Today, even though there is no immediate threat of a war, relations between the two countries have deteriorated rapidly in 2013 over a series of border incidents and ceasefire violations that have shattered the hard-fought tranquillity agreement reached a decade ago. The season of hope that Nawaz Sharif ushered in when he was elected Prime Minister in May by promising a “New Beginning” with India, has dramatically and inexplicably descended to one of despair, anger and hostility with Parliaments of the two countries losing no time in passing resolutions condemning each other for the violence on the Line of Control (LoC). The two armies continue to exchange fire on a daily basis on the LoC.

The sense of déjà vu is overwhelming as the pendulum of relations between the two countries continues to oscillate between two extremes with metronomic regularity. Bouts of bloody war and brief periods of uneasy peace have characterised the relationship between the two countries since their violent Partition in 1947.

Start & stop

War between the two countries broke out soon after Independence over the accession of Kashmir to India. The Fifties were marked with battles in international forums over the Kashmir dispute and rejection of no-war pacts by India. War broke out again in the mid-Sixties with Pakistan making an ill-conceived bid to dismember Kashmir from India. A brief period of peace was restored after the Tashkent Agreement. Then the guns boomed again in the Seventies, resulting in the bloody partition of Pakistan in 1971 and the birth of Bangladesh, followed by the Simla Agreement to temper and guide bilateral relations.

Tensions escalated again in the Eighties between the two countries over possible Indian strikes against Pakistan’s growing nuclear capabilities and India taking control of dominating positions on the Siachen glacier. The decade ended with a spiralling of violence in Kashmir that India accused Pakistan of instigating. Apart from the 1990 crisis that I talked of earlier, the Nineties saw major upheavals with the two countries overtly demonstrating their nuclear capabilities by defiantly testing devices in the summer of 1998. That was followed by a dramatic new hope for peace with the Lahore Declaration in February 1999 which formalised the composite dialogue process, only to be shattered soon after by the Kargil War that pushed relations back to square one.

War clouds loomed again in the sub-continent at the dawn of the new century after the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament by terrorists that had links with Pakistan. There was a tense standoff between the two armies for close to two years till an agreement was reached to restart the dialogue process in 2004. That was followed by a flurry of talks, including back-channel negotiations that apparently made some headway on key issues, particularly Kashmir. But the 26/11 Mumbai attacks in 2008 again saw relations slide back. Then in 2011, there was an agreement to resume the dialogue, which saw some progress being made on trade and visa related issues before the recent crisis saw relations worsen.

Now on issues like terror and Kashmir, it is back to default positions, as it is for Siachen, Sir Creek and trade, even though a new government is in the saddle in Pakistan. The hardliners are out in India, saying that Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, shouldn’t even talk with Nawaz Sharif, his counterpart, in New York in September till Pakistan shows credible progress in reining in terror elements and speeding up the trial to convict the perpetrators of 26/11. To sum up, India and Pakistan have moved from fighting, to fighting and talking, then fighting about fighting, then talking about talking, then talking and fighting and now back to talking about talking.

The title of my lecture “New Beginnings, Old Endings?” ends with a question mark, and is not in the affirmative. Unlike Stephen Cohen, who has titled his new book on the India-Pakistan conundrum ‘Shooting for a Century,’ I do not believe that it may take till 2047 for us to live peacefully together. That I am afraid would be too late. In all likelihood we would have annihilated ourselves either through our nuclear weapons or by disintegration into warring states built on ethno-linguistic and religious lines — reverting back to the times preceding British rule.

In the brief but dismal sweep that I presented on relations between the two countries, it is not as if progress has not been made. I would rather look at the glass as half full than half empty. There are visible signs of thaw. There are now trains and buses moving across the borders with regularity. There is trading going on across the Kashmirs and Punjabs. There are more cultural exchanges and people-to-people contact than ever before.

In the new century, there is both a new India and a new Pakistan that instead of repeating history can change its course and thereby their collective destinies. I have as yet not given up hope that our people will enjoy the dividends of such a peace.

