Two days of high-level talks between Pakistan and India ended Sunday with both sides inching closer to agreement. Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh was absolutely correct when he said afterward that even modest progress was worthy of respect. The hardest issue in the negotiations is of course the future of Kashmir. Pakistan sees the disputed territory as the key to a lasting normalization of relations whereas India takes a broader view and is also focused on the introduction of what officials call “confidence-building measures.” Observers on both sides have criticized the slowness of the negotiations and were alarmed at intemperate pre-talk exchanges on the breadth of the agenda. This is not, however, the way to measure progress in these crucial exchanges. What remains paramount is that these talks are taking place at all. They are an acceptance by both countries that the only route to peace lies across a negotiating table. Intractable though the Kashmir issue would seem, a deal has to emerge simply because the standoff status quo is fast ceasing to be a realistic option.
India is in the process of dramatic economic take-off. It does not need the debilitating slow fuse of Kashmir and the resulting troubled relations with Pakistan. Foreign investors look to the three wars that the neighbors have fought since 1948 and the alarming nuclear confrontation two years ago and, understandably, think twice. The investors are still coming, not least because India promises to become a dominant center of information technology but the terms on which the investments are made are less favorable for India than if it enjoyed a secure peace with its neighbor.
Pakistan, meanwhile, knows that it can only benefit from this economic surge in the Asian Subcontinent, working with Indian companies, if the old military rivalries can be settled. The cost of the 56-year confrontation for both countries runs into billions of dollars, money that could be far better spent on civilian investment. The rationale for a settlement is overwhelming. Unfortunately there are also 56 years of vituperation and propaganda to undo. Voters in both countries still feel passionately about the Kashmir issue. The two governments must therefore move carefully. The ultimate solution must not appear to be a defeat for either side but a victory for both. However convinced the politicians may be of the need for a settlement, neither side is going to risk being wrong-footed by the other and thereafter denounced by rivals at home. Hence the extreme caution that has characterized the talks so far.
The Indians have always set their face against international mediation on Kashmir. They are determined that bilateral negotiations are the only way to find a solution. This may yet prove true as the talks creep forward. Nevertheless, the time may yet come when the two sides need an honest broker to hold the ring and avoid discussions of highly sensitive issues from degenerating into rows. A UN chairmanship, while notionally desirable, could ruin any talks because each side would reform its position to leverage the presence of the organization. On the other hand after their Sri Lankan experience, the Norwegians have proven their immense mediation skills. Perhaps the time is not far off, when Islamabad and New Delhi should consider the presence of such an utterly dispassionate third party.
