Negotiations are supposed to be an integral part of diplomacy. It’s but natural for two countries to find themselves across a negotiating table quite often. Whenever India and Pakistan sit across or for that matter any two sides go for negotiations, they carry their BATNA (the best alternative to a negotiated agreement) along, or that’s what we presume.
Due to the tight lipped nature of the Indo Pak dialogues, we can only guess what the both side's best alternatives are. The best alternative for Pakistan appears to be at least two pronged, one, going on a diplomatic offensive by leveraging it's closeness with US and China and applying pressure on India directly or indirectly to give ground, and two, carry on with it's bleed India strategy through it's not so tacit support to terrorists and separatists. That part is generally well understood, what is not, is the best alternative the Indian counterparts carry or should carry themselves with.
The best alternative for India appears to be a diplomatic offensive in the form of international pressure on Pakistan primarily through leveraging it's economic strength, neutralizing Pak's advantage of it's affinity with China and also US, and effectively countering Pak supported terrorism and separatism.
Usefulness of the track two variety in complementing regular diplomacy in our quest for strategic national objectives is debatable, but the kind of panelists chosen to represent India at such meets, like a US citizen, or a dubious power broker masquerading as journo, or an attention seeking airhead, is unfathomable. What are we trying to do?
Due to the tight lipped nature of the Indo Pak dialogues, we can only guess what the both side's best alternatives are. The best alternative for Pakistan appears to be at least two pronged, one, going on a diplomatic offensive by leveraging it's closeness with US and China and applying pressure on India directly or indirectly to give ground, and two, carry on with it's bleed India strategy through it's not so tacit support to terrorists and separatists. That part is generally well understood, what is not, is the best alternative the Indian counterparts carry or should carry themselves with.
The best alternative for India appears to be a diplomatic offensive in the form of international pressure on Pakistan primarily through leveraging it's economic strength, neutralizing Pak's advantage of it's affinity with China and also US, and effectively countering Pak supported terrorism and separatism.
Usefulness of the track two variety in complementing regular diplomacy in our quest for strategic national objectives is debatable, but the kind of panelists chosen to represent India at such meets, like a US citizen, or a dubious power broker masquerading as journo, or an attention seeking airhead, is unfathomable. What are we trying to do?
No comments:
Post a Comment