The third round begins

But substantive agreements on eight recognized disputes have eluded. Pakistani ministers and commentators say India has not budged an inch. Basic position remains what it was in 2003. CBMs are a different kettle of fish. India has not given any concession in any of its earlier positions. There is ballyhoo in Pakistan about Musharraf regime being too flexible; many accuse the Pakistan president of having retreated from the old principled stand: plebiscite under UN auspices. This is not true.

Doubtless, Pakistan was disappointed by recent Indian remarks on Balochistan. The president was "annoyed" and "disappointed." Also true that president has been thinking outside the box and has shown himself to be very flexible in formulating ever new proposal on Kashmir, almost in a rapid fire fashion. Look at the realities on the ground?

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The prime minister provides background music: Pakistan will not permit India free trade or goods transit through Pakistan or allow Indian investors in Pakistan, or free travel by common people. These things are contingent on India providing satisfaction on Kashmir. This is as solid an immobility as India's. Pakistan is simply not flexible, except verbally. Even on Kashmir, Islamabad has not formally given up the old stance. Musharraf is merely suggesting, more or less off-hand, various ideas about a possible Kashmir settlement. Objectively, both sides have preferred the situation that resulted from the 2002 crisis to any agreed change. They are happy to keep calibrated tensions alive.

Given the profound failure of foregoing rounds, it is hard to be optimistic about the third. What are the reasons of this failure? Factually, the ruling political classes in the two countries are moving toward different goals. In India there is clarity: it is a big country and wants to play a big role; it wants to become a global military power so that it can influence others and to obtain possible benefits.

In Pakistan there is confusion. Where is the present regime taking Pakistan? Is it going anywhere in particular? Being a military regime, it merely wants to survive. Even earlier there was no certainty about the goal being pursued. Ziaul Haq wanted an Islamic dispensation. He probably wanted Pakistan to become a leader of OIC, as did Z.A. Bhutto, who also conceived of a prominent role for it in the third world fraternity. The earliest ascertainable goal of Muslim League governments in 1940s was to unite the Muslim world and hopefully to become its leader. At present there is no clear objective or aim for national endeavour.

One conclusion is inescapable for an impartial observer: political classes in both India and Pakistan are quite happy as things stand. Neither is ready for basic change. The bureaucracies of both countries are in clover vis-a-vis bilateral relations. Every citizen has to humbly beg for a visa. Traders need specific permissions. Bureaucratic control and influence is increasing by the day as the world shrinks and need for contacts multiply. They both fear more cultural exchanges and actually discourage free travel by the common people, though they do not admit it. These bureaucracies act tough toward the common people. They are flexible enough for opinion leaders and prominent people of the other country. As for common people, they must wait for so many weeks or months for a reply, if they are lucky. The bureaucrats are happy enough without large-scale cultural exchanges or true normality.

It seems that the governments and political classes in both countries are being led by invisible forces. These prosper on hostile attitudes and contrary policies; frequent military tensions serve their interests well. Indeed they actually profit from tensions. Elsewhere they are known as industrial-military complexes or simply vested interests. Clearly the ruling classes stand to become ever more prosperous with the present policies of both states. Their chief aim is to militarize: to become militarily stronger in either country. Military tensions are good for all businesses.

There is a conundrum here: Unless free travel, free trade, transit trade and more cultural exchanges take place, natural trust in each other will continue to elude. Without substantial mutual trust the disputes cannot be resolved. This mistrust is bolstered by old and hostile attitudes and different purposes. The other part of the conundrum is: so long as the present situation lasts, free trade, free travel, transit trade and cultural exchanges cannot take place; these are the very things that are not desired for reinforcing the hostile attitudes and differing purposes. Besides, increasing defence spending directly benefits the vested interests in either country.

The two governments are now part of the problem. Resolution of disputes is desired for encouraging trade and cultural exchanges so that both people can become materially better off and culturally enriched. But hostile attitudes and policies prevent those objectives. The question is why not change this reality? The answer is everything is possible if requisite effort is made. But effort by whom? The governments have tried and have moved in circles. They are back at the point they started from.

The real answer is, however, simple. It is the ordinary citizens of the two countries who have to conceive a new politics that aims at material welfare, happiness and cultural enrichment of all the peoples. The new politics has to specifically extend and deepen the democracy everywhere. Politics must sharply focus on a more active role by the common man. Each government must be forced to focus on all the rights of citizens. The aim should be that the citizen should survive in good health and be educated and employed. Jobs for all is the main means -- in short Social Security for all in both countries.

One is conscious that South Asian countries are poor and populous. Jobs for all seem like a dream. But it may not be. Indians have already introduced a legally enforceable "employment guarantee" scheme. In the next three years it will cover much of the country, if partially. It is a first small step on the road to Social Security for all. Even this small step is commendable. The purpose of the state should change from power politics (throwing one's weight around) to enabling the people to be free, materially better off with more consumption of food and clothing and some leisure for the population.

Let the country make economic and social progress through better health and education services. Ultimate end can only be cultural enrichment. Each state should necessarily follow policies of reconciliation and de-militarization by sharply reducing military spending. Defence budgets must come down in both countries. Where democracy does not exist -- as in Nepal and Maldives -- and where it is partial or defective -- Bangladesh and Pakistan -- it must be made real and constantly be extended and deepened.

One last word. A lot of mischief is played by the word stability. What stability? The world is today organized in a most inequitable manner. A few great powers throw their weight around and call the shots even inside the UN. Should these inequities be stabilized? The world must be made more equitable and more law abiding. But by whom? Again, by common people in all the states. The need is for a less militarized world and foreign policies of all the major countries should not be about balances of power. Instead they should be about more economic growth and better distribution.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.