The big questions, though, remain. Many of these are dependent on the big shifts in power structures that the two countries have experienced or have been experiencing recently: Would Nawaz Sharif 3.0 rule be different from his first and second versions as Prime Minister? Would UPA-II get another chance as UPA-III, as Sonia Gandhi hoped recently? Or will a BJP-led coalition or a Third Front consisting of a motley crowd of regional parties capture power in the 2014 General Elections? What then are the implications or prospects for peace between India and Pakistan?

To come to the first question: Does India think Nawaz Sharif 3.0 would be any different? On the day of the elections, Nawaz Sharif invited me for breakfast at his house in Raiwind. Despite being in the eye of the electoral storm, he remained super-cool and confident of winning. Over a meal of plenty of fruit and cups of kahva, he outlined his priorities.

For Nawaz Sharif the biggest challenge was the dismal state of the Pakistan economy. The other big issue he said was internal security in his country, pointing out 40,000 lives had been lost to terrorism. When it came to relations with India, he told me, “We need to pick the threads from where we both left them in 1999. That was a defining moment and I think we will have to start the journey again from the same point.”

On the issue of asserting the supremacy of the civilian government over the army to ensure the past was not repeated, Nawaz Sharif’s reply was guarded but firm: “If all the institutions adhere to the Constitution, nothing will go wrong with this country. We have all learnt that lesson. My party firmly believes in the rule of the law and adhering to the Constitution and judiciary.”

Will Nawaz 3.0 work?

Nawaz 3.0 was laying out his priorities in a vastly different environment than what his first two terms as Prime Minister were. In his first term between1990 and 1993, Nawaz 1.0 was the army’s choice with right wing support as Prime Minister. He focused, as he claims, on ushering in economic reforms that India “copied”.

Between 1997 and 1999, Nawaz 2.0 confronted the nuclear question by making Pakistan's capability overt with a series of tests to match those done by India in 1998. He also asserted the PM’s supremacy over the Pakistan army and judiciary becoming the most powerful PM since Zulfikar Bhutto. But then there was the disastrous Kargil campaign, the coup and his ignominious exile to Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. As he told me when I met him in Jeddah in 2004 for his first major interview, “Vajpayee said that I had stabbed him in the back and he was absolutely right to think so. But then he did not know that my own general had stabbed me in the back.”

When I met Nawaz Sharif during the 2008 election, despite him having been in exile the PML-Q did surprising well and returned as a major force. Sharif was clear then that he wouldn’t topple the PPP-led government, though he did pull out from the coalition soon after. As Opposition leader, he did keep his word.

Shahbaz Sharif, his younger brother, performed exceptionally well as Chief Minister of Punjab as the recent polls had affirmed. Nawaz 3.0 is certainly wiser, telling me the lessons of life have taught him “humility” and “to be a go-getter”. I believe that Nawaz Sharif is sincere and in his relations with India he would like to exorcise the ghosts of Kargil that must be haunting him.

Meanwhile, it’s been a little over two months as Prime Minister and clearly Nawaz Sharif is struggling to assert himself. When David Cameron asked Sharif what his three top priorities were after he was sworn in as Prime Minister, he said, “Number one the economy, number two the economy, and number three the economy.”

When I interviewed Sartaj Aziz in May, the day after Nawaz Sharif’s victory, the former Pakistan finance minister told me that for the first time in Pakistan’s history its growth rate was below 3 per cent, down from the average of 5 per cent for the first 55 years. Compounded by a yearly population growth rate of 2 per cent, there was hardly any increase in per capita income. Worse, the previous government’s irresponsible fiscal management had seen the total debt balloon to (Pakistan) Rs 13 trillion. Now debt servicing consumed 50 per cent of the tax revenues.

If Pakistan has to meet its developmental objectives, it would have to attract loads of foreign investment or borrow heavily from the International Monetary Fund or privatise its loss-making public sector units. Or, do all of the above. It would require an internal situation that is stable and for investors to feel safe. For that peace with India would be an obvious imperative. Yet inexplicably we have seen relations with India deteriorate after Nawaz Sharif has come to power.

