Third Round
Indo-Pak Dialogue

The POST, Sun, Jan,29, 2006.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema


Prior to commencement of the third round of Indo-Pak dialogue between the foreign secretaries, the hopes of the people of India and Pakistan were inadvertently raised to the extent where they began to entertain a dramatic break through.  Those familiar with acute and complex nature of the ongoing disputes confronting the two nations were indeed much more realistic in their assessments. Cognizant of the intricacies of the disputes, they were merely expecting forward movements. The first meeting of the third round did not disappoint those anticipating forward movements but it could not satisfy those who were expecting substantive outcome.

Meeting in the third week of February, the officials of the two countries not just only reviewed the whole situation but also agreed to continue talks despite the anger generated in some quarters by Indian statement over the situation in Baluchistan. Reportedly the Indian statement was viewed by some as a ‘downright interference’ in the internal affairs of Pakistan. It was anticipated that the dialogue would be excessively influenced by the fallout of such a statement. Since the Pakistanis have officially taken up the issue with the Indians, it is hoped that this matter would now be laid to rest.

The first meeting of the third round focused on Kashmir and peace and security related matters. Agreements were reached over the launching of another bus service between Rawalkot and Poonch and a truck service between Muzafferabad and Srinagar. Both agreements were not only widely welcomed but they were viewed as another effort to facilitate the contact between the Kashmiris on both sides of the LOC. Indeed these measures are viewed as another injection of the confidence building measure (CBMs) particularly in the light of increasing people to people contacts.

While it has been recognized by many that the Pakistani President is making extra efforts to facilitate the process leading to the resolution of the ongoing Kashmir dispute, the Indians interpreted that such efforts need to be mooted through official channels and not via media. However it has been made clear that President has communicated all new ideas through official channels as well. It appears that the Indians prefer that all Kashmir related ideas should be discussed in close door meetings and media channel should be avoided.

The Pakistani side asked the Indians to allow self governance in Kashmir and urged a cut back of troops in the heavily militarized region. In view of the enormous importance of the Kashmir dispute the Pakistani side stressed that all ideas need to be subjected to thorough discussions enabling both parties to reach an understanding that could accelerate the desired resolution of the ongoing Kashmir dispute.

It is not too difficult to comprehend the Indian apprehensions and even the logic governing such reservations, one cannot dispute the fact that a public analysis of new ideas could always provide far safer openings on one hand and inject hopes on the other. To sustain hopes regarding the eventual resolution of the dispute is equally important for maintenance of the process. Undoubtedly the resolution of the Kashmir dispute is imperative for the normalization of the Indo-Pak relations. Given the significance and importance of the Kashmir dispute, it would indeed be wiser to welcome all approaches and efforts aimed towards its resolution whether undertaken covertly or overtly.     

Responding to  Pakistani idea of cutting of troops especially creating a disengagement zone in correspondence with Pakistani proposal to demilitarize three districts of Kupwara, Baramula and Sirnagar, the Indian foreign secretary stated that the idea of disengagement zone has been raised in discussion but such a zone entails recognition of currently held positions. He further stated that modalities are being worked out on how this could be translated into an agreement.

The second important agenda item was the desired peace and security issue. The two foreign secretaries reviewed and assessed positively the progress made during the meetings of the experts on nuclear and conventional CBMs. They also agreed to mandate two experts groups to continue consultations on security concepts and nuclear doctrines in order to enhance mutual trust and avoid conflict. The experts are expected to finalize agreements on the reducing the risks of nuclear accidents or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons. The experts are also expected to discuss the proposal that in future no new post and defense work be allowed along the Line of Control (LOC) and the holding of a monthly meeting between the local military commanders in the area. The two sides also agreed to work on the issue of how to prevent possible incidents between naval vessels at sea and the aircrafts of the two countries.

It was also agreed to hold early meetings of the technical level working groups of the Joint Commission on Agriculture, Health, Science and Technology, Information, Education, IT and Telecommunication, Environment and Tourism. In addition both sides reiterated their resolve to simultaneously reopen their respective Consulates General in Mumbai and Karachi. However it needs to be stressed here that so far the Pakistanis have not been able to secure a suitable place in Mumbai and unless and until they able to secure a suitable place, the working of Consulates General could be delayed.

Three additional suggestions were also advanced. The Indian side suggested the extension of Khokhrapar-Manaboa rail link to Ajmer. If this materializes then the route could be used by those intending to visit Ajmer. Both sides also discussed the need to increase the number of flights between the two countries and add more destinations. The Pakistani side had also suggested that people who accidentally cross the LOC should be speedily returned to their respective areas of abode.

By and large the initiation of the third round has not been without dividends. Admittedly the meeting ended without producing spectacular results but the above mentioned outcome cannot be rated as insignificant. Each agreement tends to add another brick to the anticipated and desired edifice of the trust. Given the history of almost continuous hostile relationships between the two countries, the slow pace of onward movement is quite understandable. If the dialogue continues, even the slow pace would not be able to attract severe criticism.

Inching towards peace may discourage those expecting spectacular and quick results but slow pace with adequate reflection of the sincerity of efforts could strengthen the base upon which strong edifice of trust could be built. It should not be ignored that not only this was the first meeting in the third round dealing with the most complex issues but there are other scheduled meetings in the third round which may produce tangible agreement. Most people are very hopeful that the meeting on Siachin is likely to produce an agreement. Some even expect that Sir Creek would also be resolved in this round.

The writer works for Islamabad Policy Research Institute.