Pakistan’s sincerity equals its empty rhetoric
Former Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri's revelations in his book and interactions with the media on how close India and Pakistan had come to an agreement on resolving the Kashmir issue, are bound to trigger rounds of heated discussions, both here and in Pakistan. Mr Kasuri claims that then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf had agreed, as a result of back-channel efforts, to demilitarise Kashmir on both sides of the border, pull back troops from Siachen, have free movement of Kashmiris across the line of Control and International Border, have a sort of mechanism for local self-governance in Kashmir on both sides, and finally resolve the Sir Creek issue. He claims that the deal got stuck because certain domestic compulsions arose in both the countries, but that the framework still exists for the two to build a new and trustworthy partnership. His concern for good relations is not in doubt, nor is his assertion that talks are the only way to take the process forward. But talks alone do not suffice; there has to be action on the ground for trust to take root. Demilitarisation, which Mr Kasuri is so passionate about, cannot happen in a vacuum. Conditions have to be created for such path-breaking measures. He must remember that Pakistan had an opportunity to establish trust when it could have gone after the perpetrators of the 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai. How can trust be built when the key conspirators are having a free run on Pakistani soilIJ Or when Pakistan continues to protect and patronise the 1993 Mumbai blasts mastermind Dawood IbrahimIJ Or when it continues to infiltrate India with militants, who are often provided covering fire by the Pakistani security forces along the bordersIJ Or when terrorist camps that target India flourish under state patronage in Pakistan-occupied KashmirIJ Demilitarisation and easier movement of people along the Jammu & Kashmir borders are meaningless without a change in the Pakistani mindset of bleeding India by a thousand cuts. Incidentally, Pakistan floated the proposal of pulling back troops from Siachen only after India gained a decisive advantage there. It is talking of demilitarisation of Kashmir only after its attempts in 1947-48 and 1965 to wrest Kashmir from India through force ended in abject disaster.
Mr Kasuri is absolutely right when he says that a new template, or a new paradigm, is needed to break the Kashmir deadlock. But Pakistan stuck to the old one when it insisted on talking to Hurriyat leaders in the run-up to the scheduled Foreign Secretary level talks in 2014. Had Islamabad not insisted on the old, it could have led to a fresh beginning. Almost a year later, it insisted on talking about Kashmir in a scheduled National Security Advisor level talks where Kashmir wasn't on the agenda. Kashmir is an issue that must be resolved, but Pakistan's obsession with it has proved to be counter-productive.