‘The problem is can you actually have some kind of peace when you are teaching your five-year-olds that India is a permanent enemy?’
‘Even if Sharif genuinely wants an opening up of economic relations with India, does he really want to take on the business of shutting down the jihadi groups? There is no sign of it so far.’
India’Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been congratulated for his speedy diplomacy and his talks with Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif. However, academic Christine Fair and former Pakistan ambassador to US Husain Haqqani dismiss the meeting, calling it merely a photo-op and an exercise in futility. Aziz Haniffa reports.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi created history of sorts when he held talks with Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif a day after assuming office. The move was welcomed and lauded by all -- Indians, Pakistan and even the United States. During the meet, the contentious issues of Kashmir, terrorism in Pakistan and the 26/11 trial were raised.
The fast-paced diplomacy is being viewed by all as a positive sign. However, academic Christine Fair and former Pakistani Ambassador to the US Husain Haqqani, two of the fiercest critics of the Pakistani military and the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, say the recent meeting is mere window-dressing.
Both the critics, who are persona non-grata in Pakistan, say that any efforts to establish normalised ties between the two nations can be undermined by the Pakistan military and the ISI and that simply talking trade and peace would not help the issue.
The issue was raised at a discussion at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, where Fair’s book Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army’s Way of War was being talked about. Haqqani was present at the discussion and was the moderator at the event.
Fair acknowledged, “Modi in some ways is better placed than Manmohan Singh, as he is more forthcoming in engaging with Pakistan.”
She added how previous talks had been marred by the Pakistan Army. “Remember in 1998, it was then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee who undertook the Lahore process with Nawaz Sharif, and we know what the Army did -- that was called Kargil.”
Thus, Fair, an assistant professor in the Peace and Securities programme at the Georgetown University School of Foreign Service argued, “Just because Modi has a certain reputation -- his association with Hindutva politics -- doesn’t mean he’s not going to be hammering the Pakistanis.”
She went on to say, “I would argue there is probably better hope with Modi than with Singh because Singh was viewed as such a timid individual with respect to Pakistan. Modi is not going to have that problem.”
Fair added that just because Nawaz Sharif wishes for some economic normalisation with India, doesn’t necessarily mean he is looking forward to complete normalisation. “Let’s just pretend for a nano second that Sharif did. The army will undercut him,” she said, adding, “The army knows that particularly under Modi, all they have to do is have a Lashkar-e-Tayiba or some Jaish-e-Mohammed attack and that would undermine all previous efforts.”
Fair said there were now innumerable "opportunities for spoilers, and by the way, the jihadi guys themselves are increasingly capable of being spoilers independent of the ISI."
“So, I don’t really expect much to come out of this. And, I think the attack in Herat was very likely done by the Lakshar-e-Tayiba or the Haqqani Network and we’ll probably know in the next few days,” she said, “So, I am a pessimist.”
Fair’s sentiments were echoed by Haqqani, senior fellow and director of South Asia at Hudson. “There is a long history; since 1951 when Pakistan Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan a lot of Pakistani civilian leaders have actually wanted some kind of modus vivendi with India,” he said.
“However, the problem is, can you actually have some kind of peace when you are teaching your five-year-olds that India is a permanent enemy?” he added, “So, my point is that those are two contrasting objectives.”
Haqqani acknowledged that even though it was a good thing that Sharif didn’t discuss Kashmir in India, he was being criticised in Pakistan and that criticism would become stronger as time passed.
“But the fact remains that usually you move in tandem -- for example, when Nixon went to China, Mao Zedong made the decision that they were going to open up to America and the American rhetoric on China began to decline,” he added.
Similarly, he said, “If we see this happening in the India-Pakistan process, then it would grip the American media much more. For instance, when Vajpayee was meeting with Sharif, American diplomats went wow and nobody noticed Kargil.”
Haqqani added that even though Sharif “genuinely wants an opening up of economic relations with India, does he really want to take on the business of shutting down the jihadi groups, etc? There is no sign thereof so far.”
Fair went on to argue that as India is considered the permanent enemy of Pakistan, there could never be a settlement on the Kashmir imbroglio. “Why would the army allow the whole process to go forward that would obviate its own politics? There is an institutional argument to be made -- the Pakistani army gets to do what it wants to do because it is the sole institution best positioned to protect Pakistan’s territory and ideology.”
Thus, according to Fair, “The best that India can hope for is some version of the status quo, and I suspect that if India continues to try to figure out what type of extra regional player it is going to be, there will be other theatres of competition.”
Image: India Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif ahead of their meeting at Hyderabad House, New Delhi, on March 27, 2014. Photograph: Adnan Abidi/Reuters.
