Every Indian Prime Minister, on assuming office, attempts to normalize relations with Pakistan. However, being a democracy, India seeks to interact with its elected counterparts although it has made exceptions when Pakistan is headed by a dictator, which has been the case for over half its history. It has never attempted to speak to its army leadership, as it does not consider it democratically acceptable. This is possibly one of the reasons no talks have ever moved forward. Every other visitor to Pakistan does a photo-op in Islamabad and has serious discussions in Rawalpindi. Within Pakistan, there are different power centres, each seeking control of the nation’s policies.

The army desires control over foreign and security policies, especially when concerning India, Afghanistan, US and China. Any attempt to change this status quo has met with resistance, the removal of Nawaz Sharif being proof. The Pakistan army’s power stems from enmity towards India and annexing Kashmir, which it considers its jugular vein. Hence, it seeks to stall talks. There were four attempts at peace by India in recent times, each stymied by the deep state. In February 1999, PM Vajpayee made his famous trip to Lahore. He signed the Lahore declaration, hoping to open a new chapter in Indo-Pak relations. This was followed by Kargil in May that year. All peace efforts went into the dustbin.

In May 2001, Vajpayee made a second attempt at the Agra summit with Musharraf, the Pakistani dictator and mastermind behind Kargil. No declaration was signed; however, the summit was followed by two major attacks. The first was the attack on the J and K legislature building in Srinagar on 1 October, leaving 38 dead and the Parliament attack in December, which claimed 14 lives. It ended Vajpayee’s peace attempts. In November 2008, Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi (also the present foreign minister) was visiting India for talks with his counterpart, Pranab Mukherjee, seeking to change the Indo-Pak narrative. India had opened a trade route to POK for the first time.

He was pulled out of a press conference and told to return to Pakistan immediately, as the deep state had launched the Mumbai terror attack. This brought an end to Manmohan’s attempts at peace. PM Modi on becoming PM hoped to start a new chapter. He visited Nawaz Sharif in Lahore on his birthday and the wedding of his granddaughter in December 2015, apart from inviting him for his swearing in. The deep state, seeking to break the bonhomie and to ensure that no talks moved forward, launched the Pathankot terror strike less than a week later. After many bitter experiences, India changed its approach. The present policy of the government is that talks and terrorism cannot be bedfellows.

Imran Khan, on assuming office made multiple calls for talks, saying ‘you take one step forward, we will take two.’ All these calls were rejected as Pakistan continued exporting terrorists. India had learnt the hard way that holding talks while terrorism continues is valueless. Past Indian governments were willing for discussions despite the employment of terrorism as they were influenced by Pakistan’s nuclear threat. With the dispelling of the nuclear myth by the Balakote strike, India became firmer in its approach. This has since rattled Pakistan’s leadership. With India rejecting Pakistan’s demands for talks, Imran began seeking international mediation. Two agreements signed between the nations at Shimla and Lahore have made mediation a no-go area.

He failed to realise that for mediation both nations must be willing, and the atmosphere must be one of trust and acceptance. Despite all his rhetoric, President Trump is aware that India would never accept mediation or even consider talks till Pakistan stops exporting terror. After the abrogation of Article 370, it was Pakistan which took the first step to degrade Indo-Pak ties by sending back the Indian High Commissioner. This closed a possible window for reconciliation. On the international stage, Pakistan initially accused India of refusing to talk, subsequently sought international mediation and finally went on to claim that talking to India is fruitless. In the last few days, Imran has gone further claiming that Pakistan would not continue with back channel diplomacy, closing the last door.

To add to this, he claims that India is behind Pakistan’s financial woes. Imran has recently even threatened a nuclear war over Kashmir. In every interview with the international press he mentions that any terrorist strike in Kashmir could lead to a conflict, which may snowball into a nuclear one. The message which he desires to convey is that Pakistan would continue with its present policy of exporting terrorism, as without violence in Kashmir, there would be no international involvement to resolve the dispute. Which mature national leadership can demand talks on one hand and talk of a nuclear war on the other? Internally, the Pakistani leadership has been building up anti-India hype on the abrogation of Article 370. It has led to an anti-India wave within Pakistan, which is contrary to any attempts at talks.

While in their present dire financial circumstances, such hype may divert public minds from accusing the government and army of having failed the nation, it also closes any options for talks. India has ignored Pakistan’s ranting and raving, while remaining prepared for its likely misadventures. It is aware that its decisions on Kashmir are within its constitution and cannot be reversed by any power. It has not closed its doors for talks. It has only insisted that Pakistan stop export of terrorists prior to talks. Talks can only occur when two nations work towards creating a conducive environment. This implies building trust to indicate that talks, when they commence, would not be derailed by a terrorist strike. India is not responsible for the relationship moving downhill. It places a simple condition, stop terrorism and commence talks. The ball is in Pakistan’s court.

(The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army)