An Indian debator weighs in on the question being raised on whether India and Pakistan should suspend the forthcoming foreign secretary talks and diplomatic relations?

By Devang Shah

On January 2, 2016, India faced a terror attack at Pathankot Air Force Station that many had warned about and that the intelligence agencies were expecting. Seven brave-hearts have so far lost their lives defending the air base in Punjab, close to the Pakistan border.

This event followed on the heels of the recent historic surprise visit by Indian Prime Minister on Christmas Day to Pakistan. Many have presumed that Pakistan is to blame for involvement in the case, and termed as hypocrisy Prime Minister Sharif’s call to strengthen peaceful ties between the two nations.

This article may challenge some preconceived notions but I urge readers to take an unbiased approach while going through it and to read the entire article before forming an opinion. Let us try to approach the situation through a new angle and seek the possibility of finding an answer to the question of whether India should continue peace talks with Pakistan.

Firstly, let us trace some similar events in the past. In March 2001, following the Kargil War, the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called upon both India and Pakistan to retain the spirit of the Lahore Declaration, saying that it would require restraint, wisdom, and constructive steps from both sides. Subsequently, a historic two-day summit was held at Agra with the aim of resolving long standing issues between India and Pakistan.

After many diplomatic efforts, the Agra Summit began amid high hopes of resolving various disputes between the two countries including the longstanding “Kashmir issue”. Both sides started the summit with hope and in a spirit of goodwill. Then President Musharraf used phrases like “cautious optimism”, “flexibility” and “open mind” to describe his views for the summit. The Indian President, K. R. Narayanan, also promised to take “bold and innovative” measures and to discuss the “core issue” between the two countries.

But before the treaty could be actually signed and implemented, there was an audacious attack on the Parliament of India, New Delhi, in December. The groups allegedly involved were the Pakistan-based Lashkr-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). An outraged India severed relations with Pakistan again.

Similarly in 2006, President Musharraf and Prime Minister Singh agreed to put into place an Indo-Pak institutional anti-terrorism mechanism. Hopes for improved relations again began to rise. But in February 2007, a bomb attack on the Indo-Pak train Samjhauta Express led to loss of 68 lives, Indian as well as Pakistani. The alleged perpetrators were found to be linked to a Hindu extremist group in India.

Although PM Modi’s visit to Pakistan on December 25, 2015, was more in the nature of a personal rather than official trip, it sparked off hopes again about the possibility of the start of a new era for Indo-Pak bonds. After his visit, he tweeted, “Spent a warm evening with Sharif family at their family home. Nawaz Sahab’s birthday & granddaughter’s marriage made it a double celebration”.

Earlier, in Pakistan for the Heart of Asia conference on Dec 9-10, the Minister of External Affairs India, Ms. Sushma Swaraj had earlier announced the resumption of dialogue between the two countries. PM Nawaz Sharif declared that it is high time that India and Pakistan set aside their hostilities.

These events had again led to the citizens of both nations experiencing the latent warmth of friendship and prospects of trust and peace.

However, on January 2, 2016, the bullets fired at Pathankot Air Force Station once again dashed hopes and prospects of peace.

A wave of rage is observed amongst Indians against the attack that comes apparently from Pakistan. Media houses in India with their sensationalist headlines leave no room for a thoughtful response. The knee-jerk reaction about Pakistan’s hypocrisy and the sense of betrayal felt by India are what dominate the discourse.

But now, take a moment to think, “Is that what we feel, or is that what THEY want us to feel?”

‘They’ refers to the anti-peace elements that exist between the countries, who perfectly time their attacks such that they hurt the most, both physically and emotionally. They understand the delicate relationship between India and Pakistan, and they manage to sabotage it over and over again whenever the prospects of peace tend to become stronger. These elements try to manipulate our psychology over the years.

Humans die on both the sides of the border. Terrorism has no nationality, religion or faith. Terrorists do not even discriminate between old and young. The merciless killing of school children in Peshawar barely a year ago clearly shows the ruthless mind-set of these terrorists.

Noble army men lose their lives and limbs in this inhumane fight. When a soldier dies, his family doesn’t want revenge; they want the war to end.

Pakistan and India are both independent countries, members of the United Nations, and have an international image to upkeep. Neither can take any decision that is so rash and intrepid, especially when foreign secretaries of both the countries are scheduled to meet on January 15, 2016.

I therefore urge the citizens of both nations to look beyond the picture that is shown to us. Why is making peace is a thousand times more difficult than a war? If we give in and resort to animosity, halt diplomatic relations and suspend talks, we are letting the anti-peace elements win. That is something we cannot affort let happen.

The writer is the founder of Aman Ki Asha Council, Nagpur Model United Nations.