Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, president of the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency, in India for a conference by the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance tells Aditi Phadnis that expectations and optimism from the resumed India-Pakistan dialogue are high.
Now that India and Pakistan have resumed talks, what do you think lies in store?
There was a time when New Delhi used to consistently be ready for talks and Pakistan used to put conditions before talking. Now we have come a full 180 degrees and Pakistan seems eager to talk while we keep hearing that India is putting conditions. Despite all this, the initiative taken by both sides has been uniformly welcomed in Pakistan. There is a broad consensus that the two countries need to talk. People are realistic enough not to expect quick results but do feel that at least the tension will go down. People believe the stakes are high for both India and Pakistan. The people most looking forward to the resumed dialogue are those in Pakistan's most disadvantaged sections, people who are unable to contact their relatives in India, the divided families. The majority of people hope the process of talking will slowly yield results.
It has to be the mindset more than anything else. There is deep-seated distrust and animosity on both sides. Then there is a segment of the population that is vocal that is a minority, but can dictate to the majority.
And then there are other issues. In India's case, it is interested in Pakistan taking up the case of the Mumbai terror accused, so that the trial is concluded, there is conviction, justice and closure. I am sure this will happen. Pakistan too realises what terror can do to the society, polity and economy of India and Pakistan. There is very little sympathy for terror in Pakistan.
The major issue for Pakistan is Kashmir and if some way of discussing this around a formula that we saw during the period of General Pervez Musharraf's presidentship can be evolved… That will be the challenge: how to come up with something so that it is a win-win situation for both countries.
The third issue, but one that is easier to deal with, is the leadership of the two countries. Both should show statesmanship - as indeed they have. They should consider making travel and trade easier so that people can go back and forth easily and facilitate religious tourism and especially tourism for senior citizens.
Trade is a stumbling block because third-party trade makes goods costlier for both countries. There should be an explosion of bilateral trade and bureaucratic hurdles should be removed. But most importantly, the channels of communication should be kept open, diminishing distrust.
There is a view that until politics is settled, there can be no movement on trade. Everybody knows what the problems are but politics ensures nothing is done about these…
We are talking about the government so naturally some talks will take place. Take Pakistan's Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment to India. Pakistan has its own issues and these will need to be sorted out first. But better atmosphere will lead to a more liberal visa and travel regime, which currently is not even being implemented in spirit, let alone in letter.
But it does not have to be in sequential order. Talks can continue but greater contact can be facilitated. The media has emerged as most effective in shaping public opinion in both countries. The media on the two sides should be given the freedom to travel.
The question in India always is: we are never sure who is running Pakistan. Although a civilian government is in place, we still find that the role of a foreign policy advisor to the prime minister is truncated and a General takes his place as national security advisor. So is a civilian government in place or is it really the Pakistan Army that is running policy?
You are talking about the appointment of Gen Nasir Khan Janjua who was made national security advisor (NSA) to Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. It is a misconception that the appointment of a former military General as NSA was a decision of the armed forces. Some consensus might have been reached between the armed forces and the prime minister. But ultimately it was the PM's decision - he may have taken an input from the army. Any security-related decision whether in Pakistan or India or anywhere will invariably accommodate inputs from the military establishment. One can argue that the input should be more or less… on the quantum. But an input must have been sought and given. Democratically elected governments do seek military inputs.
In Pakistan the perception is stronger that military has greater influence because of past baggage, and so the military is dominating the entire set-up - politics, military, foreign affairs….
But things have changed in Pakistan after the Musharraf debacle. This is not to say the military plays no role at all - it certainly does - but the elected civilian government has established itself firmly.
When Sharif decided to travel to India for the swearing-in of Narendra Modi, there was resistance from some quarters. Despite the opinion that he should not go, he did travel here. In his manifesto and in his election campaign, normalisation of relations with India was an important element.
But when there is no reciprocity, it is difficult for him to broach the subject, because then people tend to revile him. While military inputs are still there, it is the civilian government that will take responsibility for its actions. If atmospherics improve and the Indian government is ready to show flexibility, it will strengthen the civilian government. It is up to the two leaders - whether they want to be statesmanlike or they want to continue to do what they've been doing for the last 70 years.
A major problem India has with Pakistan is that the rule of law is so flexible in relation to terror. When the Americans ask for a terror suspect to be extradited, Pakistan does it without bothering about extradition treaties and the like. But when it comes to those accused of terror attacks in India - and indeed, even terror attacks against fellow Muslims in Pakistan - different rules apply.
Yes, this is a major issue. The intermixing of terrorism and legal-security concerns did get blurred. But the people and the government now tend to make that distinction because over time, we have seen that tolerance of any type of terrorism harms. Now, there is no toleration of any kind. So in the cases against the Mumbai terror accused, we were told there are technical glitches. Now that India and Pakistan are speaking to each other, they will be able to overcome these glitches and there will be closure.
But on the other hand, each case has to be seen on its merit. In the Samjhauta Express case, it is seemingly the same thing. It may be relatively easier to resolve but it has not come to closure yet.
