NEW DELHI: The announcement by Modi government to send its foreign secretary to Pakistan, six months after the last sojourn was cancelled, has led to much head-scratching, as experts decode the reasons for this change of heart. The US role is under the microscope.
A day earlier, US president Barack Obama spoke to Pakistan PM Sharif patting him on the back for taking strong action against terrorism. Three days before the announcement, US’s new ambassador to India Richard Verma had said in Mumbai the US will “continue to work with India and Pakistan to promote dialogue, terrorism, and advance regional economic integration in South and Central Asia”.
Michael Kugelman, senior program associate for South and Southeast Asia at Washington-based think-tank Woodrow Wilson Center made it clear he was sure the Indian PM “would not resume talks with Pakistan just because Washington told him to do so”. “He (Modi) has concluded the time is right to resume talks—according to his watch, not Washington’s, and because of India’s interests, not Washington’s,” he said. Kugelman also pointed out that Washington has publicly said it would like to see South Asia’s two biggest countries talk to each other. “This is because the core US interest on the subcontinent is stability, and the US government believes this stability can best be achieved through relatively smooth relations between Islamabad and New Delhi,” he said.
Carnegie Endowment’s director South Asia program, Frederic Grare said that “everybody” wants the two countries to talk to each other, especially due to the nuclear dimension, but there is no clarity on what it will achieve.
“Nobody, including the US is very clear as to what such a dialogue can or should be about,” he said. Grare felt the time was ripe to reopen communication, as India’s messages to Pakistan of “openness to dialogue but also the determination to act tough if provoked, have been sent”.
“It may also make sense not to give Pakistani military a complete victory over the government on the issue of relations with India. No dramatic change should be expected but there is no harm in talking,” he said. There is also a view that Modi’s overture is also part of his priority to create a stable environment for India’s economic growth. “The Indian government also has every interest to calm things down with Islamabad to avoid the risk of being distracted from his economic agenda,” said Grare. In fact, Kugelman felt that perhaps a more integrated trade-network in South Asia was the real story for Modi’s move.
A livid Sushant Sareen, senior fellow at Vivekanand International Foundation, said he had “great contempt” for the way South Block has taken a U-turn. “If you want to start talks, great. Begin them. Why do you need a thin veneer of a roundabout SAARC yatra for this?” he said.
He noted just day before that Modi went on his cricket diplomacy, Pakistan Army was on a media blitz, blaming India for directly funding Taliban in its tribal areas and Balochistan. Incidentally, while Obama was praising Sharif, the US house of representatives’ foreign affairs panel sent a letter to White House arguing that Pakistan had not changed its policy of selective targeting of terrorists—referring to rallies by Jamaat-ud-dawa. Sareen believes the US must have insisted on resumption of dialogue, but it was up to Modi to filter them through Indian interest. “If it is in US’s national interest to ask for India-Pakistan to start talking, it doesn’t mean that it will be the same for us. What has changed in six months in Pakistan that we should talk to them?” he asked.