The Sharif government has been having a torrid time handling the internal security situation, with terror attacks or incidents of sectarian strife happening every day. The law and order situation in Karachi has descended to precarious levels. Sharif had told me he would secure Parliament support for a “multi-faceted and multi-pronged approach” to deal with internal terror groups and extremist elements. It is early days as yet, but it is apparent that more than Parliament he would need the backing of the army. For even as the government talked of a dialogue with these elements, a drone attack by the US bumped off a top Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP) leader, which experts believe must have been with inputs from the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

By far Nawaz Sharif's biggest challenge is to assert the supremacy of his civilian government over the Army and also take an activist higher judiciary along with him. With the Presidency he has played safe by taking a loyalist from Sindh, Mamnoon Hussain, to balance out the impression that the ruling PML-Q is a Punjab party with little pan-Pakistan support.

Army vs civilian supremacy

About the successor to the new Army chief, he had asserted that seniority would be the key before the elections, but since then has maintained a diplomatic silence. There was also talk of shortening the current chief’s tenure by announcing a successor. The outcome of all this speculation would determine whether Nawaz Sharif has established his clout on the military establishment. India has viewed the escalation of incidents on the LoC as a sign of the Pakistan Army asserting its turf in the new balance of power that is emerging. The army, according to analysts, is proclaiming its supremacy over foreign policy and internal security issues and wants Nawaz Sharif to concentrate on the economy and deliver there first.

The feeling among top Indian functionaries was that the Pakistan Army was not keen on Nawaz moving forward on relations with India at a quicker pace. That could partly explain why the new government has cooled off with regard to granting India the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status, with the new Finance Minister Muhammad Ishaq Dar stating that they would have to examine it again before taking a decision. Nawaz Sharif is also said to be close to the right wing parties and Hafiz Saeed operates out of Punjab, the state Nawaz’s PML-Q governs, with impunity.

India is concerned with the lack of continuity in terms of foreign policy whenever there is a regime change in Pakistan. During Pervez Musharraf's rule, India had invested a lot on back-channel talks between its interlocutor, the sagacious Satinder K. Lambah and Pakistan's Tariq Aziz. A near agreement was reached on the Kashmir question but on this issue also the new Pakistan government claims it has to update itself on the talks. Indian analysts hope that it means the new government wants to put its own stamp on key issues but would move forward on them.

The silver lining for India is that Nawaz Sharif has maintained a politically correct approach, expressing sadness at the incidents on the border and maintaining in his letter to the Indian Prime Minister on the eve of Independence Day that “I look forward to our meeting in New York to discuss issues of mutual interest. It is our desire to turn a fresh page in our bilateral relations.”

In a recent interview with a British newspaper he used a similar metaphor when asked whether the army was on the same page as he was concerning relations with India and internal security issues. He said, “We’re all on one page. There’s only one page and that is the page of the Government of Pakistan.”

While Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and the ISI are seen by India as the mastermind of the recent LoC machinations, there are those in Pakistan like former army chief General Jehangir Karamat who feel that the army has changed visibly in the past five years. General Karamat told me in May, “The army has consciously and deliberately kept itself out of political decision-making and political situations, which is a very good sign. I think this is going to be Kayani’s legacy when he leaves — that he worked for better civil-military relations and for democracy in the country and made a very positive contribution.”

There is little doubt that Kayani has restored the prestige of the Pakistan Army after its credibility took a severe beating during the final years of Musharraf’s reign and the humiliation over the killing of Osama bin Laden on Pakistan’s territory. Importantly, the army allowed a civilian government to complete its full five-year term and make way for a democratic transition — again a first in the country.

The Pakistan army is no longer seen as a government in waiting and Karamat sees the chance of another coup in future as receding. The army continues to be under pressure though to tackle the tense internal security situation. Karamat reiterates the need to develop a national security strategy, something that got him into trouble as army chief and was one of the reasons that led to his resignation during Sharif’s second stint as Prime Minister. Noted journalist Ahmed Rashid concurs with Karamat on the need for a national security strategy.

