Speaker: Prof. Mohammad Waseem (Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad)
Chair: Prof. Aswini Ray (Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)

Prof. Aswini Ray:

Opening the proceedings of the seminar, it must be stated that it is good time to discuss India-Pakistan peace process and the internal dynamics in Pakistan that will shape Indo-Pak bilateral relations.

Prof. Mohammad Waseem:

Civilian and military regimes have alternated in Pakistan every decade. This is the fourth decade in which the Army is at the head and from 1999; it is a 'decade of the uniform'. Next will be a civilian regime. However, the people of Pakistan will never lose hope. The progression of institutions, coverage of recent happenings reveals how they will affect Pakistan. Since elections are going to take place, and Parliament is going to complete five years in 2007, it is important to observe the developments over the next two years. It is also necessary to see the implications for the region and the fate of the peace process.

There was never so much willingness, as now, to continue the peace process. There are moments of both despondency and hope. There was never a time when the establishment's thinking was in parallel with the public will. The non-state actors would not let the action go back - may it be Khokrapar rail link or the Srinagar bus route. Journalists and parliamentarians have started crossing the borders. A momentum has been built, though without a policy. If the people-to-people contact or Track II diplomacy grows steadily and swiftly and Track I diplomacy goes slowly, it will be a worry for Pakistan.

The peace process was always connected to civil-military relations in Pakistan. The conventional wisdom is that there was always a tension between the civil and military wings of the state. After the 13th amendment, the Parliament gained sovereignty. The then Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, felt he was secure but was proved wrong after the Kargil misadventure. The constitutional and legal developments took the direction away from his side. During the 1970s, it was no wonder Bhutto had the political power and was sovereign because of the military crisis after the Bangladesh war in 1971. It was then that the institutions and civil bureaucracy became stronger and Islamic forces were weakened. But, it was not the same for Nawaz Sharif. When an attempt was made to overthrow Musharraf, the Army was very much a part of the political set up. They not only resisted the move, but also overthrew Nawaz Sharif.

A framework similar to the present situation can be drawn from the framework established by the Likud in 1977, where the ultimate establishment took care of the peace process. Terms were also not controversial. Musharraf took control over the policy along with the dialogue, which was once considered an anathema. He also addressed the social, political and economic issues with India, which were not considered earlier.

The aspect of the Indo-Pak dialogue was couched in a dichotomous framework. Pakistan felt that the conflict should be resolved first and then trade shall follow. India felt that confidence should be built first, along with the atmosphere of trust and then the conflict resolution shall take place. Pakistan did not agree because of its concern that India will keep the real issues at the back burner. Fifty years of dehumanization and young people not seeing each other after Partition set the tone for the conflict and that led to a context-specific approach rather than issue-specific approach.

• The first generation was separated in enmity and hostility. Therefore, it tried to dehumanize the other. The 1971 War and the break-up of Pakistan added fuel to the fire.

• The second generation in Pakistan began to feel that South Asia had become India's backyard after the 1971 war. It was then that Pakistan looked towards West Asia and the Gulf States, during which expatriate Pakistanis remitted $1 billion. The only relationship that Pakistan had with India was that of security. This generation saw Pakistan transcending its relationship with South Asia.

• The third generation began after the 9/11 episode. The American presence in West Asia and the American unilateralism that destabilized Iraq and Afghanistan has contained Pakistan. The third generation des not have a memory of partition.

Three dynamics merits attention. The first dynamic is the generational dynamic that has already been discussed. The second dynamic is the regional dynamic. The atmosphere has changed in SAARC and all issues are on the table. Afghanistan has joined SAARC. A change in the regional level has taken place. The third dynamic is the ethnic one. Kashmir formed an important aspect of it because the Kashmiris came down and settled in east Punjab. About 5.3 million people came from east Punjab and settled in west Punjab, which was a massive exchange of population.

The scope of the peace process has now widened to conflict resolution. Citizen diplomacy is outlining the scope. Conflict resolution should be given a try as the peace process has gained legitimacy. There is now a widespread opinion to establish extended talks with India. International and regional forces are knocking at the doors and are listening to the wider phenomena over which they have no control and the domestic phenomena over which the government has control. A pragmatic approach coupled with an issue-specific approach by a wider contextual phenomenon is taking shape that will not let the peace process fail.

