Tag: India-Pakistan talks

Ready for Talks on ‘Serious Matters’ With ‘Neighbour’, Says Pakistan PM Sharif

In an apparent reference to India, the Pakistani PM said, ‘We are prepared to talk to them, provided that the neighbour is serious to talk [on] serious matters … because war is no more an option.’

New Delhi: Stating that war is not an option, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has expressed readiness to engage in talks with its “neighbour” –  in an apparent reference to India – on “serious matters”.

Speaking at a summit on mineral development in Islamabad on Tuesday, Sharif said, “We are prepared to talk to them, provided that the neighbour is serious to talk [on] serious matters … because war is no more an option.”

Pointing out that Pakistan was a nuclear power, Sharif added, “And God forbid if there is a nuclear flashpoint, who will live to tell what happened? So war is not an option.”

Stating that Pakistan has fought three wars in the last 75 years, which resulted in economic deprivation and a shortage of resources. “Is this the way that we adopt or have economic competition?” he asked, as quoted by Dawn newspaper. Pakistan has fought all three wars with India.

At the same time, Sharif said that the “neighbour has to understand that we cannot become normal neighbours unless abnormalities are removed, unless our serious issues are understood and addressed through peaceful and meaningful discussions”.

Apart from Pakistan’s eastern neighbour, Sharif also conveyed the aspiration to foster friendly relations with the United States. “We want to work with Americans. We want to have the best of relations with them as in the past, based on mutual respect and trust [and in which] we don’t try to deceive each other,” he said.

Pakistan and the United States have likely one of the closest relations in recent years. This is, especially striking when US President Joe Biden had not spoken once with previous Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan.

Earlier in January, Sharif had extended an offer for talks to India on all outstanding issues but had later clarified that this can only take place after retraction of the August 5, 2019 move to dilute the constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir.

India had responded that the time was not right as there “should be a conducive atmosphere which does not have terror, hostility or violence”.

Pakistan foreign minister Bilawal Bhutto had made a rare journey to India for the SCO foreign ministers meeting in Goa. But, the meeting got overshadowed by a verbal volley by the Indian and Pakistani ministers.

Diplomatic relations have remained downgraded since Pakistan asked the Indian high commissioner to leave and snapped trade ties following the August 5, 2019 announcement.

Without Talks or Handshakes, How Will India Improve Relations With Pakistan?

Having thrown away our agency, our focus is not on substance but communicating how we did not shake hands and how we made angry faces. This is what India’s foreign policy has become.

We have just hosted the foreign minister of Pakistan, a young dynast of the sort India is familiar with. His mother, who was prime minister, was assassinated by extremists, his grandfather, who was prime minister and also president earlier, was assassinated by the judiciary and the Army. His uncles were assassinated, one by the police. This is a person who has first-hand experience of the dangers and problems of the sort of state that Pakistan has formed itself into.

The story in Goa, where the foreign ministers of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation countries met, of course was the rude body language we apparently displayed to him, the apparent refusal to shake hands (and do namaste instead), and so on. It was as if we were hosting someone unwelcome, which we were, and someone who had been forced on us with whom we had personal enmity. He, on the other hand, though young, appears to have acquitted himself well, going by some of the messages on social media, though I did not see the interviews he did. He exposed himself to questioning by our journalists, which our leaders do not do.

Let us turn to the issue, which is how we can improve relations with our neighbour. The first question to ask is: Do we have any agency or do only they have it? This is worth considering because our position is that we can have no normalcy in ties till they stop doing what they do. Meaning that, according to us, they are the ones who are in control of normalcy. I have written before about the data on deaths in Kashmir from terrorism, which peaked two decades ago at over 4,000 and then fell each year under Atal Behari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh to go under 200 in a decade, and remain there more or less in the years since. Our government’s view appears to be that all violence in Kashmir is externally induced, and there is no local catalyst. I say appears to be because it is not clear if we are saying this. But if we are, then what we mean is that since there is no local component, we will only act on normalisation if violence becomes zero.

This is worth considering while we go through the options we have. Former diplomat Satinder Lambah recently (posthumously) published a book called In Pursuit of Peace: India-Pakistan Relations under Six Prime Ministers. In it, he lists the four-point normalisation formula of then-Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf. These were demilitarisation through a phased withdrawal of troops, no change in the borders of Kashmir, free movement of Kashmiris across the Line of Control (LoC) without independence and joint supervision in Jammu and Kashmir involving India, Pakistan, and Kashmir.

This did not go through. After this, under Manmohan Singh, another set of guidelines was produced by India. These repeated all four of Musharraf’s points, and added more. Three of these additional points were on trade: encourage meaningful across the LoC, removal of non-tariff barriers (meaning delays, inspections, red tape) for all locally produced goods, take measures to increase it and open more routes.

