Abdul Basit

PAKISTAN High Commissioner to India Abdul Basit made a sensible and timely observation: important as the terrorism issue is to bilateral ties, there are other matters of equal importance that deserve to be focused on. Dialogue needs to be revived at the earliest. The High Commissioner’s remarks came on a day that the BJP shocked India with its nomination of a controversial, hard-line Hindu priest to the post of Chief Minister of UP. The reaffirmation of a message of constructive dialogue on Pakistan’s part at a time when India may be lurching further to the political right is necessary; the stakes are too high to drift into era of turbulent relations. Basit’s remarks are a welcome reminder that right-thinking individuals in both countries continue to dwell on the need for dialogue and not jettison the shared experience of the past seven decades. It has proved while dialogue is difficult to initiate, even harder to sustain but is the only realistic option. Consider the so-called low-hanging fruit that Basit referred to: Sir Creek and Siachen. Sir Creek was once regarded as an agreement within reach —a border and maritime dispute that can be resolved by technical teams, if political will exists. The mindless stand-off in Siachen, more than three decades old and a growing environmental concern, could be resolved in a manner that satisfies both the military and political leaderships in both countries. The freezing of dialogue has stalled all progress. In the case of Siachen, there is a sense that the intransigence of the Indian military and its growing influence in the national security and foreign policy domains have effectively cancelled the low-hanging-fruit status of the Siachen dispute. Unhappily, the absence of dialogue is allowing other factors to intervene and make historical and already-complicated disputes even more complex. Revival of political will to engage in dialogue is the obvious starting point. Having established his party as the dominant political force in India, PM Narendra Modi has an opportunity to pivot and return to the path of dialogue with Pakistan. He also now has the benefit of greater experience. Unexpected return to dialogue and the unveiling of the so-called comprehensive dialogue process with additional baskets in late 2015 was a commendable effort, but was not adequately militancy-proofed. The subsequent Pathankot attack caused a rupture. Experienced and committed dialogue partners may have found a way to sustain the process. An year and a half later, with Pakistan having taken a few steps against India-centric militant groups and large-scale counterterrorism operations under way across Pakistan, the dialogue process can be restarted in a more conducive environment.  — Editorial in the Dawn