How to save the peace process?

Uncalled-for expulsions
Imtiaz Alam
The News, August 8, 2006
The writer is editor current affairs, The News, and editor South Asian Journal

There are certain elements on both sides who are bent upon spoiling the atmospherics in the subcontinent against the backdrop of the 7/11 killings in Mumbai and the breakdown of the composite-dialogue process. The way the expulsion of an Indian diplomat, Deepak Kaul, from Pakistan has been sought by Islamabad and the tit-for-tat reaction from New Delhi to expel Pakistani diplomat Syed Mohammed Rafique Ahmed reminds one of the bad memories of 1998 and 2003, when scores of diplomats were expelled. In the subcontinent diplomatic rows are handled like criminal prosecution and blown out of proportion to allow a chain of action and reaction. A bad habit to settle scores and blame-game should not be allowed to further poison the atmosphere, which needs to be cooled down.

Pakistan and India are known in the world for their shoddy treatment of each other's diplomats. The continuing animosity often makes the job of diplomats from both sides quite hazardous. Without exception, every diplomat from India and Pakistan is considered a spy or agent of the respective country's intelligence agency. And those in social or journalistic contact with Indian diplomats in Islamabad and Pakistani diplomats in New Delhi are suspected of being "enemy agents." Given the security dimension overwhelming the diplomatic mission in the subcontinent, the job of diplomats becomes even more cumbersome when intelligence sleuths override the diplomat. Even selection for posting is usually made on the diplomat being a tough guy towards the other side and the Indian desk in the Pakistani Foreign Office and the Pakistani desk in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs are mostly allotted to known hawks.

The security fixation is so overwhelming that many foreign secretaries have been diplomats formerly posted on the either side of the border. The selection of information officers for posting is also considered on the basis of his/her hawkish views. And invariably the joint secretary handling Pakistan or India is selected on the criterion of how much he or she dislikes the other country. Not realising how important the two diplomatic posts for information and assessment are on ether side, positions where you need to have very capable, objective and the most sophisticated analysts and diplomats, people are appointed who are on a mission of promoting enmity, or are made to encourage animosity. Besides intelligence reports, most important source of information on either country are our diplomatic missions while the job of the two missions is made impossible by the encirclement of the respective high commissions by intelligence agencies.

The diplomats' interaction with the respective civil societies, politicians, experts and journalists is very limited and almost impossible. When the job of diplomats is made so precarious and difficult, they tend to withdraw into the confines of their world and produce most far-fetched and negative reports on each country, which, rather than help, misguide the administrations back home. I have had first- hand experience of confronting such negative messages regarding SAFMA's track of media diplomacy for peace. When Indian members of parliament were to come for a first Indo-Pak parliamentary conference in Islamabad in January 1998, the message was most negative. Then-prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had to advise the MPs not to go to Islamabad on the basis of reports that he had received from the Indian High Commission in Islamabad, which was misinformed by staff in the Pakistani Foreign Office. But later, thanks to political intervention, the situation was cleared both in Islamabad and New Delhi to allow that conference to take place.

The job of diplomats in the subcontinent is so tricky that they always remain extra-cautious and are fearful of taking innovative initiatives. Instead of being favourably treated, they are not only maltreated but also forced to withdraw into the confines of the high commission's walls. In the past, some very able diplomats were expelled or asked to return.

What makes the job of diplomats on both sides even more difficult is that there are travel restrictions on their movement. And those who meet them are followed by the intelligence services and harassed. Moreover, visa clearance is not with the high commissions. It is with the home/interior ministries that in turn hand over the job to the intelligence agencies. Although Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz has done a commendable job of liberalising the visa regime, it is still very restrictive for India citizens. And it is the same for Pakistanis who want to go to India. Despite a commendable decision by the SAARC Council of Ministers' meeting in Dhaka in February to include journalists among the category of those already exempt from visa, the home/interior ministries in Islamabad, New Delhi and Dhaka are not letting that decision be implemented.

It's time to stop the spree of expulsion of diplomats and not make the world laugh at us. As the efforts to cool down the atmosphere and bring the composite dialogue process back on rail increase, it is advisable that both sides avoid indulging in blame game. The meeting between the two foreign secretaries on the sidelines of the SAARC meetings in Dhaka has gone very well and the two sides realise the need to keep the dialogue process going. SAFMA has laudably decided to take a peace march on 14th August from Yadgar-e-Pakistan in Lahore, to Jallianwalla Bagh in Amritsar. It is hoped that both administrations will let the civil societies play their role in bringing back the dialogue process back on track. Hopefully, President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will meet in Havana to break the deadlock and break new ground to push it forward.