India Jumps the Gun on Cricket Diplomacy

When Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rolled out the red carpet for Pakistan, there were rosy-cheeked smiles over his so-called "cricket diplomacy," as naive observers hoped the overture might jump start dialogue and "confidence building measures" that have been stalled since the 2008 terrorist attacks on Mumbai. But former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal delivers a healthy reality check in his column in today's Indian Express:

We seem to believe that our over-display of readiness to engage Pakistan will goad it to respond constructively, Sibal writes. Our repeated overtures in fact give Pakistan more political room to make demands and lay the terms of a revived dialogue. We also make it easier for outside powers, interested in pushing for India-Pakistan talks for their own regional interests, to continue to counsel us to engage Pakistan and make some concessions to it to wean it away from its unreasonable and self-destructive policies, as we seem more pliable.

…

The invitation extended to [Pakistan President] Zardari and [Prime Minister] Gilani short circuits the process agreed to at Thimphu even before it could commence. Instead of the carefully crafted step -by- step approach we have decided to do a hop step and jump, with a summit level encounter straightaway, Sibal writes. Whereas this encounter should have taken place after an evaluation was made of the results of engagement at secretaries and minister level, we have have shown our characteristic wishful thinking and impatience in wanting to achieve a much quicker breakthrough with our adversary.  

…

It might appear that we were seizing the opportunity of our victory over Australia and the chance setting up of the India-Pakistan encounter to further a good political cause. Some may see in this a clever step to mobilise the cricket enthusiasm in the two countries in favour of peace between them. But can we realistically expect the gusto in the cricket field to create a fervour for settling long-standing political differences? More so as one side will normally lose, and if it is the Pakistani side, will its defeat rouse the nation to embrace India politically? If, on the other hand, Pakistan wins, will it be disposed to be more generous to India politically? So what might seem as an imaginative move is in reality political ad hocism, with no clarity with regard to what is hoped to be achieved in concrete terms. It seems to be an investment in goodwill by us, without any sign of Pakistan’s will to be good to us.