India snubs Pakistan’s overture for peace
▶ The leaders of both rival countries should pursue peace for the sake of their citizens
The Indian government has snubbed Islamabad’s attempts at reviving peace talks by cancelling a ministerial level meeting and declaring a day of commemoration for the bombing of terrorist targets in Pakistan.
New Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan extended an olive branch during his early addresses, indicating a willingness to restart peace talks that were put on hold after the 2016 terrorist attack on the Pathankot Indian air force station. In a letter on September 14, Mr Khan suggested that the foreign ministers of the two countries meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.
Initially the Indian Ministry of External Affairs agreed. It later changed its mind. In a strongly worded statement on Friday, the Indian government blamed the cancellation on “two deeply disturbing developments”.
The first was the killing of an Indian Border Security Forces soldier in Jammu and Kashmir on September 18.
The second issue was postage stamps issued by Pakistan in July honouring Burhan Wani, a Hizbul Mujahideen militant killed by Indian forces in Kashmir in 2016.
“It is obvious that behind Pakistan’s proposal for talks to make a fresh beginning, the evil agenda of Pakistan stands exposed and the true face of the new Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan has been revealed to the world in his first few months in office,” the statement read.
“Any conversation with Pakistan in such an environment
would be meaningless.”
Meanwhile, the University Grants Commission of India issued directives to universities and education institutes to observe September 29 as Surgical Strike Day to commemorate India’s operation against terrorist bases in Pakistan. On that date in 2016, India claimed to have carried out strikes along its border with Pakistan against “terrorist hideouts”.
But not everyone in India has joined the bellicose chorus.
Col Danvir Singh Chauhan, an Indian Army veteran, said dialogue with Pakistan remained critical. “Cancelling talks because Pakistanis have killed our BSF soldier and perpetrated activities in Kashmir, is not a right move in my opinion.”
While back-channel talks continue, shunning public dialogue is counterproductive, he said. “India has also conducted strikes on terrorist bases in Pakistan, but they are willing to talk, so why can’t we?” he said, referring to the strikes of 2016.
The reaction of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs was a response to internal demands, he said. “There is huge pressure on the government from the domestic constituencies, specifically the nationalist constituencies, who did not approve of these talks.”
India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, has grown more critical of Pakistan as a means of appealing to its populist base.
“They are the vote bank and they did not approve, so it was retracted,” Col Chauhan said.
Mr Khan responded to the rejection by calling his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi a “small man”.
“Disappointed at the arrogant and negative response by India to my call for resumption of the peace dialogue,” Mr Khan tweeted on Saturday.
His comments further inflamed BJP supporters. “That tweet proves what we’ve maintained and was unbecoming of anyone who claims to be a serious statesman,” said pro-BJP political analyst Shehzad Poonawala. “Imran Khan is no
Pakistan’s PM Imran Khan described India’s response as ‘arrogant and negative’
longer playing sports.
“The mask might have changed, but the real face of Pakistan continues to be the deep state actors,” he said, referring to Pakistan’s intelligence agency and the army, “which have an India-phobic approach.”
As India prepares for a general election next year, more posturing towards Pakistan can be expected, but Col Chauhan said there were risks to a nationalist campaign.
“Such a move will hurt the egos of leaders across the border. That will certainly damage any reconciliatory ideas that may be germinating on the Pakistani side. Our nationalist sentiments could subdue possibilities of peace overtures.”
When Imran Khan was sworn in as Pakistan’s prime minister five weeks ago, he vowed to do his utmost to bridge the 71-year-old impasse with India. Those wishes seemed sincere when Mr Khan wrote to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi with the words: “We owe it to our peoples, especially future generations, to peacefully resolve all outstanding issues.” But as world leaders gather this week at UNGA to pursue diplomacy, hopes have again been dashed of finding a solution to this age-old rivalry on its sidelines. A day after agreeing to talks, India cancelled them, blaming its rival’s “evil agenda”.
This is not the first time talks have collapsed. When Mr Modi flew to Lahore to meet Nawaz Sharif in 2015, both returned to warlike rhetoric within barely a week. Those tinderbox relations speak to deep-rooted differences stretching back to Partition in 1947. Since then, the two nations have fought three wars over disputed Kashmir and have initiated – and squandered – innumerable chances for negotiation. But even by those standards, the latest dispute seems gratuitous. India’s reasons – the killing of one of its soldiers in Kashmir and the release of Pakistani stamps honouring a Kashmiri militant – are unconvincing, since New Delhi knew about the soldier’s death when it agreed to the meeting and the stamps predate Mr Khan’s election. But Mr Khan’s reaction was unrestrained and unconstructive as he tweeted: “Disappointed at the arrogant and negative response.”
Meanwhile citizens on both sides – who share more commonalities of culture, food and language than they do differences – celebrated together while watching their nations compete at cricket in Dubai. It is hard to overstate the importance of peace between the two rivals but it begins with meaningful dialogue. The livelihoods of millions would be improved by greater trade and bilateral relations. But with no consistency from their leaders, peace will remain elusive. There are also questions about the sway of Pakistan’s army. Yet again, an opportunity has been missed. Both leaders must abandon their enmity for real peace – for the sake of their citizens, who deserve nothing less.