India's focus on terror buries composite dialogue with Pakistan

NEW DELHI: The lack of interaction during the passage of Indian and Pakistani delegations through New York recently underlines a significant resetting of the trouble-prone relationship with the Modi government burying the stuttering composite dialogue process and focusing firmly and unremittingly on terrorism.

India has refused to allow Pakistan to amend the sequencing of the Ufa process by the insertion of Kashmir to the agreed menu of discussing terrorism that India sees as the central issue between the two countries.

Pakistan's reference to the Ufa joint statement's preparedness to discussing all outstanding issues to mean talks on Kashmir is a carefully selective reading as it skips the concrete steps the two sides agreed on.

Stating that prime ministers Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif agreed to cooperate on eliminating terrorism, the statement commits India and Pakistan to a meeting of NSAs to "discuss all issues connected to terrorism". It also speaks of a meeting of chiefs of BSF and Pakistan Rangers, release of fishermen, facilitating religious tourism and expediting the 26/11 Mumbai trial in Pakistan.

The cumulative message of India's actions is that the composite dialogue process is all but over. Terrorism is just one of the eight points and is linked with drug trafficking and in any case the process, dating to 1997, has simply got nowhere.
The proposed NSA-level Delhi talks collapsed with Pakistan's insistence on Kashmir being on the table once Sharif faced a backlash over his "concession" of accepting terrorism-centered talks with the Army raising the red flag.

In New York last month, a bid to re-engage stumbled at the same hurdle. India made it clear that it was not keen on a foreign-minister level interaction that will allow Pakistan to immediately claim that Kashmir has been discussed.

No Indian government can claim Kashmir is not a relevant issue, but Modi's approach makes it evident that this will happen only after a credible effort to address terrorism. The dossiers Pakistan presented to the UN on India's alleged role in fomenting terrorism on its soil can be very well discussed by the NSAs.

From India's point of view, it is for the Sharif government to deal with the Army's agenda, as neither Pakistan's power structure nor radicalization of sections its society are likely to change in foreseeable future.

As things stand, Sharif seems to have caved in to the military's diktats, despite his presumed keenness to open the windows to economic cooperation with India and look for a political resolution of disputes.

Smart foreign policy is flexible and pragmatic. The current stance could change with circumstance. But the core objective of drawing clear and consistent red lines on terrorism is clear enough.