This did not go through either of course, but it sounds like normalisation of the sort that would not only address our concern of violence against civilians and the armed forces but also be beneficial to our economy. India produces goods that Pakistan (or for that matter Bangladesh) does not, but we cannot sell them these products because of trade barriers and reluctance to normalise.

Half of all manufacturing in India is in the automobile sector, and the cars, motorcycles and tractors and rickshaws we have are cheaper than the ones sold there. It would be in our interest to push for normalisation or at least to segregate normalisation on Kashmir from other issues like trade, so that our economy benefits.

There appears to be no such desire, at least on the part of this government, as there was in the previous one.

And so in Goa, again we repeated our position, as we were expected to do, and this will continue into the future. What Lambah said the government was considering in that period is no longer our thinking.

The other thing to consider is whether there is a second way of looking at the problem, and if the issue to be resolved is primarily in Kashmir, rather than in Pakistan. To go there we have to accept, or at least have to consider the idea, that if we resolve the problem inside then external mischief has limited efficacy. This doesn’t seem to be our understanding. We assume that if Pakistan were to stop acting against us or were to somehow vanish from the face of the earth today, then from tomorrow there would be no need to maintain a heavy military and paramilitary presence in Kashmir. This is either touchingly innocent or bafflingly stupid.

However, it is the position of the government, and not only this one.

So long as this line of thinking continues, and it is not difficult to see that it will, there will be no movement on our relations with our neighbour.

We have told ourselves that the key to the solution is with them, and they are refusing to use it, and because they are refusing to use it, we will not talk to them. Having thrown away our agency, our focus is not on substance but communicating how we did not shake hands and how we made angry faces. This is what India’s foreign policy has become.

In Book, Satinder Lambah Reveals Plan to Meet Nawaz Sharif as Modi’s Envoy in April 2017

The plan was stymied even before the veteran diplomat left Delhi because of industrialist Sajjan Jindal’s trip to Islamabad.

New Delhi: Satinder Lambah, a veteran of back-channel talks, had been asked by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to travel as his personal envoy to Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in April 2017, but the plan was stymied even before he left Delhi by industrialist Sajjan Jindal’s trip, the diplomat reveals in his memoir.

Released earlier this month, Lambah’s posthumously published book, In Pursuit of Peace: India-Pakistan Relations Under Six Prime Ministers chronicles his insider role in managing the India-Pakistan relationship and the back-channel talks that nearly led to an agreement over Kashmir. Lambah passed away last year at the age of 81.

While his book does not cover the period after 2014, Lambah said that he had met with PM Modi on the latter’s request on a couple of occasions. It began with a meeting before the swearing-in ceremony when all SAARC leaders, including Pakistan PM Nawaz Sharif, travelled to India. He later met with Modi again, when he briefed the prime minister on the back-channel talks.

Lambah claimed there had been an “intent” to restart the back-channel process. “The file on the subject had been reviewed. I was even told that no major change was required.”

The veteran Indian Foreign Service officer wrote that he was “asked” to meet with a “distinguished diplomat” who was being considered a special envoy by PM Modi. But, that path did not go further. “However, when I checked with the PMO, I was told that there had been a change in thought and I would be informed regarding the briefing.”

But, there was a more concrete proposal for him to act as a messenger, which nearly happened.

In an excerpt published by The Wire, Lambah wrote about a previously unreported incident in which the PMO instructed him to travel to Pakistan and meet with PM Nawaz Sharif on behalf of Modi.

“On 20 April 2017, a senior official of the PMO came to see me at my house. He said the prime minister wanted me to visit Pakistan to meet Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. I reiterated that such meetings are more valuable if the envoy has the public confidence of the prime minister. However, on the 22nd, I was told I would be given details of the points to be discussed and was asked to give my travel documents to enable me to travel to Pakistan.”

Prime Minister Modi’s plan to send Lambah to Pakistan took place after a period of intense strain.

While Sharif’s visit to Delhi and Modi’s sudden stop in Lahore had fostered optimism, those hopes were eventually shattered by the terror attacks on the Pathankot air force base in January 2016 and the Uri army camp in September 2016. In retaliation, the Indian army claimed to have carried out “surgical strikes” against terror camps across the Line of Control.

Lambah wrote that on April 22, 2017, along with the senior PMO official, he met with lawyer Fali Nariman “to refresh some points”.

However, the next day, he came across a news report that an Indian industrialist had gone to meet PM Nawaz Sharif “in his personal plane” as an “emissary”.

“I rang the official, who appeared surprised at this development. I told him that under the circumstances, it would not be proper for two people to represent the prime minister for the same purpose. Clearly, the emissary had not coordinated his visit to Pakistan with the PMO. This was the last conversation I had on this subject,” he wrote.

