The charade of Indo-Pak peace talks begins again.  Once again Pakistan displays its Machiavellian mastery of forcing large democracies to sit at the table with it, when it has historically proven itself to be antagonistic to their interests. One must laud Pakistan’s skill at this game. How else can one describe a situation where America’s 14 year effort in Afghanistan has been completely defeated and America has had to pay and bribe Pakistan for the privilege?

The resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue is historic. If Narendra Modi’s government could be made to climb down, it leaves little hope that any imaginable government could in the future force or induce Pakistan from its historic course.

The Aman ki Asha types in Delhi, who despise Modi for a variety of reasons, are ecstatic. For them, the resumption of dialogue is the return of sanity and the defeat of nationalistic belligerence in India. It is simply all too surreal to comprehend.

The delusion nurtured by the liberals in India about Pakistan is that talking is always better than not talking.  They offer the Delhi/Lahore bus service, mutual trade, the new Visa regime as validation of keeping talking. The stupidity of this is simply mind bending. Apart from seeing the bus speeding with police escorts on the way to Delhi, there is no tangible change in the relationship between the countries because of the bus at all.  The new visa regime hasn’t changed anything as far as the ease of getting a visa to visit Pakistan goes. The bilateral trade remains pitiful. And yet, these miserable achievements are reason enough for India to want to keep talking.

Perhaps in 20 years, the talks will have gotten so far as to introduce a second bus service, that time between Bombay and Karachi, and the next generation of Aman ki Asha activists will be ecstatic at having “proved” the virtue of keeping talking.

There is cause to be sceptical about Pakistan’s intention to resolve anything with a give and take so as to enable the relations between India and Pakistan to progress.  Ending the dispute on Kashmir with a status quo settlement? Cooperation on nuclear weapons to remove the threat of nuclear exchange? Pipelines across its territory into India, that will never be under threat of being shut off? Dismantling the organizations of militant jihad against India? Bringing perpetrators of terrorism against India to justice? Cooperation for a stable secure Afghanistan? Curtailing smuggling of fake Indian currency? Permitting free people to people engagement through free trade and cultural exchange and so bring about dissolution of the hard divide between Indians and Pakistanis? Ending shelling at the line of control that provides coverage to infiltrating militants? Curtailment of teaching hatred against India and the Hindus in schools?

There is no reason to believe that Pakistan would seriously reconsider on any of these fronts, except perhaps agreeing to temporary ceasefires at the LoC.  And yet, here we are, sitting down to resume the dialogue.

India ought to ensure that this is not going to be an impotent return to an empty status quo. Mr. Modi may have decided that Pakistan has left returning to a barren negotiating table the best possible choice for India, but it ought not to be a return a previous status quo.  Mr. Modi ought to ensure that the seats in the legislature for Gilgit and Baltistan are filled. It is far from established that the people of Gilgit and Baltistan are satisfied under Pakistani Dominion. Legally, unless the plebiscite is held, or some other arrangement is made, the entire state of J&K is acceded to India and India owes the people of Gilgit and Baltistan a fair representation in Parliament so that the voices of the people there can be heard in legislative forums other than those of Pakistan. 

India ought to demand free access and association of the people of Gilgit and Baltistan with Indian officials, as Pakistan is granted to the Hurriyet leaders.

The pressure to return to the negotiating table with nothing achieved is likely to have at least some element of American pressure. It has been said that Pakistan is a country that negotiates with a gun to its own head. It’s probable that Pakistan has told the US that it’s unable to provide the results the latter wants because of the hostility being created by India, and the US has in turn pressured India to resume the dialogue. If so, Pakistan has once again played the same old game successfully, leaving the Americans and Indians both climbing down from their determination to make Pakistan accountable for its behavior.

Mr. Modi ought to ensure that the cards of the game change for the next round.  On this hinges the question of whether liberal democracies can handle Pakistan.