New balance

Nawaz Sharif has recently talked of formulating such a strategy and has constituted a Cabinet Committee on National Security which he heads to work out the framework and implement it. The outcome will be watched keenly, as it would indicate the new balance between the civilian government and the army.

Indian experts though remain sceptical about whether the army has truly reformed itself and will be content to play second fiddle to a civilian government in matters of foreign policy and internal security. As one Indian expert told me, “All this talk of waiting for a stable civilian government is hogwash. We all know that the army calls the shots and it has been a stable organisation for decades.”

While these remain the concerns of India, the current UPA government has other major issues to worry about that prevent it from making any big moves towards Pakistan. Much like in Pakistan, there is an activist Supreme Court that has constantly put the government on the mat. As has the Comptroller and Auditor General, which has exposed several scams that have left the government reeling.

UPA-II has steadily lost its alliance partners and now lives from Parliament session to Parliament session by balancing out the opposing forces among parties that are averse to seeing the BJP come to power. Economic growth has fallen to 5 per cent levels, inflation is high, the rupee drops to new lows every day and the stock market is showing lack of investor confidence with frequent crashes. Foreign Direct Investment is thinning out and international credit agencies that once looked at India as a bright star have steadily downgraded the ratings.

Meanwhile, with the splitting of Andhra Pradesh into two states, the UPA government finds itself in a pickle. Maoist rebels continue to strike with disconcerting regularity, as the ‘Red’ menace continues to be the biggest internal security threat that the country faces despite Central and state government efforts to rein it in. And after a couple of years of peace, there are worrying signs of unrest in Jammu and Kashmir that again point to a Pakistan hand.

Unstable coalition in India?

For the UPA government, the prognosis is not good, with recent opinion polls showing that they will be voted out of power in the next General Election in 2014. But then nor do these give the BJP a majority despite the rise of the controversial Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. Indications are that India may end up with a ragtag coalition that is unlikely to be stable or focused.

This would also be at the back of Nawaz Sharif’s mind as well as the Pakistan army as it contemplates re-looking at relations with India. Nawaz Sharif may think it not wise to invest too much in the UPA government and may decide to wait till there is political clarity after the 2014 General Election. India did the same by hitting the pause button till the results of the May 2013 General Election in Pakistan. While Manmohan Singh continues to push for good relations with Pakistan despite the recent LoC incidents, his hands are tied because of the weakness of the UPA coalition and the strident opposition from the BJP and other parties, which makes a political consensus for bettering relations with Pakistan difficult at the moment.

Despite all this, I believe that Manmohan Singh should talk with Nawaz Sharif in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. I disagree with the 40 Indian experts who signed a statement that there should be no talks till Pakistan delivers on containing terror and brings to book the 26/11 perpetrators as it would be seen as a “sign of appeasement” and “weakness”.

The cost of not engaging with each other is high for both countries as it would send all kinds of wrong signals to the world that would be detrimental to both. If India doesn’t want to engage directly with Pakistan then busybodies like the US and UN would come forward to be interlocutors. Also at an international forum like the UN it would look odd if India refused to speak to Pakistan, as it would only exacerbate concerns that the two are back on the brink of war, which may dissuade foreign investors from coming in. Talks though may end up with Manmohan Singh reiterating India’s concerns about terror to Nawaz Sharif, with very little forward movement on other key issues like trade.

Restore tranquillity on the LoC

Indian experts who support talks are also conscious of not loading too much till Nawaz Sharif settles down and asserts control over internal forces that have a powerful say in Pakistan, particularly the army. But they are clear that for significant progress they would first like the new Pakistan government to ensure tranquillity restored on the LoC apart from significant forward movement on the 26/11 case and visible efforts to rein in the terror groups, particularly those led by Hafiz Saeed. Pakistan must understand how angered and anguished the Indian people feel about the lack of a speedy trial and punishment for the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack. The Indian approach, as I understand it now, is “Verify and then Trust” rather than “Trust and Verify.”