Lambah was referring to the visit of Industrialist Sajjan Jindal, whose meeting with Nawaz Sharif at Murree, was leaked and created a political furore in Pakistan. The grapevine during that period had speculated that the leak was done by security agencies, worried that Sharif was taking a more soft and independent approach towards India.

The media reports had speculated that Jindal’s visit was related to the Indian national and former naval officer, Kulbhushan Jadhav, who had been sentenced to death by a Pakistan military court on April 10, 2017.

Lambah did not mention the nature of the message that he was to discuss with PM Sharif. However, he mentions Nariman in the book in a separate instance, when the latter was consulted for his legal opinion on whether the draft agreement was in line with the Indian constitution.

Pakistan PM Sharif Asks for Talks With India, Govt Later Adds ‘Only if 370 Action Revoked’

“My message to the Indian leadership and Prime Minister Narendra Modi is that let us sit down on the table and have serious and sincere talks to resolve our burning issues like Kashmir,” Shahbaz Sharif said.

New Delhi: The Pakistani prime minister, Shahbaz Sharif, on Monday (January 16) asked Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to hold serious talks about issues that remained unresolved between the two countries, including Kashmir. He also said that United Arab Emirates could play a diplomatic role in encouraging and mediating these talks.

Speaking to Al Arabiya news channel, Sharif said, “My message to the Indian leadership and Prime Minister Narendra Modi is that let us sit down on the table and have serious and sincere talks to resolve our burning issues like Kashmir. In Kashmir, flagrant human rights violations are taking place day in and day out.”

In Jammu and Kashmir, Sharif claimed, the reading down of Article 370 has led to a breakdown of the region’s autonomy. He also added that minorities are being persecuted in India, and this must stop if the country wants to prove to the world that it is serious about the issue, Dawn reported.

“It is up to us [India and Pakistan] to live peacefully and make progress or quarrel with each other, and waste time and resources. We have three wars with India and it only brought more misery, poverty and unemployment to the people. We have learnt our lesson and we want to live in peace provided we are able to resolve our genuine problems. We want to alleviate poverty, achieve prosperity, and provide education and health facilities and employment to our people and not waste our resources on bombs and ammunition, that is the message I want to give to PM Modi,” Sharif said.

“We are nuclear powers, armed to the teeth and if God forbid a war breaks out who will live to tell what happened,” he continued.

After the interview, however, the Pakistan Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement saying that while Sharif had consistently called for talks, his offer came with a rider. “…the [Pakistani] Prime Minister has repeatedly stated on record that talks can only take place after India had reversed its illegal action of August 5, 2019; without India’s revocation of this step, negotiations are not possible. The settlement of the Kashmir dispute must be in accordance with the UN resolutions and the aspirations of the people of Jammu & Kashmir,” the statement said.

India has not responded to Sharif’s remarks.

In an editorial on Wednesday, Hindustan Times noted that Sharif’s statements could be read as a “trial ballon”, to see how New Delhi responds. “Mr Sharif’s comments could be seen as a trial balloon to gauge the thinking in Delhi. While the Indian government has spoken of restoring Jammu and Kashmir’s statehood, it is unlikely the status of the region will be changed. Thus, if Mr Sharif were to cling to the plank of revoking the decision of August 2019, talks will be a non-starter. The window for any engagement too appears extremely narrow, with Pakistan set to hold elections this year and India in 2024. If a beginning is to be made, the two sides should focus on the resumption of trade and upgrading of diplomatic ties,” the newspaper said.

The Times of India too spoke of Sharif’s offer in its editorial, saying that the prime minister was trying to turn attention away from the many crises in Pakistan by focusing on Kashmir. “Sharif should concentrate on trying to fix Pakistan’s own, deepening problems rather than chase grand talks with New Delhi. Pakistan’s economy is a basket case. As of January 6, forex reserves held by the State Bank of Pakistan plunged to $4.34 billion, just enough to cover three weeks of imports. Things have been further exacerbated by the devastating floods last year that drenched one-third of the country, displaced 8 million people, and dealt a body-blow to its agriculture sector. Meanwhile, inflation is forecast to stay between a whopping 21-23% with severe shortages of essentials like flour and fuel,” the ToI editorial says.

No Problem Talking to Pakistan But Won’t Talk to ‘Terroristan’, Says Jaishankar

He added that with the success of India’s policy decision to scrap Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, Pakistan’s 70 years of investment into terrorists has gone down to waste.

New York: India has no problem talking to Pakistan but it has a problem talking to “terroristan”, external affairs minister S. Jaishankar said here, asserting that Islamabad has created an entire industry of terrorism to deal with the Kashmir issue.

Jaishankar, addressing a New York audience at cultural organisation Asia Society on Tuesday, said when India decided to revoke Article 370 and bifurcate the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, it drew reactions from Pakistan and China.

