Indo-Pak Diplomacy on Track-II: The Road Ahead ?

The Indo-Pak affair has been one of the heated and the most deliberated relationships since the inception of both the nations. The rocky equations shared by the nuclear warheads is premised on the incidents that occurred pre-partition and the existing unresolved issues such as the Kashmir conflict, proxy attacks, and many more. The heads of both the countries have met on several occasions to set right and bring to normal the situations across the borders. However, the impacts of such meets have been minuscule and not much has been derived by such formal talks. The primary reason for the ineffectiveness of such diplomatic talks is the incoherency and shaky ambitions of the nations. The static relationships are a product of the rigid and unclear positions that the representatives of the State showcase during the course of deliberations.

In the ambit of confrontation between the two nuclear armed neighbours, it underpins the need to have effective talks, and such steps could possibly happen when genuine people-to-people exchanges happen, in order to ensure a long-lasting peace to ensue between the two polarised ‘nuclear neighbours’. Therefore, when formal talks have retained minimal impact in the strengthening process of the Indo-Pak relations, informal talks were effectuated to achieve the same.Such people-to-people exchange carried out to pose an impact on the official decision-makers, is known as Track Two diplomatic talks, or in other words, ‘Interactive Conflict Resolution’.The concept of Track Two Diplomacy has its roots from the Western Countries, when the non-official members of the society were utilised to bring about an impact on cross-border relations during the Cold-war era, between the United States and the Soviet Union. 

Track-II talks is the new bridge that brings the members on the either sides of the borders to concur at one given place. Often, unofficial talks carried out in the form of Track-II have proven to be more fruit-bearing than the official ones. Track-II talks are carried out between the members of the academic fields, researchers, retired officials of the government or the defence or even the intelligence. These talks act as a catalyst to produce a conducive atmosphere for the betterment of the situations and tensions that exist between the two states.

There are several Track Two talks that have been held between India and Pakistan, the prominent ones being the Neemrana dialogue that took place at Neemrana, Rajasthan, India between the members of India and Pakistan, under the auspicious of the United States Information Service (USIS) in 1990. It was later joined by American Foundations and German Non-Governmental Organizations. There have also been several other instances of Track Two diplomacy aimed at Indo-Pak relations, such as the Chaophraya Dialogue, the WISCOMP Annual Workshop, the Pugwash Conferences, the Ottawa Dialogue and so on. The aforementioned Track Two dialogues have substantially contributed to deescalate the tensions between India and Pakistan. It would also be apt to point out that there exist more than twelve highly institutionalized Track Two groups, as well as over twenty other people-to-people exchange programmes operating between the two nuclear powers, with both internal and external funding. 

Similarly, the Ottawa Dialogue organised by the University of Ottawa and the Atlantic Council at Bangkok aimed at confidence building between the two nuclear war-heads, and to provide for a conducive room for strengthening ties between the two countries.

However, the crux of the matter remains - whether the nature of Track Two talks carried out between the two nuclear warheads is appropriate or does it demand any reforms? On a primary note, it would be absurd to make a sweeping conclusion that the impacts of the track two talks carried out in the past have been null. On the one hand track two talks have nursed to keep the channels of communication open between the two countries in times of crisis, while on the other hand facilitated carrying out effective Track-I diplomatic talks; alongside they have also effectively contributed to curtain the enemy images of each other. Despite these positive effects of Track Two dialogue, implementation of such dialogues has been miniscule, which in a way would nullify the purpose of such talks. For instance, in the Neemrana Dialogue carried out between India and Pakistan, India went on vouching for the various aspects of terrorism, border and inter-state trade, while Pakistan on the other hand looked only for the ideological differences. Such incoherence of mindsets of the two parties failed to develop any pro-active changes between the two. Similarly, at the Ottawa Dialogue, both Pakistan and India had discussed and deliberated on the aspects of crisis management, control and escalation. However, such conclusions have failed to appear on ground, and incidents of 26/11 and Pathankot attacks could be apt example to substantiate the same.

Therefore, in the prevailing status quo, there ought to be an overhauling of the modus operandi of the track two dialogues that is active in Indo-Pak equations. Some of the immediate regulations that could be effectuated to amplify the scope of track two dialogues in Indo-Pak relations are as follows:

(i) The Government of India ought to take the scope and ambit of track two dialogues on par with track one diplomacy. At the pre-text, it is very obvious that the importance levied on Track-II talks is at a lower level, when compared to the official talks or the back-channel communications. However, it is imperative to realise that the Track-II talks or informal meetings act as a catalyst to conduct effective formal talks between the heads of the State. Therefore, having a well structured informal stimulation between the members of both the nations is very essential. And such informal talks would take appropriate shape only if the State Machinery/ Government at New Delhi chalks out appropriate guidelines and a chart that would facilitate the members of the Track-II talks to take the ambitions of the government in the right direction.

(ii) The agenda of discussions involved in track two dialogue processes ought to pillared on a single theme and must be carried out in a structured fashion. Very often, due to the relations pillared on various trans-national issues, there would be possibility that the talks would head in a completely alien direction and ultimately fetch no results at the end of the day. Therefore, in the light of the constrained time frame during which such talks are carried out, it is very essential to set a particular agenda for every meeting, and make them effective, than having a layman’s talk in the process.

(iii) The conclusions drawn during the course of track two dialogues ought to be binding on the respective governments and such positions should be acknowledged by the appropriate authorities. One of the major drawbacks of Track-II talks is that, it lacks appropriate legal force. Such informal talks have been taken for granted and the conclusions drawn in the process have not been observed by the nations. Therefore, it is essential to establish that the affirmations observed by the members in the course of the Track-Ii dialogue process ought to be observed by the respective States, in toto. 

(iv) Track two dialogue process should have participation of the stakeholders of the set agenda, per se, it should have participate of the citizens or residents belonging to that territory, which is under discussions and deliberation. It is to be noted that the ultimate objective of such Track-II dialogue processes is to ensure that the relations between the two nations are strengthened and peace and order is ensued across the borders. Therefore, the participation of the members of the particular community residing in a region across the borders would add more credibility and make talks much effective. As it is said, ‘Only the wearer knows where the shoes pinches’.

(v) On the other hand, it should also see participate of members of different walks of the society, such as, lawyers, trade unions, labour unions, lawyers, religious heads, and so on, as the circumstances may demand.

(vi) Track two talks must be initiated from the grass root levels, such as in smaller towns and villages across the borders.

Henceforth, in the light of the aforementioned measures and regulations,it could be averred that the gravity of the track two diplomatic talks would amplify, providing a considerable impact on the straining equations in the Indo-Pak affair, rather than just being a ‘Chai pe Charcha’ of no significance. 

The Author was an Intern at CLAWS.Views expressed are personal.