Sagging spirit of India-Pak dialogue

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sagging spirit of India-Pak dialogue​

External Affairs Minister S M Krishna’s overture to Pakistan on Monday is both timely and necessary. A speck of what could turn out to be the proverbial dark cloud needlessly appeared on the horizon following the Home Secretary level talks in Islamabad on May 24-25. The talks themselves seemed to have been substantive but at the end of it all, what stood out was the postponement of the signing of the new Visa Agreement that has been finalized.

The postponement is attributed to “some pending approvals” by the Pakistani government agencies and departments. But it doesn’t need much ingenuity to fathom that there has been a retraction by Pakistan and the real reason could be that Islamabad has taken a “time out” to ponder where the dialogue is leading.

Of course, Indian detractors pounced on the development to spin fairy tales about the dialectics between civilian and military leaderships in Pakistan and reiterate that dialogue with Pakistan has been, is and for ever will be a chimera — something we’ve heard ad nauseam ever since Prime Minister Manmohan Singh embarked on the dialogue.

But, ignoring rabble rousers, Indian establishment seems to have done some hard thinking as to what prompted the latest Pakistani reserve on formalizing the Visa Agreement. EAM’s statement can be seen in that light. Significantly, EAM spoke on behalf of the PM.

The heart of the matter is that to a discernible observer, some trace of disillusionment has been apparent on the Pakistani side as regards India’s willingness to move forward in the normalization process. There is virtually no rhetoric about India by the Pakistani side and, therefore, it is all the more important to read correctly the Pakistani thought processes.

Clearly, there is a change in the Pakistani attitudes toward India. Pakistan has made some important decisions regarding “normalizing” the ties with India. While the “MFN” decision is the most visible part, there are unspoken things lurking below — such as, for instance, the drop in cross-border infiltration and terrorism or the overall disinterest in queering the pitch of contradictions that prevail in J&K despite the semblance of “normalcy”.

While India quietly appreciates this trend and, certainly, much as India stands to gain from the improvement of the overall climate of relations, the political reality is that there has been no tangible movement on the hard issues, especially the so-called “doable” issues. The hopes raised about a visit by PM to Pakistan are beginning to meander.

The Pakistani commentators are not way off the mark in flagging the creeping “militarization” of India’s foreign policy, which complicates the resolution of disputes like Siachen. Why Siachen? Because, India’s military operation in 1984 was the first major violation of the Simla Agreement and it provoked in the downstream a long bloody chain of action-reaction all the way up to 26/11. Rivers of blood flowed as a result.

The deliberate decision taken by Islamabad to defer the signing of the Visa Agreement is not difficult to comprehend. The regional backdrop is highly complicated — especially with the prospect of the long-term US and NATO military presence in the region — and Pakistan has genuine misgivings about India’s capacity to maintain an independent foreign policy, delinking it from the US strategies toward Pakistan, while the endgame in Afghanistan progresses. The freedom with which the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton lambasted Pakistan from the Indian soil, violating all diplomatic propriety, would only have reinforced the Pakistani misgivings. (Why couldn’t she have visited Pakistan and said what she wanted?)

Simply put, islamabad put the ball in the Indian court and left it to us to decide what sort of relationship we are seeking with them. Indeed, a genuine process of normalization needs to be built on reciprocity, give-and-take, and it demands flexibility in negotiation.

Essentially, it is a political call. Which makes it very pertinent that EAM chose to underscore on PM’s behalf India’s commitment to the dialogue and the leadership’s resoluteness to “make every effort” and “explore all options” to see that the dynamics and verve of the normalization process are sustained. The political challenge will be to translate this warm sentiment into action.

Sagging spirit of India-Pak dialogue - Indian Punchline

===================

So, if I am reading MKB's analysis correctly, the reluctance on the Pakistani side to sign/implement the Visa agreement is primarily out of a concern of the US manipulating the agreement, with India a secondary facilitator of US designs, rather than a direct concern over what India would/could do.

Could it be that the biggest hindrance to Pakistan-India normalization is quickly becoming the US and its policies towards Pakistan?

Rather interesting turn of events and shift in Pakistan's security concerns ...

The author's argument of 'the creeping militarization of India's Pakistan policy' tends to support the above concerns on the Pakistan side, given that it is the Indian Military that has the greatest commonality with any potential anti-Pakistan US goals in the region.

