IT would be most unfortunate if Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi were not to go to New York to attend the General Assembly session and miss the opportunity of meeting Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to pave the way for a resolution to the Pak-India impasse.

The prime ministers met in New Delhi in May 2014 when Nawaz Sharif attended Narendra Modi’s swearing-in ceremony. They agreed to instruct their respective foreign secretaries to meet. From then onwards ties took a baffling turn. Can one draw lessons from the last two years with a view to avoiding the setbacks that mar the record?

On Aug 19, 2014, however, India called off the foreign secretary-level talks with Pakistan because its high commissioner met the Hurriyat leader Shabir Shah that day. Two of his colleagues were to meet him the next day. Such meetings were held for quite some time. An unwise decision was carried out abruptly.

Pakistan cannot accept what are but surrender terms.

The Modi government had decided to break from the past. It would be tough and resolute. This message was addressed not only to Pakistan but equally to the domestic audience, and the people of Indian Kashmir in particular — they would have to deal with India exclusively. Foreign policy was shaped by domestic factors.

The BJP had resolved to capture a majority of seats in the Kashmir assembly. Its president asked people to “uproot” and “throw out” the two families — the Abdullahs and the Muftis — if they want development. “The time has come when [Kashmir] should have a nationalist government.”

In this, the BJP succeeded partially. Mufti Mohammed Sayeed entered into a coalition with the BJP to pre-empt Omar Abdullah following precisely such a course. Nobody paid any heed to Mirwaiz Umar Farooq’s warning around the same time on Aug 26 that the situation in Kashmir was highly inflammable. “One incident would push it back to square one. Alienation and anger among Kashmiri youth have increased. If dialogue is discredited, it would push people to hardliners.” In the light of events after Burhan Wani’s murder in July this year, the prediction was prophetic.

Three crucial questions arise. First, is there any common ground on Kashmir between the present governments of Pakistan and India? Secondly, has New Delhi anything to offer to the people of Kashmir?

Lastly, are Islamabad and New Delhi willing to endorse or evolve any alternative to the famous four-point formula?

The Modi government is against restoration of Kashmir’s autonomy. If the deadlock on the New Delhi-Srinagar front is complete, there was some hope of movement on the New Delhi-Islamabad front. Sharif and Modi met for an hour at Ufa in Russia in July 2015 on the sidelines of a summit. Modi accepted Sharif’s invitation to attend the Saarc summit in Islamabad this year.

As ever, the thaw was followed by a freeze. Sartaj Aziz was due to visit New Delhi for national security adviser-level talks. But Sushma Swaraj, minister for foreign affairs, was instructed to stipulate that “talks will be only on terror and the NSA will not meet the Hurriyat”. He did not go, of course.

However, national security advisers Nasser Khan Janjua and Ajit Doval met at Bangkok last December and discussed “peace and security, Jammu & Kashmir and tranquillity along the LoC” besides terrorism.

Two days later in Islamabad, Sartaj Aziz and Sushma Swaraj “decided to restart the Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue”. The foreign secretaries were asked to draw up a timetable for their talks on all 10 issues of the dialogue. Also, “the Indian side was assured of the steps being taken to expedite the early conclusion of the Mumbai trial”.

Less than a month later on Jan 2, 2016, came a terrorist attack on the Indian Air Force base in Pathankot. Talks between the foreign secretaries were postponed on Jan 14. Far worse followed. In the wake of the unrest in Kashmir, Modi accused Pakistan of incitement followed by references to Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and Balochistan in an Independence Day speech. In response to Pakistan’s proposal for foreign secretary-level talks, India raised the issue of “cross-border terrorism in Kashmir” and “the earliest possible vacation of Pakistan’s illegal occupation” of Jammu & Kashmir.

The impasse is complete. Pakistan cannot possibly accept what are but surrender terms. Equally India cannot acquiesce in the tardiness in bringing to book the culprits in the Mumbai blasts and the Pathankot attack.

Whether the prime ministers meet in New York or not it is imperative that they meet in Islamabad for the Saarc summit after prior preparations with a determination to resolve the impasse. Only the prime ministers can accomplish that. They must tackle both Kashmir and India’s concerns on the terrorist attacks in Mumbai and Pathankot.

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

Published in Dawn, September 17th, 2016