Democracy in Pakistan is flourishing. In comparison with Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, Pakistan has steadily built democratic institution many years. There has been a history of electioneering but when it comes to the army, it has touched upon the democratic framework. When constitution engineering takes place, it means that Parliament loses its real strength; this is when the real dilemma comes in.

Democratization in Pakistan brought out electoral malpractices. It has been part of Pakistan's political culture. Moreover, it is a procedural democracy. But, unfortunately, it has become a problem. The devolution plan has been fraught with difficulties. Having a deputy-commissioner for hundred and fifty years was unavoidable. The military junta had deeply entrenched the idea of government appointed civil servants. A historical move was made when the primary objective was to undermine political parties in the election. The idea was to create local leaders who do not belong to political parties so that Musharaff could strengthen his own position.

DISCUSSION:

Question: What according to Pakistan is the third party? Why does the Pakistan Army worry more about NGOs? Why does Pakistan have a trust-deficit with India?

Answer:

• Third party is used in a different context in Pakistan. America is the third party for Pakistan. America has been acting as an equalizer. When America went back during 1970-81, there was no role for an equalizer. Pakistan had to develop the nuclear deterrent. The relevance of the third party is still important for Pakistan. Inside Kashmir, Pakistan supported groups that could carry forward the resistance movement.

• The state has been opening up and wants to move ahead. But, at the same time, it does not want the people to take the initiative.

• There is an abundance of trust when people start talking to each other. The public at large is the receiver. During the last two years, both the army and the foreign offices had high levels of distrust because they look at how much the other side concedes. Both are cynical. Cynicism and mistrust comes from the actors in diplomacy. Higher the stakes, higher the cynicism.

Question: What will be the political performance of MMA in 2007 elections?
Answer: Islamic parties have been in the fray for 58 years but the people never voted for them. They got only 11 per cent in the last elections. This is a high percentage. Their electoral base and performance in office would depend on the meagre electoral base. In 2002, with the US bombing of Afghanistan and war against the Taliban, Pakistan was badly hit. The most explosive political force was Taliban's migration. Islamists winning in 2002 elections in the Frontier and Baluchistan was a Pashtun phenomenon. It was the Islamisation of Pashtun nationalists.

Question: The Indo-US nuclear cooperation has not received well in Pakistan. India needed the agreement badly because of its 8 per cent growth rate. Pakistan has also been demanding parity with India with respect to the nuclear deal. This kind of demanding of parity gives a back seat for the trust factor and for India to have cordial relations with Pakistan.
Answer: India would behave the same way as Pakistan. The two countries operate in a dichotomous model. India's reaction was the same when Pakistan was declared a non-NATO ally of the US.

Question: The track record of the Pakistan economy shows that the Pakistan Army manages the economy better than the civilian establishment. After the military regime, what course will the Pakistani economy take?
Answer: The economy under the military is amazing. All the four military governments turned out to be allies of the US government. Pakistan came in handy and the army in Pakistan was an ally in an area where there was vacuum and it so happens that all the four times the Americans got engaged. When there is an economic alliance, it means that there is more input from outside. The army is also not accountable to the political leaders. That is why there is a macro-level growth strategy but poor distribution of growth.

Question: Is the ISI in Pakistan a non-state actor? For 20 years, the ISI has not allowed Pakistan to function. Where will the money that has been pumped go? Will it ultimately reach the people? Can a better terminology be used for the non-state actors? What is Pakistan's role in Afghanistan?
Answer: The ISI is not a non-state actor. It is an extended wing of the Army, like the RAW in India. The process of private-public partnership is taking place and the state is sharing its responsibilities with the private actors. India is playing a bigger role in Afghanistan. As a power where it cannot operate vis-?-vis India, it is Pakistan's political expansionist design.

Question: What do you feel is the role of Islamic radical groups that distributed aid to the people after the earthquake? Why has the state created space for them? How is the process of dilution of power taking place in Pakistan? Will the state hinder the process?
Answer: To provide aid, both the NGOs and the aid workers rushed for help. The army focused on infrastructure building and operated at a different level. The NGOs that had a very good networking was of three types. One is the non-formal one and the other is the ideologically motivated where everything is done in the name of Islam. Islamic fundamentalists play wild games.

Concluding Remarks:

India and Pakistan have achieved considerable positive developments in their relations. But, the speaker probably overstated the incipient process. In addition, Prof. Waseem's version of democracy and secularism is true.