 

[KS]

Bhadrakumar lives in a self made cocoon of his own or rather a cocoon that was spun in the early 90s. This is not only reflecting in this article but also in his other articles where he laments about India moving from it's fanatic attitude regarding NAM and such policies. World has moved on Mr.Bhadra.

Regarding his assertion that Siachen was the first major violation of Simla agreement, this is where he shows his naivety. Even many Pakistani commentators, from their military, have agreed that Siachen was neither unprovoked nor out of the blue. India just raced to the top first, beating Pakistan by a few days.

And what a, excuse me, stupid man would say all events upto 26/11 were infact a reaction of siachen ? So isn't it equally justified to say all evens till Siachen were just a reaction to that invasion on the October 47 ? This man has lost it, and lost it by miles.

p.s.: MKB insists on a give-and-take for genuine normalization. Not to sound cynical, but what has Pakistan got to offer India, that India already does not have ?

 

[Supply&Demand]

Pakistan has genuine misgivings about India’s capacity to maintain an independent foreign policy

This is the funniest part...Since independence, india is the one which has maintained independent foreign policy whereas Pakistan had been busy signing SEATO, CENTO. It had given away its land to be used for launch pad for mujahideens to fight for US's wars against erst while Soviet Union for few weapons.

These articles questioning India's independent foreign policy were brought up by Pakistani commentators and Indian Marxists when India had signed the 123 deal with US. But neither did India gave any contracts to US till now nor did India gave the MMRCA deal to USA.

So may be Pakistan should concentrate more on its foreign policy rather than India's.

And btw the real reason for Pakistan not signing the VISA deal was because the Pakistani side insisted on ministerial agreement and not bureaucratic one and so invited Chidambaram to Pakistan for that. basically, Rehman Malik wants his photo and his sign on a landmark deal....

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So may be Pakistan should concentrate more on its foreign policy rather than India's.

That makes no sense - why would Pakistan (or any nation for that matter) not concern itself with Indian (or any other nation) foreign policy if it perceives those policies to potentially come in alignment with the policies of a third hostile nation?

India's historical presence in NAM has no bearing on the current Pakistani concern (if indeed MKB's analysis is correct) - the point being made here is not that India will 'join the US Camp' (in the context of the Cold War alignment of nations with the US or USSR), but that India, or sections of hawkish Establishment in India, might find common cause with the US in implementing hostile overt/covert policies towards Pakistan.

Regarding his assertion that Siachen was the first major violation of Simla agreement, this is where he shows his naivety. Even many Pakistani commentators, from their military, have agreed that Siachen was neither unprovoked nor out of the blue. India just raced to the top first, beating Pakistan by a few days.

And many Pakistani commentators (and some Indians) have made the same argument as MKB, and disagree with your position. But this has been hashed out plenty of times elsewhere and is not the primary topic in this discussion.

 

[KS]

Pakistan has genuine misgivings about India’s capacity to maintain an independent foreign policy, delinking it from the US strategies toward Pakistan, while the endgame in Afghanistan progresses. The freedom with which the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton lambasted Pakistan from the Indian soil, violating all diplomatic propriety, would only have reinforced the Pakistani misgivings. (Why couldn’t she have visited Pakistan and said what she wanted?)

Seriously Mr. Bhadra ? From when did international diplomacy was agreed to be conducted in a vacuum. One event not influencing the other ?

Diplomacy is not a one way track where you follow just one way to your destination. Simultaneously multiple paths are explored, choice of one path to influence the other thus creating a path with the least friction.

The freedom with which Hillary 'lambasted' Pak does not dent the foreign policy of India which has at most of the times held "India first" explicitly. Remember how Mr.Holbrooke from the same USA was snubbed for just mentioning the Kashmir word in his brief ? Hillary lambasted Pak because of Pak's double dealings regarding their game in Afghanistan, not because of anything else. And the days of diplomatic nicety between US and Pak are long gone. Wake up Bhadra ji.



@ AM,

As pointed out, we are not discussing that here, and attempts to hijack the thread will result in infracctions

I am confused. What are we not discussing here ?

I am replying to MKB's assertion that Siachen was an unprovoked aggression on India's part. He is wrong in saying that. Am I wrong in pointing out that he is wrong ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Seriously Mr. Bhadra ? From when did international diplomacy was agreed to be conducted in a vacuum. One event not influencing the other ?

Diplomacy is not a one way track where you follow just one way to your destination. Simultaneously multiple paths are explored, choice of one path to influence the other thus creating a path with the least friction.