Pakistan downgraded diplomatic relations with India and also expelled the Indian High Commissioner after New Delhi revoked the special status given to Jammu and Kashmir on August 5.

China had voiced “serious concern” over the situation in Kashmir, saying “the parties concerned should exercise restraint and act with caution, especially to avoid actions that unilaterally change the status quo and exacerbate tension.”

Jaishankar emphasised that India has no problem talking to Pakistan.

But we have a problem talking to “terroristan”. And they have to be one and not be the other, he said.

Also read: Pakistan Vows ‘Fullest Possible Response’ to India over Kashmir

Jaishankar underlined that revoking Article 370 has no implications for India’s external boundaries.

“We are sort of reformatting this within our existing boundaries. It obviously drew a reaction from Pakistan, it drew a reaction from China. These are two very different reactions. I think, for Pakistan, it was a country which has really created an entire industry of terrorism to deal with the Kashmir issue. In my view, it’s actually bigger than Kashmir, I think they have created it for India” Jaishankar said.

He added that in the aftermath of India’s decision to scrap Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, Pakistan now sees its investment of 70 years undercut if this policy succeeds.

So theirs is today a reaction of anger, of frustration in many ways, because you have built an entire industry over a long period of time, he said.

When asked that Pakistan has said a lot and what does he think it would do, Jaishankar said “this is not a Kashmir issue but a bigger issue than that and Pakistan has to accept that the model which they have built for themselves, no longer works. That you cannot, in this day and age, conduct policy using terrorism as a legitimate instrument of statecraft. I think that’s at the heart of the issue”.

Jaishankar recalled that over the years in Jammu and Kashmir, the lack of development, lack of opportunity, actually created a sense of alienation, alienation to separatism, separatism used for terrorism.

When asked what does Pakistan need to do as a precondition for Kashmir talks, Jaishankar said, “I think we are getting this wrong. First of all Pakistan has to do something for its own good and if it does that, it would enable a normal neighbourly relationship with India”.

He added that it is not like India and Pakistan agree on everything else and the two countries have wonderful relationships and there is a Kashmir issue.

“We had an attack on Mumbai city. The last time I checked, Mumbai city was not a part of Kashmir. So if Pakistani terrorists can attack states and regions which are far removed from Kashmir, we have got to recognise that there is a bigger problem out there”, the minister said.

The problem is really the mindset, he said adding that every time there is a change of government in Pakistan, “somebody says its new and nothing to do with the earlier guys” and blames the previous government.

Second, they say, “it has nothing to do with us as a country, it’s all the Americans. The Americans taught us the bad habits by doing the Afghan jihad. We were good people till you came along” he said, taking a strong jibe at Pakistan.

“There is a fundamental issue there which they need to understand and we need to encourage them to do – that is to move away from terrorism” he said, adding that at one level it’s a huge issue and another level it’s a very obvious issue.

“These are not activities which are subterranean. These are activities in broad day light. They know where the camps are, anybody knows where the camps are, just google them. You’ll find them” he said.

Jaishankar emphasised that the provision in the Indian Constitution which gave Kashmir a different status was a temporary provision. Now, here’s the funny thing. We rarely read that in the international press, he said.

“We agree on what the word temporary means, it means something comes to an end. After 70 years, it came to an end. And 70 years is a decent definition of the word temporary” he said.

He said when the Narendra Modi government was voted back into power, it took a long hard look at what its options are about Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir.

“And the options were either we do more of the same knowing it doesn’t work, or we do something different. So I think the choice was okay, we will do something different. And that something different, by the way, has no implications for the external boundaries of India” he said.

On China, he said Beijing misread what was happening in Jammu and Kashmir after the revocation of Article 370.

“Now, I don’t know why they believe that it impacted on them, he said, adding that he went to Beijing a few days after the Constitutional change and explained to them that as far as they were concerned, nothing had changed. India’s boundaries had not changed, the line of actual control has not changed. So that was the conversation we had with them.”

(PTI)

Kashmir: Taliban Urges India, Pakistan to Refrain From Violence, Use ‘Rational Pathways’

A statement issued by the fundamentalist group advocated for peace, saying it had gained “bitter experiences from war and conflict”.

New Delhi: As tensions between India and Pakistan simmer over the revocation of special status to Kashmir, the Taliban has asked India and Pakistan to “use rational pathways” to solve any dispute.

Pakistan has downgraded diplomatic ties with India and also suspended bilateral trade after the Indian parliament approved revoking Article 370 and reorganising Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories. Pakistan has also asked the UN to “play its due role” in Kashmir.

