How not to hold India-Pakistan talks

[nForce]

Who granted India the position of power? This is not Bhutan or Nepal.
I know about the policy-making and that had been my point in other threads as well. Modi is not the sole deciding factor here. But there is no arm-twisting involved. Indian can either respect other nations as sovereign or stay under the illusion of supremacy, upto them.

I don't think Pakistan's sovereignty was ever under question ?

India will not talk on Kashmir under pressure, agreed, and it will not negotiate on the back-foot. But what pressure has Pakistan applied so far? Do you feel Pakistan will remain on the back-foot when our own affairs seem to be getting in order, when TTP seems to be heading for a downfall, when Baloch insurgency groups are falling apart (despite the brotherly nation trying to do what it could) ?

there are elements within Pakistan involved in terrorist activities in India. Is that news to you ?

I do not expect India to be too happy about discussing Kashmir while it believes it is under attack, but your generalization of Pakistanis isn't accurate. Samjhota-Express? Shiv-senik violence? Gujarat massacre? Maoist uprisings? How many of them include Pakistan?

Almost all that you mentioned over there are not your problems and we don't expect you to ponder about that. We are capable enough to handle our own issues. As for example, the maoists can be wiped out in a matter of a few weeks(trust me on that, we exactly know where they are). It is just that we have taken an approach of fighting the infection rather than the infected. Kindly keep yourself limited to matters that concern you and only you.

 

[GURU DUTT]

are the lives of mumbai residents more precious than kashmiris who are getting harassed and killed from past 60 years

so you are accepting that mumabi massacrre did by pakistan based so called "non state actors" was justified

 

[bloo]

Where is it agreed upon when the 'joint statement' is touching upon multiple issues without suggesting which issues are more important than others ?

All issues are important and should be discussed but terrorism was to be discussed upon first and Hurriyat was never in the equation at all which is a serious breach. Our political leadership got pissed off because Pakistan suddenly wanted to talk with the Hurriyat first, why do that at all unless you want to obstruct the talks itself.

 

[Armstrong]

All issues are important and should be discussed but terrorism was to be discussed upon first and Hurriyat was never in the equation at all which is a serious breach. Our political leadership got pissed off because Pakistan suddenly wanted to talk with the Hurriyat first, why do that at all unless you want to obstruct the talks itself.

Where does it say that terrorism was to be discussed upon first ?

Where does it say that Pakistan cannot meet the Hurriyat leadership ?

Where does it say that you pick one thing amongst several things discussed at UFA; stick to it like a barnacle and refuse to entertain any other view point on what was or wasn't agreed upon there ?

 

[GURU DUTT]

let pakistani delegate hold talk with hurriat onli and when they go back break all diplomatic relations with pakistan and call back owr mission from pakistan and send back theirs enof of this "peace-peace" and from then on behave like good enemies towards each other

 

[bloo]

Where does it say that terrorism was to be discussed upon first ?

Where does it say that Pakistan cannot meet the Hurriyat leadership ?

Where does it say that you pick one thing amongst several things discussed at UFA; stick to it like a barnacle and refuse to entertain any other view point on what was or wasn't agreed upon there ?

Clearly the video says that the NSAs would talk about terrorism which was reiterated continuously as the main issue.

And where was it said that Pakistan would meet with the Hurriyat? That is completely against the spirit with which all of this was agreed upon in Ufa. Would Pak allow India to talk with the Balochi secessionists were it to be held in Pak?

 

[Armstrong]

Clearly the video says that the NSAs would talk about terrorism.

And where was it said that Pakistan would meet with the Hurriyat? That is completely against from the spirit with which all of this was agreed upon in Ufa. Would Pak allow India to talk with the Balochi secessionists were it to be held in Pak?

Is Baluchistan a disputed territory between India and Pakistan ? As for the 'spirit of what was agreed upon' - I've already repeated the 'spirit' in 'black and white' many times !

Face it India's intransigence of 'our issues being issues and all other issues being non issues' and 'our interpretation - nay twist of things - being the only canonical definition of what happened or will happen' is what will, has and regrettably will continue to destroy any Indo-Pak talks !

