration had considered necessary in the wake of the attack had outlived its utility and was leading to diminishing returns now. Indian newspaper Hindu reported that government sources now thought "India had made its point" and to indefinitely prolong the tension by refusing to talk would be counter productive. Whatever the reasons, the move constitutes is a positive development.
There is, however, a need to realise that the talks can only achieve limited results for the time being. Leadership in both the countries cannot afford to disregard public sensitivities. This explains the cautious stands taken by the two sides. New Delhi is not willing to restart the composite dialogue, though maintaining that all issues of concern can be discussed. Pakistan wants result-oriented and sustained dialogue. As the Foreign Office spokesman pointed out, "No format of engagement other than Composite Dialogue will be acceptable to us."
The maximum one can reasonably hope for is that the initial talks would lead to more rounds of the currently abandoned composite dialogue. The least one expects is a return from tough talk and veiled threats and counter threats to the atmosphere prevailing before the Mumbai attacks. People to people contacts should be revived, travel restrictions eased and there should be a revival of trade and business relations. The atmosphere for talks would improve if India pulls out more troops from Occupied Kashmir and stops the ongoing repression in the valley.
There are forces on both sides, who would like to derail the talks. Non-state actors, not under government control and unhappy with the peace process, could again launch a Mumbai like strike. Hawks in Indian military and intelligence department are reportedly disturbed over the move.
Any indiscreet statement from their side is bound to be reciprocated from the other side raising political temperature once again. Parties like BJP in India and their counterparts in Pakistan, who are supported by like-minded sections of media, could take up any minor issue to turn the public opinion against the talks. The governments being highly sensitive to public opinion may then stall the process. What provides one hope is that there are also sane voices on both sides who want the issues between the two countries to be resolved through parleys?
Talking about a resolution of the Kashmir issue is no more a taboo for a section of Indian media. An editorial in Hindustan Times on February 8 says "A resolution of Kashmir, together with Pakistan coming to terms with its internal Jihadi demons, would reverse years of bitter hostility between the two nations and initiate a new era for the subcontinent's youth." Similarly there is a strong support for the peace process in the ruling coalition as well as the main opposition party PML-N and the civil society in general.