South Asia: Is This SAARC Summit Any Different?

TRIDIVESH MAINI

The meeting of Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh with his Pakistani
counterpart, Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, on 10 November 2011 on the sidelines of the 17th
South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) summit in the Maldives,
should be welcomed.

Background

The meeting of Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh with his Pakistani
counterpart, Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani, on 10 November 2011 on the sidelines of the 17th
South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) summit in the Maldives,
should be welcomed. The former’s vision for South Asia in general, and Indo-Pak
relations in particular, should be praised. Dr Singh, who has been cautious on many
issues, has stuck his neck out for a more harmonious relationship with Pakistan. Last
week’s meeting was no different.

Comment

In fact, while Dr Singh has met his Pakistani counterpart a few times, it is the first time
since the 2008 Mumbai attacks that both leaders have actually focussed on issues like
trade and the visa regime. Previously, the meetings were limited in scope and India’s
focus was more on the Mumbai attack, while Pakistan spoke about Kashmir. Prime
Minister Singh has been working for peace ever since he took over in 2004 and this has
got him into trouble on a few occasions. The most prominent instance was the Sharm El-
Sheikh joint declaration of July 2009, where India acknowledged Pakistan’s concerns on
Baluchistan.

This time, Dr Singh was at his bold best when he called Malé a ’new chapter’ and
referred to his counterpart as ’a man of peace’. While Singh’s intentions cannot be
doubted, there are numerous constraints, which both Gilani and Singh face. Maybe it
would have been wiser to have met and not raised the stakes quite so high. Singh’s praise
of his Pakistani counterpart has already raised eyebrows, especially among the opposition
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which has, of late, missed no opportunity to go hammer and
tongs against the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government. As a consequence,
while speaking to the media later, Dr Singh clarified that his government had no blind
faith in any one individual.
Similarly, there have been many occasions when Singh has talked about ’a new chapter’
in Indo-Pak relations, both during his engagement with the current government in
Pakistan and with General Musharraf. This time, the Indian Prime Minister was probably
appreciative of Pakistan’s decision to grant Most Favoured Nation trading status to India
and also for the immediate release of an Indian Army helicopter with four soldiers that
had "mistakenly" crossed the Line of Control. Going by past experience, however, Singh,
who has vast experience in dealing with Pakistan, should have been cautious with his
words, for a few reasons.

First, Dr Singh’s party and government - unlike himself - do not take a long-term view of
things. The popularity of his government is rock-bottom as a consequence of corruption
scandals. In this situation, it would not like to further increase public resentment by
appearing to be soft on Pakistan. This would give yet another issue to the BJP, which
already seems to be on the offensive against the government. For the moment, Singh’s
moves will be viewed with cynicism by some and scepticism by others. In the event of
any more terror attacks, his own party would surely stall Singh’s peace overtures towards
Pakistan. Realising this, the Indian PM made it clear that any 26/11 type of event will
make dialogue with Pakistan tough. Few other leaders in his government are convinced
about de-linking terror and talks with Pakistan. So, it really remains to be seen how far
talks on trade and liberalising the visa regime could go in the advent of a tense situation.

Second, while Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Hina Rabbani Khar, has been speaking about
the army being on board with regard to the Indo-Pak peace process - and her views were
also echoed by the Indian Prime Minister - it remains to be seen how the Pakistani Army
will react to some of the statements on terror made by Pakistani Interior Minister Rahman
Malik, especially those referring to the Mumbai attacks. Would the military not feel
threatened by an emboldened civilian leadership? If so, what steps might certain elements
within it take?

Third, while the real hope for India and Pakistan, and for the SAARC region as a whole,
is enhanced people-to-people contact and trade, the track record so far has been
miserable, to say the least. While there has been a change of mindset in the Indian
Ministry of External Affairs, the Ministry of Home Affairs, in a bid to exhibit its
efficiency, has made the visa regime for Pakistanis very stringent. It will take some doing
to reverse it and fulfil the dream of breakfast at Amritsar, lunch at Lahore and dinner at
Kabul: the dream of Dr Singh and an aspiration of numerous Indians and Pakistanis. With
multiple divisions in the current UPA government and not much time before the next
general election, it would be quite an achievement to make this possible.
Finally, in the context of SAARC, while there definitely seems to be a desire to bridge
differences, the failure of the South Asian University - a brainchild of Dr Singh -
illustrates the vast gap between vision and implementation in South Asia. The university
has no proper curriculum, the faculty selection is not transparent and there is no hostel to
accommodate students.

In view of all these issues, the question is, can the 17th SAARC summit be different, or
has it been just another talkfest?

Tridivesh Singh Maini is an Associate Fellow with The Observer Research Foundation.

Courtesy: Futures Direction International

COMMENTARIES DEFENCE AND SECURITY INDIA

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS NEIGHBOURHOOD NEIGHBOURHOOD

NEIGHBOURHOOD STRATEGIC STUDIES