According to The Tribune, the Taliban, while expressing “deep sadness” over Kashmir’s special status being revoked, also urged India and Pakistan “to refrain from taking steps that could pave a way for violence and complications in the region and usurp the rights of Kashmiris”. Its spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahed said the Taliban has “gained bitter experiences from war and conflict” and urged “peace and use of rational pathways to solve regional issues.”

The statement also said, “Linking the issue of Kashmir with that of Afghanistan by some parties will not aid in improving the crisis at hand because the issue of Afghanistan is not related nor should Afghanistan be turned into the theater of competition between other countries.”

This alludes to remarks made by Pakistan’s opposition leader Shehbaz Sharif in parliament on Tuesday. He said, “What kind of a deal is this that the Afghans enjoy and celebrate peace in Kabul, but in Kashmir, blood is shed? No, this is not acceptable for us.”

Pakistan’s embassy in Kabul on Thursday issued a clarification, saying that the rift over Kashmir would not affect the peace drive in Afghanistan.

Also Read: UN Chief Appeals for ‘Maximum Restraint’, Recalls Simla Agreement Between India and Pak

While the Taliban’s statement spoke of “bitter experiences” learnt, the group on Wednesday claimed responsibility for a bombing that killed 14 people and injured more than a hundred. The blast came a day after the outfit called for a boycott of the presidential elections in September.

In the past few days, both the US and UK have also urged India and Pakistan to exercise “restraint” and appealed the neighbours to “remain calm”.

UN secretary general Antonio Guterres has also appealed for “maximum restraint”, calling “on all parties to refrain from taking steps” that could affect the status of Jammu and Kashmir.

Meanwhile, the UN Human Rights Council has expressed concerns that the restrictions imposed on Kashmir “will exacerbate the human rights situation in the region”. The council’s spokesperson also highlighted the “reported arbitrary detention of political leaders and restrictions on peaceful assembly”.

India Denies Offer to Hold Talks With Pak, Says Messages Were ‘Diplomatic Practice’

The external affairs ministry said India spoke in generalities about normal relations with “all neighbours” – and not specifically about talks with Pakistan.

New Delhi: After a Pakistani newspaper reported that India was “ready to hold talks”, the Indian government dismissed them as congratulatory messages sent as per “diplomatic practice”, with no specific reference to talks with its South Asian neighbour.

The Express Tribune on Thursday published a report that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and external affairs minister S. Jaishankar had responded to the letters from Pakistani PM Imran Khan and foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi. “According to diplomatic sources, in the letter, India has wished to have smooth ties with all the countries of the region including Pakistan,” it stated.

Khan had written to Modi earlier this month that “talks between the two nations were the only solution to help both countries’ people overcome poverty and that it was important to work together for regional development”. On May 26, Khan also spoke by telephone to congratulate Modi on his landslide electoral victory.

The Pakistani media report quoted from the Indian “letters” – without citing from which specific missive – that New Delhi is “ready to hold talks with Pakistan and other countries in the region for the sake of regional peace and prosperity”.

In response, MEA spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said the letters were just courtesy replies. “As per the established diplomatic practice, PM and EAM have responded to the congratulatory messages received from their counterparts in Pakistan,” he said.

The spokesperson asserted that India had also spoken in generalities about normal relations with “all neighbours” – and not specifically about talks with Pakistan. “In their messages, they have highlighted that India seeks normal and cooperative relations with all neighbours, including Pakistan,” he said.

Also Read: India Yields to IOC’s Demands, Agrees to Grant Visas to Pakistan Athletes

Further, he stated that both Indian leaders had mentioned that talks required a terror-free environment.

“In his message, PM said, “For this, it is important to build an environment of trust, free of terror, violence and hostility.” EAM also emphasised the need for an ‘atmosphere free from the shadow of terror and violence’,” said Kumar.

Modi’s letter was dated June 12, while Jaishankar’s response was sent this week on June 18.

During the weekly briefing, Kumar added that Prime Minister Modi had spoken of “year round” functioning of Kartarpur corridor in his letter. Pakistan has, so far, insisted that the visa-free cross-border pilgrim corridor should be operated only during special religious days.

The Pakistan leader had earlier this year stated that he expected to pick up the broken strings of India-Pakistan talks after the Indian elections, during which the ruling party built an election campaign around its airstrikes at Balakot in response to Pulwama bomb attack.

However, so far, there has been no visible signs of any resumption of dialogue.

The Indian PM’s reply to Khan was sent before the two exchanged only “pleasantries” for a few seconds at the leaders’ lounge of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.

In September, both are again expected to be in the same city. Pakistan has already officially confirmed that Khan will be in New York, with sources also indicating that Modi will similarly address the UN General Assembly plenary. But there is still no indication of a substantive meeting between the two leaders.

