India and Pakistan: Need for Creative Solutions?
05 Mar, 2010 · 3068
Pia Malhotra emphasizes the need for Track II initiatives to improve Indo-Pak ties
Nirupama Rao and Salman Bashir, the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan, met at New Delhi on 25 February to discuss bilateral issues, and not surprisingly, the meeting did not result in a concrete statement. Newspaper and magazine articles dutifully and almost ritually, declared yet again, that India and Pakistan must continue this dialogue process; that Pakistan must address India’s concerns on terror and India must work with Pakistan collaboratively to address various issues from terrorism to water.
Every few months, the officials in the two countries decide to meet and resolve their issues, and then an attack occurs and the process is pushed right back to the starting point, compounding the disinterest and disaffection of the masses. Under the present grim scenario, it might be worthwhile for the Indian and Pakistani governments to think of “creative” ways of looking at this issue. One way of doing that would be through more vibrant Track II interactions. These interactions are private, non-governmental efforts at peace and the goals of these attempts are to foster mutual understanding among the people of the conflicting countries. The attempt of Track II is not to undermine the importance of political negotiations, but only to provide an alternative route that could supplement political negotiations. Track II comprises conflict resolution professionals, businessmen, private citizens, people from the media, religion, activism, research, training and education; and philanthropy.
The importance of moving beyond isolated political negotiations to include multi layered actors is to breakdown biases and prejudices that have been built and sustained over a number of years. In the case of protracted and deep rooted conflicts like Indo-Pak, entire populations have internalized a certain way of thinking about the other and this belief system can and does stand in the way of any political negotiations that might take place at the level of Track I (the official government to government level). In India, the public is overwhelmingly concerned with the ‘Islamic terrorist state’ to its West. In Pakistan, India’s role, particularly in Kashmir, and now in Afghanistan, is seen as an outgrowth of expansionist attempts by an imperialist country. Track II interactions can help break down these psychological barriers. There are various ways that the government can enhance this non-official people to people interaction. It can be achieved by easing visa restrictions, starting more buses between India and Pakistan, encouraging joint literary and musical exchanges, diplomatic exchanges, media exchanges to name a few.
One of the most successful Track II initiatives between India and Pakistan has been the Neemrana Dialogue which has successfully lasted for 17 years despite ups and downs in the bilateral relationship. It comprises former diplomats, former military personnel, media persons, NGO workers, educators and academics from the two countries and because of their former positions; they have networks in the incumbent government and are able to wield a significant amount of influence. They meet at least once a year, in either India or Pakistan. The discussions of the Neemrana dialogue have been well informed because of the high level of expertise and experience that its members bring to the group. The Neemrana dialogue can be credited with influencing the Indian government to think proactively about Kashmiri autonomy during Narasimha Rao’s prime ministership. Traveling restrictions were believed to be eased partly due to the efforts of this group and also culminated in the Muzaffarabad-Srinagar road.
Track II also becomes imperative because a peace deal or a joint statement signed by the leaders of the two countries might be inadequate, or rejected by Indians and Pakistanis in an environment of animosity. After the Mumbai attacks in 2008, the Manmohan Singh government, under public pressure, was forced to suspend the composite dialogue, until substantial efforts were made by Pakistan to tackle terror.
Civil society interactions are often dismissed as frivolous and fanciful and it is argued that relations between India and Pakistan will not improve unless the political leadership endeavors to change it. Undeniably, ultimately political decisions are going to be taken at the Track I level, but it is imperative to recognize that Track II and civil society can help develop an environment conducive to positive outcomes. The governments also need to appreciate the fact that just an official dialogue will not solve deep rooted prejudices and biases. A conflict that is affecting not just few government officials, but two entire countries will have to involve entire populations of the two countries in its solution as well and this can only be achieved through more interactions between Indians and Pakistanis. In this light, the meeting between Nirupama Rao and Salman Bashir was not a watershed moment; it was just another meeting in the long string of meetings between India and Pakistan. At this juncture, it might not be too foolhardy for India and Pakistan to think out of the so-called security box and conceive of creative ways of solving this enduring conflict. An idea that seems fanciful now might create conditions for a peace that will not only be meaningful but also lasting.