The freedom with which Hillary 'lambasted' Pak does not dent the foreign policy of India which has at most of the times held "India first" explicitly. Remember how Mr.Holbrooke from the same USA was snubbed for just mentioning the Kashmir word in his brief ? Hillary lambasted Pak because of Pak's double dealings regarding their game in Afghanistan, not because of anything else. And the days of diplomatic nicety between US and Pak are long gone. Wake up Bhadra ji.

MKB is using the 'days of nicety between the US and Pakistan being long gone' as a basis for his argument here (not sure who needs waking up for not understanding the major premise behind his article).

The point behind mentioning Hillary's rant in India is to highlight the increasing Gulf between the US and Pakistan and that the US is not averse to recruiting India for any overt/covert policies meant at destabilizing and/or weakening Pakistan. MKB has passed no verdict on whether India will 'take up the US offer to present an joint anti-Pakistan front', he has talked about potential Pakistani concerns over such an 'axis'.

@ AM,

As pointed out, we are not discussing that here, and attempts to hijack the thread will result in infracctions

I am confused. What are we not discussing here ?

I am replying to MKB's assertion that Siachen was an unprovoked aggression on India's part. He is wrong in saying that. Am I wrong in pointing out that he is wrong ?

We are not discussing Siachen here - these arguments have been made on plenty of existing threads - if you want to respond to MKB's Siachen argument, quote it and respond to it on one of those threads.

You may disagree with MKB's assignment of blame to India, but I, and many others, do not, and a continuation of that discussion will hijack this thread into yet another back and forth over Siachen.

The focus of the author's arguments, IMO, is along the lines of what I said in the OP, which is why the subsequent posts have not been edited.

 

[KS]

MKB is using the 'days of nicety between the US and Pakistan being long gone' to make his argument here (not sure who needs waking up for not understanding the major premise behind his article).

The point behind mentioning Hillary's rant in India is to highlight the increasing Gulf between the US and Pakistan and that the US is not averse to recruiting India for any overt/covert policies meant at destabilizing and/or weakening Pakistan. MKB has passed no verdict on whether India will 'take up the US offer to present an joint anti-Pakistan front', he has talked about potential Pakistani concerns over such an 'axis'.

Well that is where MKB needs to 'think'.

If MKB argues that India should not utilize the 'absence of niceties between Pak and India' to further her interests, then I am afraid he is singularly naive. India-Pak relations are much more than just Kashmir.

Regarding MKB not passing any verdict, well his diatribe that India is losing it's independent foreign policy [which in his socialist language means strengthening of its bilateral relationship with US] is enough of verdict in itself.

Simply put, Bhadra and his line of thinking have lost it's relevance in 2012.

Also let's be honest, there is nothing significant Pakistan has actually to offer to India that we must forsake all our other interests for a peace, that for all intents and purposes, may just be a tactical retreat by Pakistan which is obviously unable to handle both fronts - an increasingly belligerent US on one side and the traditional 1000 years enemy on the other.There is little if not any trust left in India about Pakistan's motives, except perhaps Manmohan Singh.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If MKB argues that India should not utilize the 'absence of niceties between Pak and India' to further her interests, then I am afraid he is singularly naive. India-Pak relations are much more than just Kashmir.
... that for all intents and purposes, may just be a tactical retreat by Pakistan which is obviously unable to handle both fronts - an increasingly belligerent US on one side and the traditional 1000 years enemy on the other.There is little if not any trust left in India about Pakistan's motives, except perhaps Manmohan Singh.

I assume you meant to say 'absence of niceties between Pak and US' above ...

Your opinions above reflect one school of thought, which I predominantly see reflected in the 'Hindutva infused mindset' (the Pakistani version of that being the Zaid Hamid and Islamic extremist mindset), that views the Pakistan-India conflict in the '1000 year conflict mold'.

I personally find people who think along those lines as clinging to an outdated, petty and, to a degree, xenophobic mindset, and people like MKB to actually be on the side of rational thought and debate.

Regarding MKB not passing any verdict, well his diatribe that India is losing it's independent foreign policy [which in his socialist language means strengthening of its bilateral relationship with US] is enough of verdict in itself.