Kartarpur ‘Googly’: Pakistan ‘Exposed’, Claims Swaraj; Misrepresented, Counters Qureshi

Swaraj’s assertion about Pakistan not being mindful of Sikh sentiments, Qureshi said, was a deliberate misrepresentation of his words.

New Delhi: After Indian External Affairs minister Sushma Swaraj claimed that Pakistan’s intentions over Kartarpur project had been “exposed”, Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi claimed on Sunday that his “googly” comment had been “deliberately” misrepresented.

During an event to mark the Khan government’s first 100 days on November 29, Qureshi said it had “bowled a googly at India by opening the Kartarpur border corridor”.

Two days later, Swaraj directly addressed Qureshi on his ‘googly’ statement through her twitter account.

Also Read: After Kartarpur, Mehbooba, Congress Leaders Bat for Sharada Peeth Cross-LoC Route

“Mr. Foreign Minister of Pakistan – Your ‘googly’ remarks in a dramatic manner has exposed none but YOU. This shows that you have no respect for Sikh sentiments. You only play ‘googlies’,” she posted in the first of two tweets on Saturday (December 1) night.

Swaraj was referring to Pakistan repeatedly stating that the demands of Sikh community to open the border for pilgrimage to Gurudwara Darbar Sahib had been the main reason for Islamabad agreeing to the Kartarpur project corridor.

She asserted that India was not “trapped” and that the two ministers only went to Kartarpur Sahib to “offer prayers”.

The response from the other side came on Sunday afternoon.

Qureshi replied through his Twitter account that his comments were about talks with India. Swaraj’s assertion about Pakistan not being mindful of Sikh sentiments, Qureshi posted, was a deliberate misrepresentation of his words.

The Pakistani foreign minister had invited Swaraj to the ground-breaking ceremony, but the latter had declined it due to “prior commitments”. India sent minister for food processing, Harsimrat Kaur Badal and minister of state for urban development, Hardeep Singh Puri as representatives of government of India.

Earlier during an interaction with Indian journalists in Islamabad, Qureshi had said that it was “not a googly”.

When asked whether he was disappointed by Swaraj’s response that Kartarpur didn’t herald talks, Qureshi responded in the negative. “No, I am not, because my expectation wasn’t too high”.

The Pakistan foreign office had issued a statement on Saturday that it was “dismayed at the relentless negative propaganda campaign being waged by a section of the Indian media against Pakistan on the “Kartarpur Corridor” Initiative”.

“We categorically reaffirm that the initiative to open this Corridor has been taken by the Government of Pakistan solely in deference to the longstanding wishes of our Sikh brethren, and especially in the wake of the forthcoming 550th birth anniversary of Baba Guru Nanak Dev ji. Attributing any other motives is purely malicious,” the statement said.

Why Is Modi Not Accepting Pakistan’s Offer of Talks?

No one has to ‘trust’ anyone else. Talks do not mean that we must withdraw forces from J&K and send them to peace stations. Nor is this a Bollywood situation where the police chief is expected to go to the den of bad men armed only with ‘trust’.

Prime Minister Imran Khan of Pakistan’s open appeal for talks with India, and Indian external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj’s statement ruling out India’s participation in even the SAARC summit are developments that should concern all Indians. While someone is saying “Let’s save countless lives and money”, we are refusing to even hear him out.

Pakistan’s desire for talks, a settlement of the Kashmir issue and finally peace with India is nothing new. It was General Pervez Musharraf who brought this proposal to almost the finishing line, but bickering by the then opposition BJP got the better of Manmohan Singh while domestic troubles in Pakistan weakened the general to the point that a golden opportunity slipped out of their hands. Pakistani elections always see the main contenders for power going to their voters with a manifesto that includes seeking peace with India. Surely they do so because they feel this is what their people want. Even in the last elections, all three prime ministerial candidates dealt their final cards by claiming they would normalise relations with India if they came to power.

And now, at Kartarpur, Imran Khan has bowled us a peace googly which we are unable to face up to.

It is inconceivable why India, with its numerous other problems of nation-building, should refuse this offer. We are acting as if Pakistan is demanding unconditional surrender from India. No other explanation suffices to explain New Delhi’s stand.

Everything that happens from the soil of a state is not always the result of machinations of that state. If that be so, we need to think of Chattisgarh, where more Indians are being killed by Naxalites than by terrorists in J&K. And who is in control of the state of Chattisgarh? It is the Union of India.

Also read: Peace Talks With India After 2019 Elections: Imran Khan

“Terror and talks can’t go together,” the external affairs minister repeated recently. Really? Even if, for the sake of argument, it be agreed that terrorism in J&K is solely the result of Pakistan, do we mean that we don’t want to counter this terrorism if it can happen by talks alone? Are we willing to counter it only by having our soldiers and Kashmiri citizens die for it – something they have been doing without the problem ending – and not by trying the talks route?

