M.M.SHUJA
In times when formal diplomacy is frequently constrained by factors such as political inflexibility, strategic mistrust, and political posturing, the need for Track-Two diplomacy becomes increasingly pertinent in the case of India. In the current political context, when government-to-government discussions on several critical regional and international matters seem unlikely or even impossible, informal diplomatic processes could be the key to bridging gaps and fostering peace, cooperation, and understanding. Track-Two diplomacy involves non-official, non-governmental dialogue between academics, former diplomats, defence experts, media representatives, civil society leaders, and other influential people from various countries. While Track-Two diplomacy cannot be regarded as a substitute for formal diplomacy, it provides the context within which formal negotiations can take place.
Track Two diplomacy has been practiced in India, especially in the subcontinent of South Asia, with much success in the past. During times when there was a problem between India and Pakistan, there were often private talks between former diplomats, intelligence officers, and foreign policy experts to address the misunderstanding between the two countries and set the stage for official talks. Often, conferences organized in Dubai, Bangkok, Kathmandu, or even other European cities ended up being the venue where discussions over the bi-lateral issues, Terrorism, Trade, dispute over water sharing, and confidence building measures in the military realm took place. Today, however, track two diplomacy has lost its value in India. The current mode of governance is very centralized; thus, diplomacy is conducted in a top-down fashion through the official and security-based route. Strategic communication becomes more about politics, electioneering, and national security. This trend is clearly evident in the relationship
between India and Pakistan. Formal diplomacy has been rendered virtually redundant as a result of several crises, border clashes, and terror related disagreements between the two countries. There are no incentives for engaging in public diplomacy. However, history has shown that it is very risky to keep such close neighbours, who are also nuclear powers, completely silent with each other. The faster governments give up formal dialogue, the greater the mistrust grows in turn. Therefore, Track-Two diplomacy, in this case too, ceases to be a mere luxury. It is the same when it comes to India’s relationship with China. Despite border conflicts and competition between the two states, there still is military and diplomatic diplomacy going on. Nevertheless, relations are heavily affected by mistrust. In this scenario, strategic experts and academic institutions could help understand and interpret intentions, avoid miscommunication, and explore opportunities for confidence building. Apart from neighbouring states, Track-Two diplomacy should also be practiced when it comes to India’s engagement in West Asia. With rising tensions between Iran, Israel, Gulf countries, and the USA, India’s energy security, the interests of Indian communities, trade routes, and peace are being threatened.
Regrettably, most Indian think tanks are merely policy amplifiers instead of strategic spaces. Intellectual freedom and trust are essential for policy debates. Track Two diplomacy will flourish only if criticism and dissent are tolerated and not considered a threat to the regime. Without the element of trust, diplomacy will suffer. Peace and stability cannot be ensured only with security measures. Community representatives, academics, youth groups, the media, and civil society forums should play their roles in confidence-building. Dialogue processes at the local level can contribute significantly towards national-level stability. The government should know that Track Two diplomacy is not anti- government; sometimes, it is even pro-stability. Some of the most successful peace processes in the world—from the Oslo Accords to the Cold War strategy talks are outcomes of Track Two diplomacy. Even if governments openly claim they do not talk, informal contacts lay the groundwork for future breakthroughs. As a rising power, India cannot afford diplomatic isolation in challenging theatres. Mature diplomacy demands the use of every channel of communication, even in cases of strained official relations. The restoration of Track-Two diplomacy needs political confidence, institutional support, and public awareness. The government needs to encourage academics, retired diplomats’ meetings, regional peace summits, and policy seminars. The universities and think-tanks must also be allowed to conduct such meaningful discussions among themselves without being overly politicized. Similarly, the media must also be more nuanced when reporting on unofficial diplomacy. Critics would say that Track-Two diplomacy does not deliver any tangible outcomes immediately. True, but that applies to diplomacy too! The point of diplomacy is never to reach agreements immediately, but to prevent the onset of future disputes. Diplomacy can succeed even when the world only sees the absence of a crisis. Indeed, in international relations, sometimes, the best outcome is no outcome at all. Today, India finds herself standing at such a strategic crossroads. Instability in the region, the changing geopolitical environment, and the fragile relations with its neighbours call for much more engagement. When official diplomacy becomes restricted due to political concerns, unofficial diplomacy becomes an essential tool for keeping lines of communication open. It is high time to revive Track-Two diplomacy in India. Or, perhaps, it was overdue a long time ago.
The Author is Senior Journalist/ Human Rights Activist
