somnath wrote:The KGB and CIA maintained contacts with each other even when the USSR and US were locked in an intractable conflict . In case of ISI, India has the advantage of then talking to the real policy makers directly, rather than to proxies, which is what the civvie establishment is..The fact is that all major powers maintain direct contact with PA and ISI, because they know that's where policy is made..WE on the other hand, have so much at stake there and have zero contact with ISI/PA..
There was equivalence between KGB and CIA regarding their modus operandi in other countries. Neither the Soviet Union nor the USA needed to deny that they were involved in the subversion of the other. Neither the KGB nor CIA needed to deny over which groups they held influence. Most proxies were not afraid to openly accept support from any one of them. Often USA and Soviet Union said openly which group they supported. There were a few exceptions, of course. Neither the KGB nor the CIA needed to pretend that restraint was the better part of their valor. Restraint was something up for bargaining.
somnath wrote:RajeshA, conversations are not as simplistic as you put it..
somnath ji, perhaps you might like to offer some concrete examples of
- what would be the subject of conversation;
- which will be the presumptions of the Pakistanis, which Indians would be willing to confirm;
- what could be bargained, as Indians would not be willing to admit, they have any pressure points other than our troops on the border, and Pakistanis agents that we have in custody in India.
Indians are not only in the overt mode at the tactical level but also at the strategic level viz-a-viz Pakistan, in case we are at all conducting any operations in Pakistan, which is no certainty. The overt mode at the strategic level by India, does not allow a sincere 'heart-to-heart' discussion with Pakistanis.
If you are willing to offer me any insights of what can be discussed between the two sides, I'll be very eager to know. Of course, if all I hear is some general talk of how it strengthens understanding between the two sides, and opens channels of communications, vagerah, vagerah, then it would not contribute to widening my horizons.
somnath wrote:A direct communication with ISI will enable us gauge their intent, threshold, objectives far better than either talking to proxies or from our own intel sources. It will also enable us communicate our intent and threshold directly to the policy makers..For example, Pakistan (more importantly the PA) clearly misunderstood our likely response to a Kargil type situation..A level of direct communication would give us the platform to directly tell them our red lines and our likely responses..Could have the benefit of preempting a lot of actions (and reactions)..This is rather simplistic, but there is never any harm in talking to the real policy makers..In an insurgency scenario for example, if there are talks, it is always advised that the govt talks to the guys who wield the gun, not their political proxies, as the guys with the gun can deliver...
We all know the intent, the objectives - and that is bleeding India by a thousand cuts, forcing India to make concessions through the use of violence, pushing terrorists into India at the borders by giving them fire cover, supplying all sorts of violent groups in India with weapons, attacking symbols of Indian pride and prestige, spoiling the economic climate in India through acts of terror, vagerah, vagerah. Would they be able to contribute to this knowledge?
We all know India's threshold - as much terrorist activity as possible in India, which does not ordain a response by India. India's threshold is getting higher and higher by the day. Pakistan keeps on testing our threshold and keeps on pushing it higher every time. The last true response was in 1971.
What is Pakistan's threshold - now this is something the ISI would really be forthcoming with!

The basis of their security is that India is not aware of their threshold. We do not know, when they will shoot all their nukes at us, and that is why we do not go to war, right away after every terrorist attack in India. That is how they would like to keep it. Why would anyone in the ISI reveal us that?
Indians cannot give any hints on any Indian involvement in Pakistan, and Pakistan cannot give any hints on its threshold.
India has built its foreign policy around the concept of "non-interference" and "non-violence". Two very stupid concepts, because they tie our whole Pakistan policy into knots and catharsis. Until we clear ourselves of these principles, we cannot have any useful deescalation dialog with ISI either. Ideal would be - They hit us; we hit them back much harder. Then we negotiate a deescalation through the ISI channel. As things stand now, there is nothing to offer them, because "non-violence" is a given.
Why would somebody pay at a langar?
The ISI wants India to discuss and negotiate things with them,
so that it is becomes even more apparent, than it already is, that any concessions we make, we would be making at the behest of ISI, which strengthens their position that the policy they have followed viz-a-viz India, the policy of a thousand cuts and Jihad and terrorism are paying dividends.
At least when we make concessions to the 'Civilian Leadership' in Pakistan, we can sell our concessions as our generosity and magnanimity instead of cowardice which it in fact is. With the ISI, we would have a hard time even packaging our concessions as that. Our concessions will appear for what they are - as "cowardice" and "defeat", and we will still be making them, because in the mean time our threshold would have gone through the sky.
We put the ISI in the docks sometime ago, when even the US was saying that the ISI would need to be dismantled. If we start talking to them, they become our dialog partners, we legitimize them. After-wards there would be no going back, and we would not be able to demand ISI's dissolution being an associate, in fact - the mastermind, of terrorism activity. Do we really want that?
Now if that is another slap we want to take, let's go ahead!
ISI's agenda for talks with India, is a domestic agenda - to improve its standing in the country, and an international agenda - to get the respect of other governments. It has got nothing to do with providing India with more options.
The problem with us now is, that we have become so clueless about our policy towards Pakistan, that we jump at any new channel of resolution that is being offered to us. We take the opening and get screwed mighty each time. Instead of making us any wiser, it makes us only more desperate for some sort of resolution, and we go ahead and again jump at the next 'opportunity' that is being offered to us. The problem is we have given up on our Lakshman-Rekha.
somnath ji,
'Flexibility' and
'Overcoming historical-prejudices' and
'Grasping the opportunity', that you support and many Indian leaders see wisdom in, is exactly our problem with Pakistan.