Comment: The irreversible normalisation process

India's former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has left a strong legacy of peace and normalisation in Pakistan-India ties, which is almost irreversible barring any major setbacks.

The tone and tenor of what the leaders of both countries have been saying has largely remained positive. Interestingly, Vajpayee went as far as criticising both India and Pakistan for creating hurdles in the peace process that he had begun.

He said: "Both sides should refrain from making statements… diplomacy cannot be conducted by making statements".

Vajpayee, reportedly, also had a telephone conversation with President General Pervez Musharraf. According to Vajpayee, Pakistan's president was concerned about emerging problems in the peace process.

Referring to his phone conversion with Musharraf, the former prime minister said: "We wanted the peace process to be carried on at the same speed as in the past".

However, no major hurdles are expected in advancing the normalisation process. The Congress-led government in India has already announced dates for talks. The newly appointed Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, has held talk with his Pakistani counterpart Zafarullah Khan Jamali and Musharraf. Soon the leadership will meet at the UN session in September.

Consensus

Within India, on the political front, there is a consensus to improve relations with Pakistan. Hence, on most issues, the new government is likely to support the peace initiative.

In fact, the BJP had made 'friendship with Pakistan' its key campaign plank in the recent elections. Therefore, most political groups, too, are likely to support this theme.

However, beyond the thematic thrust lie specific requirements for the normalisation process to continue.

One, top-level political commitment between the heads of state is a must for strategic stability and progress in the region.

The Congress government under Rajiv Gandhi had experienced the advantage of top-level interaction. While the real story may never be known, the New York Times reporter Barbara Crosette had reported in her front page news story that 10 minutes before his assassination Rajiv Gandhi had told her that the then military ruler General Zia-ul-Haq and he were very close to a mutually acceptable formula for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

True, a mutually agreed framework of the bilateral talks is required. But India's new foreign minister Natwar Singh has announced that the July 1972 Simla Pact would be the "bedrock" of any future India-Pakistan talks. Naturally, a Congress-led government would like to have its stamp on the normalisation process. Therefore, instead of referring to the BJP-negotiated Lahore resolutions and the Islamabad statement, the Congress leadership was bound to refer to the Congress-negotiated Simla Agreement.

Pakistan was rather quick to react arguing that the Simla agreement, if seen as dictating the settlement of Jammu and Kashmir dispute, was unacceptable.

Similarly another statement from Delhi regarding using the Sino-India model as one for normalisation of Pakistan-India ties evoked negative reaction from Islamabad.

In essence, the Simla Pact, the Lahore Agreement, the aborted Agra Declaration and finally the January 6 Islamabad statement all call for bilateral negotiations to end outstanding disputes, including the Jammu and Kashmir issue.

The Simla Accord does refer to the Line of Control (LoC) as opposed to a ceasefire line. Significantly India itself has violated Section II of Clause 4 of the agreement, which says "neither side shall seek to alter the LoC unilaterally".

Since the signing of the Simla Pact, India has occupied Siachen and other areas including Chorbatla along the LoC. Similarly, the focus on bilateral negotiations as opposed to international involvement on the Kashmir dispute is operationally academic.

It is no secret that India and Pakistan have both sought US support for the settlement of the Kashmir dispute. In fact, since the 1998 nuclear tests and the 1999 Pakistan movement into Kargil, the Kashmir dispute has acquired significance at the international level.

The third point, which remains significant for continuous, tension-free negotiations, is the need for back channel talks.

Given the history of incessant verbal fighting between the two countries, any open bureaucratic-level negotiations are unlikely to succeed. The January 6 statement could never have been possible without Tariq Aziz and Brajesh Mishra's back channel communication on behalf of their respective president and prime minister.

The change of government in India has meant the removal of a mature statesman like Vajpayee from the negotiation scene. Pakistan has yet to experience the approach of India's new prime minister on this front.

Positive start

However, the decision on dates for the nuclear talks and the composite dialogue is a positive start.

Manmohan will need a team of visionaries with experience and with belief in the need to resolve outstanding disputes between the two countries if the Congress genuinely wants the process to move forward.

The ball is now in India's court while the international community closely monitors progress.

– Nasim Zehra is a senior fellow at Harvard University Asia Centre