I would now like to narrate a few anecdotal incidents that illustrate the forces that would drive the narrative in future and why it is imperative that the two countries make peace with each other. When I walked across from the Wagah border to the Pakistan immigration complex on Wednesday the imperatives were obvious. I was bathed in sweat in five minutes as there was no power and the few fans that creaked only added to the humidity. At the immigration desk, there were two young lady officers, who processed my visa and when they heard I was giving a talk at the Jinnah Institute, one said, “Why are we at each other’s throats again? Please push the cause for peace between the two countries.”

On the five-hour drive from Lahore to Islamabad, I couldn’t but help notice how similar our cultures were. I had driven from Chandigarh to Amritsar, crossing cities that evoke nostalgia among Pakistanis — Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Kapurthala and, of course, Amritsar. When I entered Pakistan, I found that the landscape was similar, probably a little greener here, given Lahore’s extensive canal systems.

On the way, we stopped for a meal short of the turning to Sargoda and the dhaba too had no power — they had a battery back-up for a music player that belted out deafening Punjabi songs, much like the Indian dhabas. The menu was similar, though the food was cooked with more oil on this side of the border. The Punjabi spoken here was no different, including the swear words! There were flashy SUVs that people on both sides of the divide like to show off when they commute.

Young and restless

My taxi driver, Nadeem, a 26-year-old, had the same query as the immigration officers — why don’t relations improve between the two countries so that we could help each other develop. He rattled off the Indian movies he had seen, including Chennai Express that has just been released in India, his favourite actor being Nana Patekar and the role he played in the movie on the 26/11 attack.

Nadeem said his grandmother talked nostalgically of how Hindus and Muslims lived in harmony before Partition and participated in each other’s festivals. He wanted to know if Indian roads were as good as the motorway we were driving on and said he was very keen to visit India, lamenting that he had no relatives on that side of the border to sponsor a trip for him.

Nadeem’s immediate priority was to keep his job so that he could look after his ageing parents, his wife and a young son. He proudly showed me the picture of his four-year-old on his cell phone and said he was looking for a good private school to put him in. And he hoped the new Nawaz Sharif government would deliver on its promises, particularly on improving the dismal power situation and education facilities.

One can ask: Are these two conversations relevant to the topic on hand? Yes — because both, the young immigration officers and Nadeem, are in many ways representative of the new, young Pakistan that is emerging. Like in India, they have become a substantial demographic bulge in Pakistan’s population statistics. Of Pakistan’s 180 million, close to 67 per cent are below 30 years of age — the group which Nadeem and the immigration officers represent.

Pakistani scholar Mooed Yusuf, who did an analysis of youth surveys in 2011, found that they opined that it was inflation and unemployment that topped the list of the single-most important issue facing Pakistan. Terrorism came in a distant third. Polls in India have come up with similar results, where the young, which constitute a majority of the population, talking of rising prices and job availability as their biggest concerns.

It is this sizeable aspiration class in both countries who will increasingly determine the discourse in their respective countries. Politicians can only ignore their concerns and outlook at their own peril. The young are hard-focused on the economy and development, wanting better schools and colleges, housing and transport, water supply and roads, incomes and consumer goods.

All this would require both countries to grow annually at 8 to 10 per cent. For that peace on the streets and with its neighbours is essential. Since neither India nor Pakistan generate enough government revenues to fund the infrastructure growth, both would require substantial doses of private investment, domestic and foreign. These would not come if there was internal strife, external aggression and a state of uncertainty.

Since both countries have sizeable domestic markets and an exploding middle-class, it makes sense for them to ensure that trade among themselves and in the region expands considerably. Consumers would get cheaper goods and the respective domestic industries would grow, providing more jobs, thereby becoming a win-win for both countries by tackling the two most important issues: prices and jobs.

Working towards peace

Nawaz Sharif himself voiced such an opinion in a recent interview when he said. “The money wasted in defence should have gone into social sectors. It should have gone into education; it should have gone into health care. And I hope that both countries realise the mistakes that we have made. I think the main objective of making peace with each other is to get rid of all that.”