There is nothing 'socialist' about arguing against one country capitulating to pressure by another country in formulating its foreign policy. MK does not agree with, in his opinion, a desire by the Establishment in India to, tow to US diktat on several issues - whether Iran, China, Syria or Pakistan. His argument is not against India building a relationship with the US, but against India being pressured on certain issues to adopt polices that might not be in the long term interest of India. You could argue against his analysis of what serves India better in each individual case, but I don't think calling him a 'socialist' and 'anti-US-India friendship' is an accurate portrayal of his criticism of Indian foreign policy when it comes to perceived US demands from India.

Also let's be honest, there is nothing significant Pakistan has actually to offer to India that we must forsake all our other interests for a peace,

Certainly, it is for Indian policy makers and the Indian public to decide whether normalization with Pakistan is in India's benefit or not, and what kind of normalization, and when, they would like to see.

That is an argument Indians have to hash out amongst themselves, much as Pakistanis have to decide amongst ourselves whether open trade with India (of which I have been a frequent critic given the potential of Pakistani industry being overwhelmed) is in our benefit.

 

[DGMO]

Simply put, islamabad put the ball in the Indian court and left it to us to decide what sort of relationship we are seeking with them. Indeed, a genuine process of normalization needs to be built on reciprocity, give-and-take, and it demands flexibility in negotiation.

If we did put the ball in India's court, then it's only fair for them to delay normalisation until 26/11 is dealt with and put to rest. If Rehman Malik wants to delay matters only because he wants his photo-op with a man who has no time for him, then that's his problem.

India can shape the relationship however they want because they have the upper hand in negotiations. We need to take steps to help build the confidence required, as 26/11 is a grey cloud that won't move away for a very long time - and nor should it.

I don't buy the influence of the US in the whole relationship. I don't see India being so fickle and needed their guiding hand on the matter of normalisation. India's grievances will remain, and we need to show a lot more to help bridge the trust deficit.

 

[BATMAN]

The deliberate decision taken by Islamabad to defer the signing of the Visa Agreement is not difficult to comprehend.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...-spirit-india-pak-dialogue.html#ixzz1wCC2d2IF

Pakistan is ruled by Indian proxy regime, how dare they refuse visa!

Indian media portraying a tough negotiations just to show a 'noora kushti' as real fight.

 

[KS]

I assume you meant to say 'absence of niceties between Pak and US' above ...

Your opinions above reflect one school of thought, which I predominantly see reflected in the 'Hindutva infused mindset' (the Pakistani version of that being the Zaid Hamid and Islamic extremist mindset), that views the Pakistan-India conflict in the '1000 year conflict mold'.

I personally find people who think along those lines as clinging to an outdated, petty and, to a degree, xenophobic mindset, and people like MKB to actually be on the side of rational thought and debate.

Oh please. These cliches of "Shiv Sena mindset", "hindutva idealogy" to beat down any conflicting view of thought are becoming stale.

If I can generalize the mindset of the Indians, then it will most probably be a "dis-engagement with Pakistan", atleast temporarily, line of thought. No war with Pakistan but at the same time no peace with it, sacrificing our interests. Simply put, no peace with Pakistan if it involved any giving on our part. If Pakistan is willing to recognize our legitimate interests in the region including Afghanistan then fine. But not peace on Pakistan's terms.

And why not ? we did not work hard to achieve this position of strength just to give it all away just because Pakistan finds it increasingly difficult to sustain this rivalry with US increasing its belligerence proportionately. You may call it even Andromedan idealogy. But that is what it is, in layman terms.

There is nothing 'socialist' about arguing against one country capitulating to pressure by another country in formulating its foreign policy. ....

First of all there is no such things as "Indian Establishment". Indian Army gives it inputs on things directly concerning it, its deployments and strategy to the Govt and its the Govt that makes the final decision on any matter.

Secondly one can say that Indian govt is kow-towing to US or Indian Govt milking the US govt by playing along with US' insecurities. It depends on what side of the mirror you are on and hence debatable.

If Bhadra had his way India would be negotiating with Iran for the pipeline which in itself is nothing but a pipedream and not with France, Russia, Japan and Australia for nuclear technology.

Certainly, it is for Indian policy makers and the Indian public to decide whether normalization with Pakistan is in India's benefit or not, and what kind of normalization, and when, they would like to see.

Indian public is neither supportive of Pakistan like the Aman ki Asha buf00ns nor overwhelmingly belligerent to nuke Pakistan..but we just want to maintain status quo and further increase the difference in standings between India and Pak so that one day peace is achieved on India's terms.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Oh please. These cliches of "Shiv Sena mindset", "hindutva idealogy" to beat down any conflicting view of thought are becoming stale.