But because you clearly think that paraphrasing the same thing over and over again somehow makes your argument stronger; I've got better things to do so I'd bow out of this conversation.

Good day to you !

 

[RazorMC]

I don't think Pakistan's sovereignty was ever under question ?

there are elements within Pakistan involved in terrorist activities in India. Is that news to you ?

Almost all that you mentioned over there are not your problems and we don't expect you to ponder about that. We are capable enough to handle our own issues. As for example, the maoists can be wiped out in a matter of a few weeks(trust me on that, we exactly know where they are). It is just that we have taken an approach of fighting the infection rather than the infected. Kindly keep yourself limited to matters that concern you and only you.

Oh dear, seems I have touched a nerve.

You say Pakistanis will board a train and blow it up. But India wants Samjhota to be forgotten. If anything, trains are a hazard for Pakistanis.

I like the last part though, Kashmir is our concern and will be brought to the table regardless of what India wants.

 

[Valkyrie]

By opting out of the mutually agreed round of talks, under the pretense of Pakistan meddling in India's internal affairs, India has made a move which would be considered highly unprofessional in diplomatic circles. It is an overreaction and will be internationally interpreted as India's lack of seriousness to initiate and continue dialogue and her unwillingness to mitigate hostilities in the region.

Mind you, officials from Pakistani embassy in India and even from Pakistani foreign ministry have been engaging Huriyyat leader for many years, so it's is important to note that recent invitation was not the first one and hence, under this context, it is understandable why such an Indian response can be called over-reaction.

I personally am of the view that current Indian govt., having an inaccurate perception of it's strategic leverage over Pakistan, has evidently tried to overplay her soft power. Indian policy makers, for some incomprehensible reason believe that Pakistan can be strong-armed into participating in a dialogue based upon terms and conditions set by India, which is untrue. Pakistan has very little, perhaps nothing, to lose if dialogue falls apart. Same can't be said for India.

To think that any concrete agreement can be reached in dialogues that are contingent upon dictatorial preconditions and where negotiating parties are not held as equals is naive and speaking freely, a waste of time and resources I hope Pakistani policy makers decide to stay away from such monologues where theme/agenda and rules are imposed by India, monologues which are most likely going to be crammed with unilateral and unyielding harping about terrorism.

Also, it is become quite monotonous to illustrate the fruitfulness of such dialogues if the most fundamental point of contention i.e Kashmir dispute isn't even placed on the agenda. Unless this issue is resolved in a fair manner, peace (or semblance of it) will be volatile and precarious, if ever achieved.

 

[nForce]

Oh dear, seems I have touched a nerve.

No. Nothing like. Are you sure you're okay ?

You say Pakistanis will board a train and blow it up. But India wants Samjhota to be forgotten. If anything, trains are a hazard for Pakistanis.

Now you are talking about issues that concern you. Good to see that. I want Pakistan to do a regular follow-up on investigation and see to the fact that perpetrators are brought to justice. These are exactly the kind of issues both the nations should talk about, if there is a meeting.

I like the last part though, Kashmir is our concern and will be brought to the table regardless of what India wants.

It is not like India does not want to resolve Kashmir issue. It is our concern too. We have a few pre-conditions that have to be fulfilled first.

 

[HRK]

@HRK

..... ???

 

[nForce]

By opting out of the mutually agreed round of talks, under the pretense of Pakistan meddling in India's internal affairs, India has made a move which would be considered highly unprofessional in diplomatic circles. It is an overreaction and will be internationally interpreted as India's lack of seriousness to initiate and continue dialogue and her unwillingness to mitigate hostilities in the region.

You right, it may be considered unprofessional. But then again, how many takers does Pakistan have for their side of the story ?
The way you are saying Pakistan has taken a stand, similarly India has taken a stand as well. You might want to wait and watch whose resolve has more mettle.
Sorry I did not read beyond the first paragraph......

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Basically in this article they are trying to justify the reasons for them canceling talks even after themselves starting it. Indians are making a mockery of themselves.