In any case, talks are held only when there are differences and not when there is great friendship. How can one possibly refuse to take this real option, particularly when you don’t even have to take the initiative to offer talks and thus look weak? The other party is suing for peace, and we are saying ‘No.’ How does that make India look to the world? Quite unreasonable, surely.

Not only are talks not a bad option when there are differences between countries, they are the only option when both are nuclear states. To say that we will not talk is an act of irresponsibilty.

But let us get into real reasons to why Prime Minister Narendra Modi might be refusing this. The same man who, at the beginning of his prime ministerial tenure, broke all protocols and had his plane turned toward Pakistan to meet the then Pakistani prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, uninvited for a family event is today refusing to even take up an offer of talks. The threat posed by terrorism is the same, if not better now than when Modi landed in Lahore. The only circumstances that have changed are internal.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is greeted by his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif on his arrival in Lahore on December 25, 2015. Credit: PTI Photo

Any prime miniser is wont to do what he perceives to be good for his next election. When Modi went to meet Nawaz Sharif uninvited, he was at the top of his popularity. The Nobel peace prize was in sight. There was much to gain from a breakthrough in the Indo-Pak relationship. But now, the situation is different. His popularity has gone down rapidly. In the last two years, he has been steadily moving to seek shelter in the slogans of Hindutva and ultra-patriotism, which, for the BJP, are simply other names for being anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan. With general elections only a few months away, Modi’s refusal to take up Imran Khan’s a offer of talks is quite understandable.

But the BJP’s stand is not justified. While the BJP must look after its interests, the nation needs to look after its own. It is clearly in India’s interest to grab this offer and tell Imran Khan: “Ok. We are being generous to you. Since you insist, please table an offer and let’s talk.”

What are the possible disadvantages of such a move? Will it reduce the ability of our security forces to tackle terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir? Surely not. The two have simply no connection. Even when the Indian and Pakistani sides are sitting together and talking, terrorists can be ruthlessly killed. Surely, the Pakistani side is not going to object. If they do, it is good for India, as it can then say to the world: “See, this is the reality behind the Pakistani request for peace.”

Why not give Pakistan a long rope to hang itself by? If the rope is not given for fear that it will strangle one’s own chances of re-election, then it is a very selfish act.

There are many in India who ask in a righteous and hurt tone: “Why should India trust Pakistan? What has Pakistan done on Hafiz Saeed? What are they offering to make this one look real?”

These conscientious objectors deserve a reply.

No one has to ‘trust’ anyone else. Talks do not mean that we must withdraw forces from Jammu and Kashmir and send them to peace stations. Everyone remains where they are. Nor is this a Bollywood situation where the police chief is expected to go to the den of bad men, unarmed, armed only with ‘trust’. Also, Pakistan’s inaction on Hafiz Saeed is not a reason to not talk. On the contrary, it is a very strong reason to talk and explore how Islamabad can be made to act.

As for “what are they offering”, one is surely being presumptuous. When two sovereign nations talk, one country  can order the other to bow down in order to merely talk only when it has the latter in a  tight grip and can dictate terms. That is simply not the case here.

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan. Credit: Reuters/Akhtar Soomro

Why, then, are diplomats and ministers creating problems on the question of talks? They are doing so simply because the rulers of the day and their advisors have nothing to lose from tension and even bloodshed. Their presence is never required on the border on in the battlefield.

I have shared my views with my friends, most of whom are veterans of more than 25 years of experience in the army. Many have shed blood for India, and all of them know the horrors of war. These are some of their reactions: “I agree with you, but if you air these views, be ready to face violent opposition”; “Very true. Of course, our chaps cannot agree to Khan’s proposal. Dukaan band ho jayegi (Their shop will close down). They just have to keep the bogey alive”; “Right. As it is, we are in a winning situation, Pak is on the back foot. Time to use this to clinch the deal”; and “We need to resume peace talks on a war footing. It is our lives.”

Also read: ‘The Ice Is Melting’: A Triumphant Sidhu Returns to Pakistan for Kartarpur Launch

Does Modi know better? How does national security adviser Ajit Doval justify not talking as a matter of national security? If so, what is it that he knows that we don’t? I have shown how this refusal to take up Pakistan on its word is like losing a winning match. Let wiser people show how I am wrong. Let us get Modi’s view, not the BJP’s.

As mentioned already, prime ministers do what they think will get them more votes in future. So the ball is now in our court. We the voters have to make our desires clear to our government. A feigned stance of animosity results in misapprehensions, leading to minor events quickly spinning out of control. Once public opinion gets hardened over some such accident, war becomes inevitable.

Talking is what civilised people do when they have differences. We’ve been offered an opportunity to reduce friction and save the lives of countless soldiers. Peace will give India the resources it needs for national development. Above all, it will establish India as a mature nation  and add to its stature in the international system.

