Former Pakistan foreign minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri in his 2015 book, Neither a Hawk Nor a Dove, had claimed that India and Pakistan nearly reached a path-breaking formula on Kashmir through back-channel negotiations from 2004-07. Kasuri spoke to Preetha Nair about current Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s recent call for peace talks with India and more.
Edited excerpts:
Q) Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif’s interview calling for peace talks with India has created a flutter. Doable or wishful thinking?
I welcome any statements from India or Pakistan, which speak of improved relations. I am aware of the various factors and impediments on both sides. From my experience, given the political will on both sides, these can be overcome. Based on my
experience I believe all problems and disputes between the two countries can be resolved, including Kashmir. I know the background of the forces that were at work both in India
and Pakistan. Given the nature of the problems of both countries, there are too many actors looking for an opportunity at any time to rock the boat.
So my suggestion is that the first talks should be conducted on the back channel so that neither party tries to make political capital through self-serving leaks. During our time, we almost agreed on the settlement framework of Jammu and Kashmir. At that time
also, the basic framework was discussed on the back channel so that spoilers got very little opportunity to poison the atmosphere. So as far as the current statement is concerned, as I said, I welcome all statements from both sides which talk of the need for peace.
Q) After the interview, there was a clarification by the Pakistan PMO that dialogues can take place only after the reversal of the decision taken on J&K.
My answer is that the prevailing political polarization in Pakistan may have necessitated this. The Pakistani Prime Minister
was criticized roundly by the opposition for that statement. I faced a similar situation when I was the Foreign Minister and I refused to budge. Everybody is trying to make political capital out of anything the other party says. It
applies to all parties in India also. In opposition, they say one thing and while in power, just the opposite. These are political factors. It's unfortunate. It doesn't mean one should give up in despair. We can't change the situation in India or Pakistan. We have to learn to live with those realities and still be clear about the ultimate objective-peace.
Q) Going back to the statement of the Pak PM, he also said that the country has learned lessons from three wars…
First a correction. There were four wars, the last being at Kargil in 1999. Secondly, the sentence could have been better phrased, and PM talks of both Pakistan and India and not just Pakistan when he talks of ‘learned lessons’. Now, your question implies, sorry to say, but it means that only Pakistan is learning from its mistakes and that India need not. I saw reactions from India, which focus mainly on this point. You must look at the spirit of the PM's statement emphasizing the need for peace. I feel disappointed with such shallow reactions whether in Pakistan or India. It seems that the only purpose of such comments is to make the other side feel small. This is completely counterproductive to achieving peace in South Asia.
History has taught us that one-upmanship has not helped to reduce poverty either in India or Pakistan. We need to focus on this as well as the imperatives of cooperation given the looming climate change disasters that both could face.
One thing is clear if you're not on speaking terms, a lot of mischief-makers on both sides will make the situation worse. For me, resuming dialogue is very important; this will also help reduce visa restrictions and encourage people to people contact which is the best antidote to negativity about each other. Let us start at least with religious tourism for Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs. There are a lot of places of worship in both countries. One reason why we succeeded in creating an enabling environment for our dialogue was precisely improved people-to-people contact. Furthermore, we have also agreed privately that neither side would proclaim victory. We knew that once we announced our ‘Kashmir framework’, there'll be critics on both sides. We were aware of the sensitivities on the other side and agreed not to take advantage of that.
Q) India, in response to Pak PM said that it wants a normalized atmosphere free from terror and violence. Your comments
It’s a chicken and egg situation. I've noted in my book quoting Indian portals which monitor cross-border movement in Kashmir which noticed that there was a marked decrease in activities when the talks between India and Pakistan were going on. The Indian statement also makes clear that it would welcome normalization in South Asia, but ifs and buts are always attached both by Pakistan and by India. My advice to these people would be to start something on the back channel, initially. The recent ceasefire was also a result of back-channel talks- though at the military-to-military level in 2018 when the two DGMOs talks resulted in the following statement.
