View from Pakistan

The Indo-Pak peace process is going exactly where the Pakistan Army wants it to – nowhere

Abdul Basit’s remarks reflect the views of Rawalpindi, not Islamabad.

As Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit’s comments regarding the peace process being suspended hit the Indian media, the impression is that Islamabad and New Delhi may have missed the peace bus yet again. But the question is: did either side even get onboard the bus? The doors remain closed for years and open up briefly, a shift that both sides find difficult to interpret and manoeuvre. This is an age-old story of varied expectations. In that respect, Basit is correct in arguing that peace should not be viewed as a favour to the other, but a process arising out of a country’s own needs or understanding of conflict and peace in the region.

The Pakistan high commissioner is a senior bureaucrat and not the ultimate policymaker. He is in no position to suspend the peace process or the talks. But his comments echoed the frustration of the security establishment regarding the slow movement of the comprehensive dialogue. The fact of the matter is that whether it is terrorism or Kashmir, both nations have not moved an inch from their positions. Basit’s comments express the reality that the peace process is a victim of acute divergence regarding expected gains. While for Delhi the primary issue is counter-terrorism, and solving the Mumbai and Pathankot cases, Islamabad believes that nothing can move without resolving the Kashmir issue as per UN resolutions.

Post-Ufa correction

In arguing that Pakistan will wait until India comes around to taking the composite dialogue route instead of just sticking to the issue of terrorism, Basit seems to be taking an approach that the delegation from Islamabad ought to have taken at Ufa, in Russia, last July, where India and Pakistan issued a joint statement that excluded any mention of Kashmir. Since Kashmir is central to Pakistan’s imagination, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif should not have signed a joint statement that excluded the issue. Sharif was under no pressure to sign a joint statement unless there was some compulsion to demonstrate Pakistan’s keenness to move forward to the US. Indeed, Washington plays a vital role of balancing temperatures between India and Pakistan.

Basit’s statement, hence, very clearly outlines the security establishment’s perspective that Pakistan will only talk about terrorism as long as there is a willingness to resolve other issues. This means that Pakistan’s joint investigation team’s visit to Pathankot should have been accompanied by a roadmap for foreign secretary-level talks, which, to Islamabad, is the litmus test for Delhi’s sincerity in engaging wholeheartedly. The talks on terrorism cannot proceed without Kashmir, or the pace of talks on terrorism versus outstanding disputes cannot be different.

The India bogey

Pakistan’s military establishment has remained cautious of any peace overtures that undermine the country’s security or the territorial dispute with India. It is also highly suspicious of India talking the talk but not walking the walk as far as composite dialogue is concerned. Since the 1990s, the military has not allowed any political government to transform peace talks into a sustainable process, which will take a life of its own independent of the Army. Reportedly, the Lahore Declaration of 1999 was scuttled due to this very suspicion that a peace process begun in Delhi would make gains without making concessions on the primary dispute – Kashmir. Therefore, despite the perception that the former army chief General Ashfaq Kiyani had shown flexibility on trade with India or had talked about the key threat to Pakistan being terrorism, India has remained the primary bogey. There is also the deep suspicion that left to politicians Pakistan may end up compromising its key interests.

Despite Sharif being invested in the idea of peace with India and improving relations with Pakistan’s neighbours, Basit’s statement seems to have put things back in perspective for the audience in Delhi. This means that the security establishment will guard the peace talks as it has always done during the Lahore Declaration, and even under Pervez Musharraf. Moreover, it’s not just the peace process with India that is suspended but also the negotiations between Islamabad and Kabul. The talks with Afghanistan have not moved far because Pakistan’s army does not trust Kabul and would like to midwife peace between the Afghan government and the Taliban. The Pakistan Army does not trust Indian influence in Afghanistan especially now that it believes it has proof of Delhi’s involvement in fanning the Baloch insurgency. The capture of the alleged Indian spy, Kulbhushan Jhadav, is what, at least, gives the Pakistan Army credibility at home vis-à-vis the political government. It does not matter that the matter of Jhadav as a spy is not definitively settled.

What is, however, more important is the fact that now people in Pakistan will be forced to think through Sharif’s eagerness to improve relations with Delhi. As some of the pro-military analysts argue, Jhadav is the much-needed equaliser. The underlying message then is why constantly harp on talking about terrorism when both sides are guilty of the same crime. Since India does not now appear above board to Pakistan, a better option is to start with the composite dialogue than just harp on Mumbai and Pathankot. These matters will be discussed but alongside India’s involvement in Balochistan.

Back to square one

There is also a possible realisation that the situation in the Kashmir Valley may heat up again due to the nature of politics, increased intervention from Delhi and rising frustration of the youth who feel burdened with the manner in which nationalism is defined and imposed on people around India. While imposed nationalism means different things to different people, its implementation on religious minorities especially in Kashmir makes the situation worse.

Apparently, there is an increase in Islamism in Kashmir, which does not necessarily mean benefits for Pakistan, but it can translate into increased violence and hostility towards the idea of the Indian federation inside the Valley. Pakistan’s intelligence could calculate the situation as favourable, or at best resulting in a situation whereby the current government in Delhi may be forced to discuss the matter.

The political government in Pakistan is no longer capable of enforcing its agenda on its security establishment. Sharif is being shaken up wildly through different means. From political parties such as the Jamaat-e-Islami, who traditionally support the armed forces, to aspirants for the Army’s favour like Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party have all have ganged up against Sharif.

Depending on how matters unfold, the two neighbours are back to square one. Islamabad and Delhi need to either rework the framework for talks whereby terrorism and composite dialogue are conducted simultaneously, or resign themselves to the reality that this is not the time for peace.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.