Symbolism surely does matter in the conduct of diplomacy. So, the excitement over the impromptu stopover of the Indian prime minister in Lahore to wish his Pakistani counterpart ‘happy birthday’ was not surprising. It was the first visit to Pakistan by an Indian premier in almost 12 years.

Narendra Modi’s brief sojourn was described by some as a “diplomatic coup by the Indian leader” who seemed to have mastered the art of personalised diplomacy. The Pakistani prime minister reciprocated the gesture by inviting his birthday guest to a sumptuous meal at his sprawling family residence. Yet, there is still a fundamental disconnect between the symbolism and substance that defines existing relations between the two countries.

For sure, the visit marked an ostensible shift in Modi’s position of shutting the door to engagement on Pakistan. This show of personal bonhomie, however, is not enough if it does not deliver on substance. The resumption of comprehensive talks is certainly a positive development. But it remains to be seen whether they can produce tangible results on critical issues and prod the two leaders to move beyond symbolic gestures.

One must not have unrealistic expectations of the Modi-Sharif diplomatic dance.

Since Modi came to power in 2014, relations between India and Pakistan have hit a new low despite efforts to improve them. India’s stance that it was not prepared to talk to Pakistan on any issue other than terrorism and Pakistan’s insistence on Kashmir being the core issue remained a major stumbling block in the resumption of bilateral talks. There is now at least an agreement on a structured dialogue on all outstanding issues.

There seem to be internal as well as external factors behind the apparent softening in Delhi’s hard-line position. It was so obvious that Modi’s strategy to diplomatically isolate Pakistan has not worked and continuing tension in the region has affected India’s ambition to be part of the big power league. The constant nudging from the US and other Western countries may have also led to the change of tack.

Although the news of his Lahore landing was announced by the Indian prime minister casually on his Twitter account, it was not really a decision taken on the spur of the moment. It was reportedly a back-channel effort that helped plan the trip. It was obvious that all those security arrangements at the airport and welcome reception could not have been made at a few hours’ notice. The brief meeting between the two leaders on the sidelines of the climate change summit at Paris that was followed by an unannounced meeting between the national security advisers of the two countries in Bangkok was also not accidental.

There is certainly no harm in using back-channel personal contacts for breaking the deadlock but what is disturbing is completely bypassing the Foreign Office in the decision-making process. Relations with India are too serious an issue to deal with at a personal and family level. While Modi was assisted by his top national security and foreign ministry officials in the 90-minute meeting; Nawaz Sharif turned it into a family affair.

It was a wretched sight to see the foreign secretary, who happened to be in Lahore on a private visit, squeezed in between the Sharif family members. Neither the adviser on foreign affairs nor the newly appointed national security adviser was present at the critical meeting. It was certainly a lame excuse that they could not be there at short notice.

It is hard to believe that the military leadership was not taken into confidence about Modi’s visit. Given the sensitivity of the issue, it would have been imperative to take them on board. The military may have some reservations to the approach, but it seems highly unlikely that it would block any normalisation process, especially because of its engagement in Fata along the western border.

While the military’s support is deemed essential on ties with India, basically it is the responsibility of the prime minister to provide the leadership. For that, Nawaz Sharif must adopt an institutional approach rather than rely on personalised diplomacy, involving his family even in foreign policy.

The prime minister’s hands are further strengthened because of the support from all the mainstream political parties with the exception of Jamaat-i-Islami on peace talks with India. But this goodwill could diminish if there is no change in Sharif’s non-institutional approach and the absence of a clear policy direction. So far our India policy is more reactive, and without a concrete road map. In this situation, there is a real danger of Modi leading the dance.

Surely Modi’s visit and other developments over the past three weeks including the decision to revive the structured dialogue have broken the ice and opened a window of opportunity for improvement of ties between the two countries. But one must not have unrealistic expectations of the diplomatic dance. There is still a huge wall of distrust that makes the normalisation process uncertain. A major concern is the continuing hostile rhetoric of the Indian leaders.

Hours before his arrival in Lahore, the Indian prime minister in his speech at the inauguration of the new parliament building in Kabul implicitly blamed Pakistan for harbouring those carrying out terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. The comments have further fuelled scepticism over the sincerity of Modi’s peace gesture. The clashes at the Line of Control may have ceased over the last few months but the tension still persists. There is also the thorny issue of action against Pakistan-based militants involved in the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks. Surely all those issues can be addressed provided both sides are serious.

The relations between Pakistan and India have historically alternated between short spurts of positive interaction and long periods of intense hostility. This situation must be changed. We must turn these spurts of positive interaction into a sustainable peace process.

It may not be easy without effectively dealing with the main sources of tension. But it is certainly not impossible. For that, one needs to combine substance with symbolism.

The writer is an author and journalist.

Published in Dawn, December 30th, 2015