Now that India and Pakistan have resumed talks, what do you think lies in store?
There was a time when New Delhi used to consistently be ready for talks and Pakistan used to put conditions before talking. Now we have come a full 180 degrees and Pakistan seems eager to talk while we keep hearing that India is putting conditions. Despite all this, the initiative taken by both sides has been uniformly welcomed in Pakistan. There is a broad consensus that the two countries need to talk. People are realistic enough not to expect quick results but do feel that at least the tension will go down. People believe the stakes are high for both India and Pakistan. The people most looking forward to the resumed dialogue are those in Pakistan's most disadvantaged sections, people who are unable to contact their relatives in India, the divided families. The majority of people hope the process of talking will slowly yield results.
More From This Section
Going forward, what are the most important sticking points in the Indo-Pak conversation?
It has to be the mindset more than anything else. There is deep-seated distrust and animosity on both sides. Then there is a segment of the population that is vocal that is a minority, but can dictate to the majority.
And then there are other issues. In India's case, it is interested in Pakistan taking up the case of the Mumbai terror accused, so that the trial is concluded, there is conviction, justice and closure. I am sure this will happen. Pakistan too realises what terror can do to the society, polity and economy of India and Pakistan. There is very little sympathy for terror in Pakistan.
The major issue for Pakistan is Kashmir and if some way of discussing this around a formula that we saw during the period of General Pervez Musharraf's presidentship can be evolved… That will be the challenge: how to come up with something so that it is a win-win situation for both countries.
The third issue, but one that is easier to deal with, is the leadership of the two countries. Both should show statesmanship - as indeed they have. They should consider making travel and trade easier so that people can go back and forth easily and facilitate religious tourism and especially tourism for senior citizens.
Trade is a stumbling block because third-party trade makes goods costlier for both countries. There should be an explosion of bilateral trade and bureaucratic hurdles should be removed. But most importantly, the channels of communication should be kept open, diminishing distrust.
There is a view that until politics is settled, there can be no movement on trade. Everybody knows what the problems are but politics ensures nothing is done about these…
We are talking about the government so naturally some talks will take place. Take Pakistan's Most Favoured Nation (MFN) treatment to India. Pakistan has its own issues and these will need to be sorted out first. But better atmosphere will lead to a more liberal visa and travel regime, which currently is not even being implemented in spirit, let alone in letter.
But it does not have to be in sequential order. Talks can continue but greater contact can be facilitated. The media has emerged as most effective in shaping public opinion in both countries. The media on the two sides should be given the freedom to travel.
The question in India always is: we are never sure who is running Pakistan. Although a civilian government is in place, we still find that the role of a foreign policy advisor to the prime minister is truncated and a General takes his place as national security advisor. So is a civilian government in place or is it really the Pakistan Army that is running policy?
You are talking about the appointment of Gen Nasir Khan Janjua who was made national security advisor (NSA) to Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. It is a misconception that the appointment of a former military General as NSA was a decision of the armed forces. Some consensus might have been reached between the armed forces and the prime minister. But ultimately it was the PM's decision - he may have taken an input from the army. Any security-related decision whether in Pakistan or India or anywhere will invariably accommodate inputs from the military establishment. One can argue that the input should be more or less… on the quantum. But an input must have been sought and given. Democratically elected governments do seek military inputs.
In Pakistan the perception is stronger that military has greater influence because of past baggage, and so the military is dominating the entire set-up - politics, military, foreign affairs….
But things have changed in Pakistan after the Musharraf debacle. This is not to say the military plays no role at all - it certainly does - but the elected civilian government has established itself firmly.
When Sharif decided to travel to India for the swearing-in of Narendra Modi, there was resistance from some quarters. Despite the opinion that he should not go, he did travel here. In his manifesto and in his election campaign, normalisation of relations with India was an important element.
But when there is no reciprocity, it is difficult for him to broach the subject, because then people tend to revile him. While military inputs are still there, it is the civilian government that will take responsibility for its actions. If atmospherics improve and the Indian government is ready to show flexibility, it will strengthen the civilian government. It is up to the two leaders - whether they want to be statesmanlike or they want to continue to do what they've been doing for the last 70 years.
A major problem India has with Pakistan is that the rule of law is so flexible in relation to terror. When the Americans ask for a terror suspect to be extradited, Pakistan does it without bothering about extradition treaties and the like. But when it comes to those accused of terror attacks in India - and indeed, even terror attacks against fellow Muslims in Pakistan - different rules apply.
Yes, this is a major issue. The intermixing of terrorism and legal-security concerns did get blurred. But the people and the government now tend to make that distinction because over time, we have seen that tolerance of any type of terrorism harms. Now, there is no toleration of any kind. So in the cases against the Mumbai terror accused, we were told there are technical glitches. Now that India and Pakistan are speaking to each other, they will be able to overcome these glitches and there will be closure.
But on the other hand, each case has to be seen on its merit. In the Samjhauta Express case, it is seemingly the same thing. It may be relatively easier to resolve but it has not come to closure yet.