There can be no doubt about the significance of both the discussions. Yet the joint statement issued by Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart, Yousaf Raza Gilani, has invited much criticism in the country, while general satisfaction has greeted the outcome of Clinton's intense parleys with the prime minister, Foreign Minister S. M. Krishna, and Congress president Sonia Gandhi. Even in this case, however, there have been some protests on one score. To explain this complex and complicated situation, one should begin with the Clinton visit, unquestionably the more important event.

In all her public speeches and private talks here, she constantly tried to allay Indian apprehensions, based on experience of the first six months of the Obama presidency, that this country has been downgraded in the new president's scheme of things, especially in comparison with the warmth exuded by George W. Bush. Clinton repeatedly spoke of rising India's potential and its vibrant democracy and reaffirmed that both Obama and she were keen to see to it that India-America relations took a  'big stride'.

Concretely, she and her Indian counterpart Krishna signed two agreements. One of these is on the end-use verification of the state-of-the-art American weaponry and technology that India needs to buy and America is anxious to sell in the coming years. Ironically, this caused the principal opposition party, the BJP, and some others to protest that the government had 'compromised' Indian 'sovereignty'. The truth is that under American laws, end-use verification is a must for any country buying arms from the U.S. India has, in fact, succeeded in securing a concession from Clinton. All other countries importing weaponry from the U.S., many of them its allies, have to allow American inspectors to visit the sites where American arms might be deployed on demand. India would decide the time and place where military equipment bought from America could be inspected.

The second accord is on cooperation in science, technology and space that would enable India, for the first time, to launch American satellites as also the satellites of other countries containing American components. Although a third agreement on this subject has yet to be formalised, India has earmarked two sites in states of Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat at which U.S.-supplied nuclear reactors would be installed. Before this can happen, however, India has to pass a law indemnifying nuclear suppliers of liabilities in case of accidents. Within a year the two countries also have to agree on the design of a 'dedicated' plant to reprocess the American-supplied nuclear fuel. Negotiations for this purpose are already on.

During recent months there was concern in India because the Obama administration had said absolutely nothing on the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, the centrepiece of the relationship  during the Bush years. Hillary Clinton categorically stated that the U.S. would honour the nuclear deal 'in letter and spirit'. This statement is long on    rhetoric and short on reality. At the G-8 summit in Italy earlier in July, the U.S. persuaded the eight richest nations — including Russia and France, the other two nuclear reactor and fuel suppliers to this country — to 'ban' the export of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to countries that haven't signed the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which India is surely one. This runs counter to the provisions of the 123 Agreement between India and the U.S. as also of the Vienna-based Nuclear Suppliers Group's 'clean waiver' to India. Clinton promised that India would not be denied any technology. But doubts persist here.

On climate change differences between the two countries are pronounced. The Indian Minister for Environment, Jairam Ramesh, told Clinton firmly that this country would not accept legally binding caps on emission of gases as it had to industrialise to remove poverty and, in any case, emissions by India were much less than emissions by the developed countries. Interestingly, some American newspapers, including Wall Street Journal, have extended support to the Indian point of view.

According to authoritative sources, while the visiting secretary of state was candid in her discussions on global issues, such as non-proliferation, WTO and climate change, and reasonably frank in her talks on Pakistan and Afghanistan, she was conspicuously reticent on China.

In contrast to this, the joint statement signed by Manmohan Singh and Gilani has become a major source of contention in the country and of embarrassment to the government just two months after its impressive victory in the general election. There are two causes of the discontent that is visibly shared by a large section of the Congress party.

Ever since the horrific terrorist attack on Mumbai from Pakistani soil on November 26 last, the Indian position has been that there can be no dialogue with Pakistan until it takes credible action against the masterminds and perpetrators of that attack, and assures India that Pakistani territory, including the part of Kashmir it controls, would not be used for terrorist attacks on this country. This hasn't happened. On the contrary, Hafiz Saeed, founder of the terrorist outfit that conducted the attack, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), has been freed from house arrest. On its part, Pakistan has been claiming that since it is doing all in its power to stop cross-border terror by non-state actors, the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan that was interrupted by General (retired) Pervez Musharraf's difficulties in his own country must be resumed.

Against this backdrop there was consternation and anger in the country when it was announced at Sharm-al-Sheikh that the joint statement had 'de-linked' terrorism from composite dialogue. What accentuated the fury was that the joint statement, for the first time ever, also mentioned Balochistan in an agreed Indo-Pak document. It was Gilani's indirect way of turning the spotlight on constant Pakistani complaints that India was fomenting rebellion and terrorism in Balochistan. The BJP seized the issue to pillory the government. Two allies of the ruling coalition, Lalu Prasad Yadav and Mulayam Singh Yadav, immediately joined it. Discontent within the Congress party, too, was manifest. The media has gone on criticising the prime minister for his 'Balochistan blunder'.

Aware of the harm done, the government and its spin-doctors have been busy in a massive damage control exercise. But they are hampered by two factors. First, the failure to include in the joint statement the renewed Indian claim that no dialogue, composite or otherwise, can begin until India gets satisfaction over terrorism. Making the situation far worse is the failure to refute Pakistan's allegations about Balochistan. Secondly, Pakistan is exploiting the opportunity fully. Its prime minister has reiterated his charge against India about Balochistan. Dawn, a prestigious newspaper, reported that Gilani had given Singh a dossier on Indian interference in Pakistan's rebellious province, a report India immediately denied.

top