India, Pakistan stick to guns

India, Pakistan stick to guns

Shitanshu Shekhar Shukla
New Delhi, February 26

The foreign secretaries of Indian and Pakistan met in New Delhi on February 25. Emerging after the talks, they went separate ways to address the media, much the same way as they had walked into meeting separately.
The talks failed to change their paths. They were as far away from each other as they were before. Worse, no body was surprised. Many were relieved that nothing changed. Is Bashir also one of them ?
Indian foreign secretary Nirupama Rao and Pakistan foreign secretary Salman Bashir however appeared happy that they met after all. They agreed to disagree. The analysts struggled to see a silver line.
Bashir told the media that the meeting was neither success nor failure. Because success for India and success for Pakistan have opposite definitions. Success for India would have meant here the Indian concerns on terrorism addressed. While success for Pakistan would have meant issue of Kashmir raised.
Not only that, Nirupama Rao and Bashir differed on how long the contention issue was discussed. Rao claimed that Kashmir issue was raised briefly, Bashir claimed that it was discussed extensively in ‘detail’.
It proved right fear among the Indian Government officials that Pakistan would play hardball and to the gallery. They might as well return back to their countrymen saying we conceded nothing and forced a talk on Kashmir.
Bashir’s belligerence at the press conference so piqued the Indian officials as to quantify later the contents of dialogue. The contents show that eighty percent of the meeting was devoted to discussion terrorism.
They also responded to Bashir in kind, calling his press conference as ‘acrimonious’ and ‘point scoring’. Why did Bashir dismiss Indian dossier on Lashkar chief Hafiz Saeed as literature before withdrawing later?
Indian officials alleged that Bashir had been briefed by Pakistan army chief Kayani and not by head of the democratically elected government Gilani. They however added that they were not surprised to hear Bashir speak a language of hatred.
It explains why India didn’t accept Pakistan’s suggestion for both sides to work towards a timeline of substantial Prime Ministerial meeting during the SAARC summit in Bhutan in April this year.
Nor did they accept Bashir’s call for a composite dialogue.
India appreciated the achievements of the composite dialogue, suspended after the Mumbai attacks. But it pointed out that time was not yet ripe as the main concern now was to restore trust and confidence. Rao described the talks as “detailed, candid and transparent in which both sides gained.”
India submitted three dossiers which Pakistan assured it would seriously examine. One dossier provides information on some individuals associated with the Mumbai attacks, the second was a list of Indian fugitives sheltered in Pakistan and the third on Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed’s anti-India statements. Pakistan touched upon India’s involvement in supplying weapons and money to insurgents in Baluchistan which India said was a “baseless allegation.”
Rao said India went into the talks with an open mind but was fully conscious of the limitations imposed by the trust deficit between the two sides. “Pakistan understood our concerns on terrorism and said tackling this threat is their number one priority,” she said.
Bashir acknowledged that tackling terrorism was Pakistan’s top priority but felt it was necessary to restart the composite dialogue in order to address all the irritants in depth including Kashmir which was the “core issue.”
On terrorism, Pakistan suggested a comprehensive security concept which included intelligence sharing, temperance in the induction of military systems and greater restraint in statements from both sides. With both sides being nuclear powers, Pakistan sought a strategic restraint regime that addressed the issue of nuclear tipped missiles.
However, it may give a push to quiet back-channel engagement between former Pak Foreign Secretary Riaz Mohammed Khan and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s Special Envoy Satinder Lambah. Given the trust deficit and the evidence of India-specific terror groups being still active in Pakistan, back-channel talks could prove useful.
Lambah and Khan are said to have had a meeting and both have been “fully involved” in steps leading to the resumption of Foreign Secretaries-level talks.
India is believed to have given the go-ahead given how productive this process was during the Musharraf regime.
Well after former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s exit, it came to light that the two sides had, indeed, narrowed their gap on an understanding on Kashmir.
That’s why Lambah and Khan provide an important continuum to this renewed effort. Khan is closer to Gilani than Zardari, an indication of the gradual power shift in Islamabad from Zardari to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.