“In the interest of achieving mutually beneficial and sustainable peace along the borders, the two DGsMO agreed to address each other’s core issues and concerns which have [the] propensity to disturb the peace and lead to violence,”. This statement could not have come out of the blue or without the blessings of the political masters in Delhi and Islamabad. So regardless of what Pakistan's current political, economic or whatever polarisation may be, the situation keeps on changing in both countries.
Q) It’s still a deadlock as both countries don't have high commissioners in place, no trade ties, and a freeze on movement. If a beginning is to be made, don’t you think the two sides should focus on the resumption of trade and upgrading of diplomatic relations?
Yes, I agree. A very strange thing happened in Pakistan during PM Imran Khan’s tenure. One day the government agreed to open trade, and the next day, they reversed the decision just as you're referring to PM Sharif’s statement. Let me say one thing clearly, Prime Minister Modi bears the greater responsibility in promoting regional peace since he is currently the master of everything in India which includes politics, the media, the
judiciary, and the economy. That's not the case in Pakistan where Pakistan PMs have to keep on juggling the ball to satisfy the conflicting constituencies. The greater responsibility thus falls on Prime Minister Modi to make efforts for peace in South Asia and to encourage regional cooperation with all countries, including Pakistan. Unfortunately, in India, the opposition has been so weakened and only Modi matters. That’s the impression I’m getting.
The judiciary stopped interfering and the media doesn't talk. Voices for peace with Pakistan have been greatly weakened since my day. On the other hand, there are different kinds of pressure on our PMs as referred to above and the statement following the PM's interview is just another example.
Q) Recently, Pak journalist Hamid Mir made some revelations that PM Modi was scheduled to visit Pakistan in April 2021 and resume trade ties on condition that they will freeze the Kashmir issue for 20 years or so. He said that the backchannel talks were conducted by former army Chief Bajwa. But then PM Khan backed out fearing political backlash…
It’s quite clear that the articles were based on information directly supplied by General Bajwa. The fact is that those statements tell you about the political pressures. When our dialogue with India was going on well and when I used to speak there was a lot of criticism in Pakistan and even in
India. the details of which are given in my book ‘Neither a Hawk nor a Dove’. I used to take such criticism in my stride since I knew that good things were on the way both on the back channel as well as in our bilateral dialogue. I would purposely leak out a few things to prepare the people and create a favorable opinion in favor of peace between Pakistan and India. Unfortunately, I do not see any such thing on either side today.
Q) Mir also said that General Bajwa conducted the back channel talks with India without the knowledge of PM Imran Khan.
I have no means to confirm this. On a lighter note though, let me say that the two foreign offices are normally not the greatest peacemakers- so it's not such a bad thing if they weren’t aware. I can tell you with authority that when we conducted talks with India, our Foreign secretary was not at all bypassed and he knew everything about the talks on Kashmir and other matters.
Though you might find it interesting that even the US secretary of state George Shultz was kept out of the loop on Afghan matters which were being handled directly by ISI and CIA and it was sometimes jokingly said that he had to be given a crash course on Afghanistan at the time of the Geneva Accords which led to the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.
Q) Modi visited Lahore in 2015 during Nawaz Sharif’s time. Now that his party is in power, do you think it's another opportunity for both countries?
Based on Hamid Mir’s conversations with General Bajwa, it appears that PM Modi was supposed to visit Pakistan in 2021. If true, this only proves my point that things can change quite dramatically between India and Pakistan in a jiffy. We don't have to lose hope.
However, the voices in India, which used to speak of peace with Pakistan are not being heard much. The media, particularly electronic media, is jingoistic. This is not the case with Pakistan to the same extent and voices advocating peace with India can still be heard.
Q) Pak PM also suggested involving UAE in the talks. Last year, the UAE envoy to the US claimed that his country facilitated talks between India and Pakistan, which resulted in the ceasefire announcement along LoC in February 2021.