The argument for Pakistan not granting Most Favoured Nation status to India for fear that Indian companies would overwhelm Pakistan business appears unfounded. Several leading Pakistan businessmen believe trade with India would in fact be highly beneficial. Mian Mohammed Mansha, who runs and owns Pakistan’s biggest conglomerate, the Nishat Group and is possibly the country’s richest man, told me in an interview in May, “We don’t believe that we would be swamped by Indian business. Pakistan, in fact, has stronger institutions, like banking, which is one of the healthiest in the world. We have certain logistical advantages too, like for cement production we have limestone. On the manufacturing side, if we are at a disadvantage, then we can fix it by sitting down with India and telling them that certain tariffs will gradually come down in five years to give our people time.”

Mansha also pointed out, “Please try to remember that every time trade is opened up between countries, it is the smaller country that benefits — in Mexico, Canada and Europe we have seen the same thing, as with India and China. So the impression is not correct. I feel that we need to compete more in the interest of our consumers, and maybe we can get Indian partners. We could get investment from India too.”

He was even willing to do business with Gujarat as he was impressed with the way Narendra Modi runs the state, saying, “I am one of the few people who advocate looking at Gujarat. Mr Modi has done a miracle with an 11 per cent annual growth rate. I would suggest we learn what they have done there. Some day maybe, if certain concessions need to be given to Pakistan, and Mr Modi is the Prime Minister, chances are he would be in a position to give more concessions because he has always been viewed as a hardliner.”

Business first, disputes later

The other argument that experts in Pakistan put out is that if business ties improve with India, as does people-to-people contact, then the Kashmir issue would become blunted and diluted. Also, that all talk of MFN status was only a ploy of India to seduce Pakistan through the wallet. But that perception is incorrect if you see the outcome of relations between India and China. India pushed its border dispute aside with China and the two concentrated on other aspects of the relationship, including trade (as advocated by the then Chinese supremo Deng Xiaoping). Today China is one of India’s largest trading partners with trade having grown to $ 66 billion last year. India and China continue to have skirmishes and tension on the border, but are able to deal with it more maturely.

The other incident that stayed in my mind was when I was asked to talk to students of Aitchison College in Lahore when I visited Pakistan in 2011. The students didn’t ask me questions about enmity between the two countries and the Kashmir dispute. Instead, most of them wanted to know how India made its economy grow in the 1990s. I had to tell him that India faced much the same situation as Pakistan faces today. There was sectarian strife, the economy had tanked and there was little expectation from a coalition government. But that gave the impetus for India to boldly go ahead with reforms, and the rest is history. In the young, Pakistan now has the constituency to launch a major economic reform process and I think there is no one better than Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to do this.

There are two other game-changers that have come to the fore in the recent times. India and Pakistan have vibrant news media that put the government on the mat and are widely watched. Media freedom is evident in Pakistan, where channels are unafraid of criticising the ruling dispensation though they continue to be cautious when it comes to the army. The media has also made the governments in both countries more vigilant and accountable.

The mass protests in India over corruption and the recent rape incidents are indicative of how easily public opinion can be galvanised, as was indicated in 2008 in Pakistan when the lawyers went on strike and brought Pervez Musharraf’s regime to the brink. We saw how social media fuelled the Arab spring and how Wikileaks exposes shook the US and governments across the world.

The Net-worked age

More importantly in the sub-continent, grandmother tales of Partition, doctored history in textbooks and traditional media reports on strife will recede as the main source of information for the new generation. The big change that the Internet highway has already brought to our lives is instant connectivity anytime, anywhere and anyplace. Info-tech icon Nandan Nilekani terms it “the death of distance”. It is also the lifeline of the young who connect to the world wherever they may be.

The boundaries that nations so assiduously built around them are steadily and rapidly being dismantled. Each of us has multiple identities: our physical self, the ones we keep for our office and our virtual identity on the Net. When Winston Churchill talked of the “empires of the future” being “the empire of the minds”, the Internet didn’t exist. But Churchill’s words are becoming reality. It is a revolution that is happening in fast-forward and will influence the discourse and narratives on key issues that determine our life and relations between countries as a new age of enlightenment unfurls.