HOW VIABLE IS TRACK II AND III DIPLOMACY BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA?

Muhammad Qaseem Saeed
{"title":"HOW VIABLE IS TRACK II AND III DIPLOMACY BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA?","authors":"Muhammad Qaseem Saeed","doi":"10.46568/jssh.v60i2.545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article examines viability of track II and III initiatives between India and Pakistan and their contribution in creating a cordial environment for track I diplomacy. The objective is the probe whether informal dialogues pave the way for states to communicate formally or their presence is cosmetic in nature. Pakistan and India share a belligerent history of bilateral relationships. Despite four wars, diplomacy has somehow remained at work between the two. Although the two countries have been engaged in official and backdoor dialogues periodically, however, this diplomatic contact appeared fragile and felt prey of severity many times. Track II and Track III diplomacy initiatives were launched and sought as means to reach the end of cordiality in bilateral relationships. The methodology used in this article is qualitative with primary and secondary sources. Through analysis of semi-governmental and people to people initiative, it is found that unofficial contact (track II and III) between the two states has not contributed toward paving the way for track I diplomacy. Such initiatives enjoy at length in good times more, rather than converting hostility into harmony in tense times. From Neemrana Dialogue to Ashoka Theater, track II and track III were unable to substitute track I.","PeriodicalId":93162,"journal":{"name":"American journal of social sciences and humanities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of social sciences and humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46568/jssh.v60i2.545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines viability of track II and III initiatives between India and Pakistan and their contribution in creating a cordial environment for track I diplomacy. The objective is the probe whether informal dialogues pave the way for states to communicate formally or their presence is cosmetic in nature. Pakistan and India share a belligerent history of bilateral relationships. Despite four wars, diplomacy has somehow remained at work between the two. Although the two countries have been engaged in official and backdoor dialogues periodically, however, this diplomatic contact appeared fragile and felt prey of severity many times. Track II and Track III diplomacy initiatives were launched and sought as means to reach the end of cordiality in bilateral relationships. The methodology used in this article is qualitative with primary and secondary sources. Through analysis of semi-governmental and people to people initiative, it is found that unofficial contact (track II and III) between the two states has not contributed toward paving the way for track I diplomacy. Such initiatives enjoy at length in good times more, rather than converting hostility into harmony in tense times. From Neemrana Dialogue to Ashoka Theater, track II and track III were unable to substitute track I.
巴基斯坦和印度之间的第二和第三轨道外交有多可行?
本文审查了印度和巴基斯坦之间第二和第三轨道倡议的可行性,以及它们在为第一轨道外交创造友好环境方面的贡献。其目的是探究非正式对话是否为国家之间的正式沟通铺平了道路,或者它们的存在本质上只是表面现象。巴基斯坦和印度在双边关系上有着一段好战的历史。尽管经历了四场战争,但外交在某种程度上仍在发挥作用。尽管两国定期进行官方和秘密对话,但这种外交接触似乎很脆弱,并多次受到严重影响。第二轨道和第三轨道的外交倡议已经发起并寻求作为结束双边关系中友好关系的手段。本文使用的方法是定性的主要和次要来源。通过对半政府和民间倡议的分析发现,两国之间的非正式接触(第二和第三轨道)并没有为第一轨道外交铺平道路。在经济形势好的时候,这样的举措更能让人享受到长久的快乐,而不是在经济形势紧张的时候将敌意转化为和谐。从《尼姆拉纳对话》到《阿育王剧场》,音轨二和音轨三无法取代音轨一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信