 

[halupridol]

..... ???

As of Nov 2010 UN has removed J&K from its list of disputed territories

does that mean J&K is no longer a UN 'recognized' disputed territory?

 

[Star Wars]

Negotiations between significant neighbours can't be held like a T20 cricket match with a strategic timeout.

Shekhar Gupta


It is among the oldest rules of diplomacy that negotiations, particularly at higher levels, must be kept at a low key, even boring, level, unless you reach one of two situations: an agreement or a breakdown. Or, when you specifically wish to make a point. Negotiations between significant neighbours can't be held like a T20 cricket match with a strategic timeout, which is where the NSA-level talks between India and Pakistan are tonight.


Before each makes further moves tomorrow, three points they will need to think about:


1. What is this round of talks about? Is it to resolve all, or even one, of our outstanding issues?


2. Is it about calming down relations or merely restating our respective positions on these issues, including terrorism and Kashmir?


3. Is it about merely restoring a broken political contact or petty point-scoring?


If looked at calmly, each side will have the same answers to these questions.


1. These talks are not to resolve anything, possibly no more than yet another fishermen exchange kind of thing.


2. These are, indeed, about calming things down between India and Pakistan. Or, at least beginning the process of calming things down.


3. It can't be about petty point-scoring. That India and Pakistan can do any time anyway. Both prime ministers did not run into each other by coincidence. Both wanted to restore contact. Which is what this round of talks is about.


With such minimalistic expectations, it is silly in the extreme that both sides have reduced this to an unedifying state of waffling and name-calling.


Pakistan was being, well, Pakistan when it brought back the Hurriyat card again. There could no motivation behind this except to embarrass the government of India, given the recent history of the cancellation of foreign secretary-level talks precisely for this reason. Petty elements in the Pakistani establishment looked for a chance to score a point.


On the Indian side, having taken the lead to resume talks, the return of the Hurriyat irritant should have been anticipated and a response gamed accordingly. A firm diplomatic message should have been sent to Pakistan. And if it wasn't heeded - as was likely - a proper party line should have been finessed by diplomats. Instead, it's now been left to party spokesmen who are fighting the same old verbal battles with Pakistani talking heads.


In the process, the environment is being vitiated on both sides.


For Pakistan, India's sensitivity on the Hurriyat is well-known. If the Pakistani establishment did not have the courage or willingness to defy the entrenched lobbies that want to drag Kashmir into everything, frankly, they should not have agreed to these talks in the first place. But having agreed, they should have weighed the costs of bringing in the Hurriyat factor.


The Hurriyat never represented the Kashmiri point of view by itself. It was, at best, one strong point of view. Now even that is not the case. It is a caricature of the political force it used to be. Most of its members are seen as compromised, good-time guys monetising their politics on either side. Revelations in the recent Dulat book have done further damage to them.


It is tragic Pakistan still finds it worth its while to risk ruining a contact restored after more than a year for their sake. It is equally disappointing India is not willing to laugh it away, saying something like, anybody who has a visa to come to India can meet any Indian citizen. But then, you have to answer prime-time inquisitions.


Governments can't function like that. Both India and Pakistan have upwards of a hundred nuclear weapons. India is the fourth largest armed machine in the world, Pakistan the fifth or sixth, depending on how you calculate. All states antagonistic to each other keep active contact with each other. It is not only to their own respective benefit, but also an international responsibility in a globalised environment.


But these couple of days have shown it is not realistic to expect such maturity from either side. We can keep debating who is right or wrong or who is more wrong, but it will have no meaning.


As Prime Minister Narendra Modi says, all issues are ultimately settled with talks. So talks must go on. But given the kind of juvenility in our public debate, it is better that henceforth these talks continue away from cameras and public attention, even in secret, and definitely in foreign locations.


It has been done in the past, even between the Vajpayee and Musharraf governments, and it seems the only thing that can survive the vicious bitterness of our public debate.


How not to hold India-Pakistan talks

Stratfor GUpta ? I have stopped reading his articles