When you use rationale like '1000 year war' I am afraid the argument fits, and is certainly more than just a cliche ...

If I can generalize the mindset of the Indians, then it will most probably be a "dis-engagement with Pakistan", atleast temporarily, line of thought. No war with Pakistan but at the same time no peace with it, sacrificing our interests. Simply put, no peace with Pakistan if it involved any giving on our part. If Pakistan is willing to recognize our legitimate interests in the region including Afghanistan then fine. But not peace on Pakistan's terms.

The 'mindset of Indians' will be reflected in the result of negotiations between India and Pakistan, if and when they come about.

With respect to 'sacrificing interests', I don't believe MKB asked India to do that, I certainly did not mention any such thing on this thread, so I can only assume that you somehow associate normalization with Pakistan today as somehow 'compromising India's interests', which in turn further supports my view of your 'mindset'.

And why not ? we did not work hard to achieve this position of strength just to give it all away just because Pakistan finds it increasingly difficult to sustain this rivalry with US increasing its belligerence proportionately. You may call it even Andromedan idealogy. But that is what it is, in layman terms.

If India does not see a greater benefit in normalization, compared to continued hostility and militarization, then it will not normalize with Pakistan - that is certainly the view of the hawks and military establishment in India. No one is forcing India to do so - the whole point of dialog on normalization is to explore options and mutually beneficial avenues of cooperation - if India does not see any benefits, or its policies are hijacked by the military and hawks, then India will not normalize, and Indians can stop pointing to the PA as an obstacle to normalization. Certainly, if your views are reflective of the views of the majority in the Indian Establishment, the oft repeated canard of the PA sabotaging peace talks is completely off the mark, and the blame (or praise depending on your point of view) should be directed towards the military and hawks in the Indian Establishment.

First of all there is no such things as "Indian Establishment". Indian Army gives it inputs on things directly concerning it, its deployments and strategy to the Govt and its the Govt that makes the final decision on any matter.

I would argue that the same is true of the Pakistani military, when an elected government is in power, such as for the last 4 years. Yet that does not stop Indian and liberal Pakistani commentators from continuing to argue that some 'Deep State and/or Pakistani Military Establishment' controls Pakistani foreign policy.

Secondly one can say that Indian govt is kow-towing to US or Indian Govt milking the US govt by playing along with US' insecurities. It depends on what side of the mirror you are on and hence debatable.

It is certainly debatable, in fact MKB speculated as such in one of his previous pieces - the whole point of the thread is to encourage debate in that direction, specifically with respect to MKB's theory that Pakistan's hesitance over normalization may now be primarily driven by concerns over the US coercing/cajoling India into taking a covert/overt anti-Pakistan stance.

If Bhadra had his way India would be negotiating with Iran for the pipeline which in itself is nothing but a pipedream and not with France, Russia, Japan and Australia for nuclear technology.

I think MKB would like to see both options exercised - I don't buy the argument that the US push for an NSG waiver for India was solely out of a desire to block the IPI, and now that the NSG waiver is in place, Indian access to nuclear technology and trade will be limited primarily by economic concerns, and not whether the US does not want Indian participation in the IPI (except in the case of the US of course).

Indian public is neither supportive of Pakistan like the Aman ki Asha buf00ns nor overwhelmingly belligerent to nuke Pakistan..but we just want to maintain status quo and further increase the difference in standings between India and Pak so that one day peace is achieved on India's terms.

Again, that reverts to my previous point that the Indian leadership and Indian public needs to make up their mind on this issue - the decision on whether normalization or continued hostility better serves India is valid debate - you happen to be on the opposite side of MKB on the issue.

 

[Supply&Demand]

Your opinions above reflect one school of thought, which I predominantly see reflected in the 'Hindutva infused mindset' (the Pakistani version of that being the Zaid Hamid and Islamic extremist mindset), that views the Pakistan-India conflict in the '1000 year conflict mold'.

A small correction...1000 yr war quote was made by ZA Bhutto, followed by Zardari sahab..and not by any hindutva group.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If we did put the ball in India's court, then it's only fair for them to delay normalisation until 26/11 is dealt with and put to rest. If Rehman Malik wants to delay matters only because he wants his photo-op with a man who has no time for him, then that's his problem.