Alok Asthana is a retired colonel of the Indian Army.

Peace Talks With India After 2019 Elections: Imran Khan

“I have said it before and I will say it again. It is not in Pakistan’s interest to have our territory used for terrorist attacks outside our country.”

Islamabad: Pakistan will wait for the 2019 general elections in India to be over for its current outreach to get a positive response from New Delhi, Prime Minster Imran Khan said on Thursday.

On the 100th day of his term as prime minister, Khan met Indian reporters and took questions ranging from the lack of action on Lashkar chief Hafiz Saeed and 26/11, to Kashmir and India’s response to his diplomatic outreach through the Kartarpur corridor project.

Khan had written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in September suggesting that the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. India cancelled the meeting within a day of approving the plan. The cancellation had been accompanied by a strong statement from India, which was followed by a trenchant response from Pakistan.

Also read: Election Victory in Hand, Imran Khan Offers to Hold Talks With India

“I had such a bad response…it really surprised me,” Khan admitted. “Why would anyone be scared of dialogue? Then there are pre-conditions put on such dialogues…. It is almost as if there is no intention for peace”.

He, however, denied that his tweet at the time “small men occupying big offices who do not have the vision to see the larger picture” was a reference to the Indian prime minister. “It was a general tweet”.

Pak PM Imran Khan speaking to Indian media in Islamabad on Thursday, November 29. Credit: Special arrangement

Khan said he would “happily speak” again with the Indian prime minister. “We had a very good conversation… But the rest is history,” he said.

Earlier this week, Pakistan invited external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj to attend the launch of Kartarpur corridor project at Narowal, which is expected to be completed in 11 months before the 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak in 2019.

Swaraj declined, citing personal commitments, but nominated two of her ministerial colleagues. She also stated on Wednesday that the Kartarpur project could not lead to the resumption of bliateral dialogue, reiterating the official Indian formula that terror and talks could not go together.

Khan said he felt India’s lack of response to Pakistan’s outreach seemed to be governed by electoral calculations.

“We have also decided that elections are scheduled in India. There are imperatives for elections. Antagonism to Pakistan is often a vote-catcher… We are waiting for elections in April and then we will take it forward,” said Khan.

To a question on whether Pakistan can take action on Hafiz Saeed and Dawood Ibrahim to bridge the trust gap, he said his government could take steps but these had to be reciprocated.

Also watch: India Could Have an Opportunity to Work With Imran Khan

“We can take grand gestures.. but one-sided efforts will not work,” said the former Pakistan national cricket captain. He noted that any unilateral action without India’s response would be political unviable. “We are a politically elected government… I have to face parliament.”

He suggested that India could make a gesture by “doing something for the people of Kashmir”.

After Imran Khan’s speech at Kartarpur, the Indian ministry of external affairs had taken umbrage at his mention of Kashmir as the sole issue for Pakistan.

When asked for his reaction to the Indian criticism, Khan clarified, “Kashmir ki baat na karo (if we can’t talk about Kashmir), then there are no issues (to discuss). I was saying that in this context.”

Pak PM Imran Khan speaking to Indian media in Islamabad on Thursday, November 29. Credit: Special arrangement

The “core issue” of Kashmir can be resolved with a decisive government on both sides, he said. “That issue is keeping us from moving ahead. If we move forward, something or the other happens in Kashmir and we are back to square one.”

While India’s response to the Kartarpur corridor project was not enthusiastic, Khan insisted that there was a “big impact” within Pakistan.

“A consensus has developed in Pakistan, don’t please confuse this with desperation for peace. It is just [the] consensus of a people across the board that the only way forward is peace and moving forward,” he added.

To a question on whether India could ‘trust’ Pakistan after terror attacks following previous outreach efforts, Khan said, “I can’t answer for the past… I can say that when we do agreements, then we will talk if things break down.”

Khan added that he will not say that while “I was with you, but the army is not”.

“All are on the same page,” he asserted.

Also read: ‘Look Inwards’, India Tells Pakistan Over Imran Khan’s Kashmir Remark

Since the 10th anniversary of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks was marked this week, there were several questions on Pakistan’s attitude towards LeT supremo Hafiz Saeed.

“There are UN sanctions of 1267 (resolution) on Hafiz Saeed. There is already a clampdown, and sanctions are very severe,” he said.

About the 26/11 cases to prosecute the perpetrators, Khan said these were ‘sub judice’. “We have inherited these cases.”

When asked whether Pakistan could reiterate its 2004 statement on not allowing its soil to be used for terror attack against India, he said, “I have said it before and I will say it again. It is not in Pakistan’s interest to have our territory used for terrorist attacks outside our country.”