Every few months, the officials in the two countries decide to meet and resolve their issues, and then an attack occurs and the process is pushed right back to the starting point, compounding the disinterest and disaffection of the masses. Under the present grim scenario, it might be worthwhile for the Indian and Pakistani governments to think of “creative” ways of looking at this issue. One way of doing that would be through more vibrant Track II interactions. These interactions are private, non-governmental efforts at peace and the goals of these attempts are to foster mutual understanding among the people of the conflicting countries. The attempt of Track II is not to undermine the importance of political negotiations, but only to provide an alternative route that could supplement political negotiations. Track II comprises conflict resolution professionals, businessmen, private citizens, people from the media, religion, activism, research, training and education; and philanthropy.
The importance of moving beyond isolated political negotiations to include multi layered actors is to breakdown biases and prejudices that have been built and sustained over a number of years. In the case of protracted and deep rooted conflicts like Indo-Pak, entire populations have internalized a certain way of thinking about the other and this belief system can and does stand in the way of any political negotiations that might take place at the level of Track I (the official government to government level). In India, the public is overwhelmingly concerned with the ‘Islamic terrorist state’ to its West. In Pakistan, India’s role, particularly in Kashmir, and now in Afghanistan, is seen as an outgrowth of expansionist attempts by an imperialist country. Track II interactions can help break down these psychological barriers. There are various ways that the government can enhance this non-official people to people interaction. It can be achieved by easing visa restrictions, starting more buses between India and Pakistan, encouraging joint literary and musical exchanges, diplomatic exchanges, media exchanges to name a few.
One of the most successful Track II initiatives between India and Pakistan has been the Neemrana Dialogue which has successfully lasted for 17 years despite ups and downs in the bilateral relationship. It comprises former diplomats, former military personnel, media persons, NGO workers, educators and academics from the two countries and because of their former positions; they have networks in the incumbent government and are able to wield a significant amount of influence. They meet at least once a year, in either India or Pakistan. The discussions of the Neemrana dialogue have been well informed because of the high level of expertise and experience that its members bring to the group. The Neemrana dialogue can be credited with influencing the Indian government to think proactively about Kashmiri autonomy during Narasimha Rao’s prime ministership. Traveling restrictions were believed to be eased partly due to the efforts of this group and also culminated in the Muzaffarabad-Srinagar road.
Track II also becomes imperative because a peace deal or a joint statement signed by the leaders of the two countries might be inadequate, or rejected by Indians and Pakistanis in an environment of animosity. After the Mumbai attacks in 2008, the Manmohan Singh government, under public pressure, was forced to suspend the composite dialogue, until substantial efforts were made by Pakistan to tackle terror.
Civil society interactions are often dismissed as frivolous and fanciful and it is argued that relations between India and Pakistan will not improve unless the political leadership endeavors to change it. Undeniably, ultimately political decisions are going to be taken at the Track I level, but it is imperative to recognize that Track II and civil society can help develop an environment conducive to positive outcomes. The governments also need to appreciate the fact that just an official dialogue will not solve deep rooted prejudices and biases. A conflict that is affecting not just few government officials, but two entire countries will have to involve entire populations of the two countries in its solution as well and this can only be achieved through more interactions between Indians and Pakistanis. In this light, the meeting between Nirupama Rao and Salman Bashir was not a watershed moment; it was just another meeting in the long string of meetings between India and Pakistan. At this juncture, it might not be too foolhardy for India and Pakistan to think out of the so-called security box and conceive of creative ways of solving this enduring conflict. An idea that seems fanciful now might create conditions for a peace that will not only be meaningful but also lasting.
POPULAR COMMENTARIES
