The bad news is that the “core” issue versus “composite dialogue” debate continues to haunt Pakistan and India, the latest manifestation being in the failed round of talks between the foreign ministers of both countries in Islamabad last week. The good news is that Pakistan’s foreign minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, has been embarrassed by his own outburst, and India’s home secretary, GK Pillai, has been silenced by the Indian prime minister for embarrassing his own foreign minister in Islamabad.
From 1947 to 1997, Pakistan routinely parroted “Kashmir is the core issue” line and insisted that “without first resolving it, no dialogue can take place on the other outstanding issues”. During this time, three wars took place, Pakistan was dismembered by Indian intervention and new disputes were added to the roster (like Siachin in 1984) even as Kashmir remained on the boiler.
The deadlock was finally broken at the NAM Summit in Male in 1997 when India’s Prime Minister, Inder Kumar Gujral, persuaded Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, to accept the notion of a “composite dialogue” between them simultaneously on “all outstanding issues, including Kashmir”. Unfortunately, however, this significant step didn’t translate into progress because the general elections in India in 1998 brought the BJP to power and the nuclear testing and rattling derailed everything.
But Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee jointly made a historic breakthrough in Lahore in 1999. The framework of the “composite dialogue” was restored, the notion of any “core” Kashmir dispute-resolution based on UN resolutions disappeared from the texts of the agreements/joint statements and “back channel” diplomacy was undertaken to tackle the thorny issue. Unfortunately, however, this significant step was derailed by General Pervez Musharraf’s Kargil misadventure, followed by a military coup.
In 2001, General Musharraf went to Agra to locate the lost track of the dialogue. He offered out-of-the-box solutions to Kashmir that endeared him to the Indian media. Unfortunately, however, hawkish home ministry elements in the BJP led by Mr LK Advani pulled a new “core” issue of “terrorist infiltration across the LoC” out of the hat at the nth minute and scuttled an agreement on the revamped composite dialogue.
The composite dialogue plus back channel on Kashmir was courageously restored with true vitality in 2004 by General Musharraf and Mr Vajpayee. Unfortunately, it was blocked by political instability in Pakistan in 2007 and by the Indian elections and terrorist attack on Mumbai in 2008. It hasn’t moved forward since then simply because India insists on the all or nothing “core” issue approach that has failed to secure results for any side. So the boot is on the other foot now, with Pakistan seeking a composite dialogue and India refusing it stubbornly.
Two great opportunities have since been lost. The first one was at Sharmal Sheikh in Egypt earlier this year when the Indian Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, and the Pakistan Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, agreed to start secretary level talks and discuss Kashmir, terrorism, water and all other outstanding issues. But Dr Singh got cold feet when Indian hawks chastised him for “conceding” to Pakistan. This put Pakistan’s back up and provoked it to stake the “core issue of Kashmir” at the heart of their demands again. In the latest round between Mr Krishna and Mr Qureshi, the hawks in India have again put paid to Dr Singh’s efforts to bridge the gap.
History proves that the “core” issue approach will not work because it is a sum-zero game of exclusivity. The only way forward is to borrow a leaf from the Musharraf-Vajpayee approach and add the core issue of “terrorism” to the back channel along with the core issue of “Kashmir” because they incense the hawks on both sides when they are discussed in public and derail progress on other issues.
This approach may be fruitful. Kashmir is, in reality, no more a core issue for Pakistanis simply because 98 percent of the Kashmiris in the Valley have opted for Azaadi rather than a for-or-against plebiscite under UN resolutions. Indeed, if anything, Kashmir is rapidly becoming an “internal core issue” for India, given the anti-India sentiment in the Valley without any significant Pakistani provocation. This means that Pakistan will show greater flexibility in the back channel on this issue if India makes headway internally in Srinagar. In the same way, terrorism is much more an “internal core issue” for Pakistan, in reality, than it is for India because it springs from Pakistani soil and is hurting Pakistan the most. So neither country should say or do anything in public about their core issues that provokes a backlash in the other.
Dr Manmohan Singh shouldn’t fall prey to the “core-condition” hawks in India. This will only strengthen the “core-condition” hawks in Pakistan and lead both countries to mutual sum-zero destabilization. The tables have been turned. India’s core issue of terrorism is now Pakistan’s core issue and Pakistan’s core issue of Kashmir is now India’s core issue. So it is time to open the back channel on two issues and revive the public dialogue on six others before we are swamped by the hawks or collapse under the weight of history.