For the 1.5 billion inhabitants of India and Pakistan, the
last week’s meeting between their premiers is a positive sign.
Things seem to be moving in the right direction for Pakistan
and India as both Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan and Prime Minister
Narendra Modi of India have a clear majority in their respective parliaments
and a heavy mandate from their respective voters.
To the few critics of the Nawaz government’s decision to
attend Modi’s oath-taking ceremony, my question is what could have been the
alternative: a path of confrontation? Can we (or India) afford a confrontation?
Declining this invitation would have been interpreted as Pakistan’s
unwillingness to develop good working relations with the new Indian government,
which is certainly not the intention of the current government.
In fact, it has never been the intention of our successive
governments. Contrary to the common perception, that the contours of our
foreign policy are determined by the "hidden hands", one should appreciate that
despite belonging to different political spectrums, our successive heads of
state — Ziaul Haq, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, Pervez Musharraf, Asif
Zardari, and Yousaf Raza Gillani have all visited India, even on non-official
visits, and tried to bridge the trust deficit between India and Pakistan.
Also, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s decision has certainly
sent positive vibes to the international community. This is despite the fact
that no Indian prime minister has visited Pakistan since 1999 (after Vajpayee’s
last visit to Pakistan for the Lahore Summit).
Interestingly, one of the reasons Manmohan Singh could not
visit Pakistan despite his “Punjab Connection” was strong opposition from the
Bharatiya Janata Party. Congress was so vulnerable that it could not afford
Manmohan’s unofficial visit to his birthplace (Chakwal) or to his most sacred
religious place (Nankana Sahib).
Leadership on both sides of the border should understand
that Asian Century is a reality and there is a visible shift from traditional
centres of power. The idea is that new leaders should not repeat the mistakes.
BJP not only criticised any attempt of Congress for
normalising relations with Pakistan but also took tough stance against Pakistan
in its electoral campaign. Many critics were of the view before the elections
that Modi’s coming into power would imply deterioration of relations between
India and Pakistan. However, in politics the opposition leader enjoys the
absolute freedom to take any emotional position and to give any sweeping
statement, but once in power he/she needs to make sane choices.
Modi made that sane choice to invite heads of SAARC
countries (and Mauritius) for his oath-taking ceremony. By this move, he not
only gave a message to his domestic stakeholders that he as prime minister of
India would be different from his previous role as chief minister of Gujarat,
but also signalled to the external stakeholders that India is willing to
capitalise on the SAARC collateral. The most important aspect of his move was
that he invited the prime minister of Pakistan without getting accused that he
had radically changed his position on Pakistan.
It is said that SAARC has been held hostage by the ups and
downs in the Indo-Pak relations. In this context, Nawaz’s visit to India is
even more important.
The "great expectations" from Modi-Nawaz meeting were
unrealistic though. The meeting was not meant to resolve any bilateral issues.
It was essentially a ceremonial meeting to give “faces to the names” as they
say and its objective was to establish a personal rapport between the two
leaders. They are supposed to meet at least twice over the course of next seven
months and a personal rapport established now would be helpful for all future
meetings.
I often say that if the "right to the centre" governments in
India and Pakistan decide to have good relations, they would meet with minimum
resistance from their "left to centre" political opponents. Both the PML-N and
the BJP are right to centre (rather BJP is slightly more right than centre)
parties and we have already seen historic progress on bilateral relations
during the Lahore Summit of 1999 under the leadership of Vajpayee (BJP) and
Nawaz Sharif.
This time, Nawaz-Modi pair has a competitive edge over
Nawaz-Vajpayee. Both Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif are pro-business and enjoy
good confidence of their respective business communities. Both came to power
predominately on their economic agendas and they seem to understand that peace
is the dividend of improved economic relations.
That is why in their maiden meeting, Modi said that the two
countries can immediately move to normalised trade relations and expected a
quick announcement for non-discriminatory market access (NDMA) for India from
Pakistan, while Nawaz offered the Indian investors to invest in Pakistan’s
energy sector with a promised rate of return of up to 30 per cent.
There was slight twist in this whole saga. The statement of
Indian Foreign Secretary, saying "Mr Modi also underlined our concerns related
to terrorism" and "It was conveyed that Pakistan must abide by its commitment
to prevent its territory and territory under its control from being used for
terrorism against India", did not reflect either the content or the spirit of
the meeting.
In political terms, it was like an introductory meeting
where the two premiers were trying to get to know each other. They would have
identified the issues and asked their teams to engage on those in the near
future. In any case, in a 45-minute meeting, there can be no substantial
discussion on the core issues. However, one should expect that such issues
would come under discussion in the next bilateral meetings, especially during
the sideline of the SAARC Summit in October 2014.
To sum up, the meeting between the two premiers is a nice
beginning. Keeping in view the fragile relations between India and Pakistan, no
one can predict how far this nice beginning would take us. However, elected and
non-elected leadership on both sides of the border should understand that Asian
Century is a reality and there is a visible shift from traditional centres of
power.
In 2013, new governments took over in China (March 2013),
Pakistan (May 2013) and Iran (December 2013). In 2014, we have a new government
in Bangladesh, new constitutional assembly in Nepal, new government in India,
and very soon there would be a new government in Afghanistan. This change in
regional leadership is very significant in shaping the political economy and
pathways of regional development. The idea is that new leaders should not
repeat the mistakes of their predecessors and build upon the opportunities of
working together for a sustainable future.
The three nationalist governments — in China, Japan and
Russia — are already positioning themselves to play their role and claim their
share in the Asian Century. South Asia can also play a major role (and claim a
major share) by turning into a hub of growth, but to reach there, regional
cooperation is a must.
On another note, there is also a human side of the whole
exercise. The release of fishermen languishing in jails, first by Pakistan and
then by India, is a gesture that may be indicative of more positive things to
come. In the same way, the gift of a shawl from Narendra Modi to Nawaz Sharif’s
mother indicates that both sides have the willingness to explore the benefits
of peace for not just the people of both the countires but the entire region.
Source: http://tns.thenews.com.pk/great-expectations/#.U4xILEC7H9Z
|