UAE is a good interlocutor and it is considered a very close friend of Pakistan- and it's a close economic partner of India too. So I think they are in a position to play a role.
Q) Do you think the Pakistani government will be able to make any political initiative at this juncture as it’s marred by political instability, economic distress, and security threat from Afghanistan?
Let me say one thing. there is a greater realization in Pakistan of the need for regional development. After all, not only have we fought four wars, but we have been in near-war situations on ten occasions, the last being Balakot airstrikes. Whatever the situation in Pakistan or India, one thing I have learned is that Islamabad and Delhi do not have the privilege of determining who the rulers on the other side are. However, various parties in Pakistan and civil and military leaders including Ayub Khan, Benazir Bhutto,
Nawaz Sharif, Pervez Musharraf, and Imran Khan, while in power, have tried to make peace with India, whether Pakistan was politically or economically strong or weak. The reason is that there is always a general feeling particularly among the opinion makers that regions grow collectively and the countries within thus also benefit. This can best be seen in ASEAN countries which were
just a few decades ago behind Pakistan and India, and are far ahead now. I agree that the political situation is currently polarized and the economic situation is not good. Hopefully, we'll get out of it soon. In India too, the situation of minorities is not good. So we have to deal with whatever situation we are in.
The polarization that we're talking about in Pakistan is not going to last long. The difference is that Imran Khan wants elections in April and Sharif wants them in October. The polarization will hopefully reduce once elections are held. The next government will be in a position to take decisions, which may be regarded as controversial by a section of the people. But the Indian opinion makers and the government must also play their role. It takes two to tango!
Q) Don’t you think backchannel talks need to be accompanied by a political push?
Of course. Unfortunately, the relationship between the two countries is very troubled. Back channel talks cannot help in creating an enabling environment for peace because, by its very nature, it has to be secretive. Unless public opinion on both sides is in favor of improved relations and dialogue, nothing will fly. ... India is a democratic country and I believe that it cannot live with a situation in which it is perceived to be constantly keeping Kashmiris down by force. This just cannot last and it is in India’s interest to resolve these issues.
Q) Do you suggest India pick up from where you left off? Your book said that India agreed to a four-point formula to resolve the Kashmir issue.?
That is the wisest thing to do. It doesn't have to be an exact copy. Current rulers must take ownership. After all, the so-called four-point formula rests on something eminently sensible-, a solution that is acceptable to Kashmiris and of course, the governments and people of Pakistan and India. There can be no other way to reach a solution. Furthermore, where there is a will there's a way. Genuine peace and goodwill between individuals, families, or nations can only be based on mutual respect.
Q) With growing threats from China, do you think New Delhi’s focus has shifted toward Beijing and it will reduce the tension between India and Pak?
A few years ago, we used to talk about the Asian century. Where has it disappeared? This conflict doesn’t serve the interests of China or India. Any tension will impact the economy of both countries. If the relationship between Pakistan and India improves, I think it will have a positive impact on India’s relations with China also.
Q) Also how will the sharpening India -China differences play out in the ties between India and Pak?
I hope that this does not impact the relations negatively but my fear is that it may well, unless handled prudently. That is why it's all the more important that Pakistan and India improve their relations. It may surprise your readers to know that the Chinese never encouraged Pakistan to have hostile relations with India. I speak with personal knowledge. Pakistan in its own interest felt that it needed to improve relations with China, particularly in the defense sphere, more so after the United States made India its strategic partner against China limiting Pakistan access to American weapons.
We had to get weapons for our security from whatever the source, China as well as elsewhere. It doesn't mean that China encouraged Pakistan to have bad relations with India. If this were true, consider the fact that all Pakistani leaders whether civil or military have tried to improve relations with India, and at the same time, they have had excellent relations with China. If China was encouraging Pakistan to spoil relations with India, why would every Pakistani leader, who wished to have good relations with China, also try to normalize ties with India?