After months of confrontation along the border, India and Pakistan took their face-off to a new level at the UN General Assembly session.
No one expected leaders of India and Pakistan to hold a breakthrough meeting, but fireworks at the UN session were not on the cards either. In his address to the UN General Assembly, Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif offered an olive branch to India by outlining a four-point peace initiative to redefine their relationship with “cooperation, not confrontation.” He called for India to mutually renounce the use or threat of use of force, demilitarize Kashmir, withdraw from Siachen Glacier and formalize a cease-fire along the Line of Control.
For a change there was more to the usual rhetoric, a concrete agenda to push forward peace process between India and Pakistan.
However, Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj bluntly rejected Sharif’s peace proposal, making it clear that “instead of four proposals, we need only one point: That Pakistan end support to terror groups.” India reasserted that peace talks between the two neighbors will only bear fruit if they take place in an atmosphere free from terror and violence. Taking another dig at Pakistan, she also called upon the global community to boycott all countries that “finance, train, and support terror groups.”
The world watched silently as both India and Pakistan practically shot down any hopes of a revival of their stalled peace process. Given Modi’s current superstar status in international politics, it is unlikely that the rebuff of peace initiative will help Pakistan score any major diplomatic victory. Some world leaders may even back the Indian stance as Pakistan refuses to ban Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, accused of cross-border terror attacks, and Zaki ur Rehman, main plotter of Mumbai 2008 carnage, roams freely in Pakistan.
To normalize diplomatic relations, the two countries must show flexibility and intent to gradually take the peace process forward. India continues to accuse Pakistan of being the “prime sponsor of terrorism” and “a victim of its own policies of breeding and sponsoring terrorists.”
On the other hand, Pakistan wants a composite dialogue on all outstanding issues, including Kashmir, and calls for Indian intelligence agencies to stop supporting and funding anti-state activities on its soil. Pakistan’s continued engagement with Kashmiri separatist leaders has further annoyed India. In a significant departure from its Kashmir policy, India has emphasized the need to discuss “Pakistan’s illegal occupation of Kashmir” rather than promoting a dialogue on Kashmir region.
This new approach will certainly add more complexity to the Kashmir issue and pose another roadblock to the peace process.
Had India accepted Sharif’s peace offer, it could have at least been able to gain commitments from Pakistan on the four-point agenda. The world would have heaved a huge sigh of relief if nuclear-armed India and Pakistan had shown a willingness to renounce use of force and violence against each other.
By officially signing the 2003 cease-fire agreement and establishing a comprehensive monitoring mechanism of the United Nations Military Observers Group in India and Pakistan, the neighbors could have achieved a major milestone in respecting each other’s sovereignty. Further, in response to Pakistan’s proposal to demilitarize Kashmir, India could have demanded strong action against alleged terror outfits in the Kashmir region.
India’s rejection of this latest peace move can be counted as a lost opportunity for restoring confidence between both sides to promote sustainable peace in South Asia.
