THE India-Pakistan dialogue has picked up steam. Meetings have been agreed with impressive precision. Fingers must be kept crossed as to whether both parties are now in a truly negotiating frame of mind on the disputes that matter.

Prime ministers Narendra Modi and Nawaz Sharif have nothing substantive to discuss when they meet tomorrow at Ashgabat in Turkmenistan. They had tied up the loose ends in their brief meeting in Paris on Nov 30. Considerable spadework had been done by Abdul Basit, Pakistan’s high commissioner in New Delhi and Ajit Doval, India’s national security adviser. They worked earnestly and quietly.

At Bangkok, on Dec 6, the NSAs Ajit Doval and his Pakistani counterpart, retired Lt Gen Nasir Khan Janjua broke the Gordian knot as agreed by the top leadership. Assisted by foreign secretaries S. Jaishankar of India, and Aizaz Ahsan Chaudhry of Pakistan. Thus the security aspects of terrorism as well as the diplomatic issues were dealt with. Ufa and its aftermath were wiped out. Their “discussions covered peace and security, terrorism, Jammu & Kashmir, and other issues, including tranquillity along the LoC. It was agreed to carry forward the constructive engagement”.

The Pak-India deal registers what was already on the table.

The details were tidied up through diplomatic channels; India’s Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj and Pakistan’s Foreign Affairs Adviser Sartaj Aziz finalised the accord in two hours in Islamabad on Dec 9.

But the accord, welcome as it is, registers what was already on the table. A whole year has been wasted in resolving the chicken (Kashmir) or egg (terrorism) issue. Neither comes first; both will be discussed and simultaneously.

Now for the arrangements. It was “decided that the NSAs will continue to address all issues connected to terrorism”. In June 1997, Pakistan and India agreed in Islamabad on a framework of a ‘Composite Dialogue’ on eight issues, including Kashmir and terrorism. Working groups were to be set up on each. Prime minister I.K. Gujral, a hawk of hawks on Kashmir, wrecked the accord. The dialogue was stopped after the Mumbai terror attacks in November 2008, and replaced by a ‘Resumed Dialogue’ also stopped in 2013 after the killing of two Indian soldiers on the LoC.

This background explains Ms Swaraj’s announcement at the joint news conference that both sides had “agreed to a Compre­hensive Bilateral Dialogue and directed the foreign secretaries to work out the modalities and schedule of the meetings…”. Don’t laugh.

Of the 10 topics she proceeded to list, eight were taken verbatim from the joint statement of June 1997 — peace and security, including confidence-building measures; Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek, Wullar Barrage, economic and commercial cooperation, “terrorism and drug-trafficking” (now replaced by ‘counterterrorism and narcotics control’.

Similarly, “promotion of friendly exchanges in various fields” is now replaced by “people-to people-exchanges”, a distinct improvement. Two more are added, however: “humanitarian issues” and “religious tourism”.

Both are welcome additions. But need all this have taken so long? As Ms Swaraj admitted the Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue will have all the ‘pillars’ of the India-Pakistan relationship.

This is a procedural breakthrough. A substantive breakthrough will emerge only in the talks. For the rest, as Ms Swaraj candidly said, “What was being done as Composite Dialogue, and was later called the Resumed Dialogue will now be called the Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue”. It was all a matter of nomenclature.

The NSAs can meet to carry out the mandate on terrorism. Sim­ul­taneously, the foreign secretaries can settle matters pre-eminently susceptible to an early and easy solution — release of fis­hermen, relaxation of the visa regime, tranquillity on the LoC and improvement of trade facilities across it.

Antiquated barter trade must yield to better arrangements. Under an MOU, two branches of banks of each side were to be opened in the other’s area of jurisdiction. Communication facilities are another must. How can a trader judge the market on the other side unless he is free to sound out traders, across the LoC? It makes no sense to ban the use of mobile phones, especially now that militancy is down by 90 per cent.

A lot depends on the two prime ministers’ meeting in Islamabad during the Saarc summit. They have it in their power to set in train meaningful talks at various levels and, if they have the will, tackle the disputes which have poisoned relations between India and Pakistan, especially on Kashmir.

The fact is that although the Sir Creek issue has been ripe for resolution, no government of India has moved to settle it so as to proceed to a settlement of other issues. On Siachen, the government of India will have to override the army’s objections and make the region one of peace.

The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.

Published in Dawn, December 12th, 2015