India can shape the relationship however they want because they have the upper hand in negotiations. We need to take steps to help build the confidence required, as 26/11 is a grey cloud that won't move away for a very long time - and nor should it.

I don't buy the influence of the US in the whole relationship. I don't see India being so fickle and needed their guiding hand on the matter of normalisation. India's grievances will remain, and we need to show a lot more to help bridge the trust deficit.

I agree with you that if Pakistan's concerns over normalization are a 'anti-Pakistan India-US axis', then Pakistan can do more to assuage Indian concerns and perhaps get commitments of neutrality (in the US-Pak divide).

The Indian-US partnership is not based, primarily, on a shared policy on Pakistan, but, from a geo-political perspective, on a shared desire to 'contain China'. The fallout from a destabilized Pakistan or Afghanistan will not be borne by the US, it will be borne by other nations in the region.

In my opinion, the US has done exactly that which its commentators have been accusing the ISI/PA of doing - poisoning the domestic US atmosphere severely against Pakistan (through incessant media propaganda and government vitriol), to the point that the US Government finds its hands tied in compromising on anything with Pakistan, and can only engage in more and more confrontational rhetoric and actions. This might be a relic of the Cold War mindset in the US Establishment (US vs Them, in this case Them being a conservative Muslim country/countries) which simply cannot accept any result other than complete subjugation of Pakistan to US demands. To that end, if it can coax/coerce India to join the US in an anti-Pakistan India-US axis, it will, and the vitriol directed towards Pakistan from India, as well as the announcement of the bounty on Hafiz Saeed with the start of the India-Pakistan dialog, point to subtle attempts to scuttle the process.

A small correction...1000 yr war quote was made by ZA Bhutto, followed by Zardari sahab..and not by any hindutva group.

Well, currently it is not being used by either the PA or GoP, but the likes of Zaid Hamid, KS, Vinod etc.

 

[SamantK]

With respect to 'sacrificing interests', I don't believe MKB asked India to do that, I certainly did not mention any such thing on this thread, so I can only assume that you somehow associate normalization with Pakistan today as somehow 'compromising India's interests', which in turn further supports my view of your 'mindset'.

I believe many in India do not think so much, what generally is seen about Pakistan is 26/11, 65, 47, continued militancy and terrorism in India. But mind you that soes not mean that they cannot think, its just that they do not think so much about it. For the Indian Populace to think, there needs to be a big start ehich I believe should be from Pakistan in which teh common people will see that Pakistan is sserious, after that things can take a diplomatic channel.

If India does not see a greater benefit in normalization, compared to continued hostility and militarization, then it will not normalize with Pakistan - that is certainly the view of the hawks and military establishment in India. No one is forcing India to do so - the whole point of dialog on normalization is to explore options and mutually beneficial avenues of cooperation - if India does not see any benefits, or its policies are hijacked by the military and hawks, then India will not normalize, and Indians can stop pointing to the PA as an obstacle to normalization. Certainly, if your views are reflective of the views of the majority in the Indian Establishment, the oft repeated canard of the PA sabotaging peace talks is completely off the mark, and the blame (or praise depending on your point of view) should be directed towards the military and hawks in the Indian Establishment.

I'm not sure about the HAwks in the establishment but, military, no sir it cannot happen in India that Army forces something down the throat of the govt. rather than the other way round. Actually pointing out different centre of powers is one of the reasons. Other reason includes terrorism and particularly 26/11. The dialogues cannot change the perception of people, only Pakistan as a country can do it and then come to the table.

I would argue that the same is true of the Pakistani military, when an elected government is in power, such as for the last 4 years. Yet that does not stop Indian and liberal Pakistani commentators from continuing to argue that some 'Deep State and/or Pakistani Military Establishment' controls Pakistani foreign policy.

4 Years is a very short time to build confidence in foreign policy IMO and in between I have read contradicting reports.

It is certainly debatable, in fact MKB speculated as such in one of his previous pieces - the whole point of the thread is to encourage debate in that direction, specifically with respect to MKB's theory that Pakistan's hesitance over normalization may now be primarily driven by concerns over the US coercing/cajoling India into taking a covert/overt anti-Pakistan stance.

Might be, but Pakistan should have seen this coming, no?

Again, that reverts to my previous point that the Indian leadership and Indian public needs to make up their mind on this issue - the decision on whether normalization or continued hostility better serves India is valid debate - you happen to be on the opposite side of MKB on the issue.

As I stated before it will come but something first needs to be done.