There is a sense of relief in Islamabad that India has agreed to resume the peace dialogue with Pakistan following recent talks in the Egyptian holiday resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh between Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani and his Indian counterpart Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the NAM summit.

The joint statement issued after the meeting indicated some progress in breaking the stalemate in their uneasy relationship as India until now was refusing to resume the dialogue until Pakistan took concrete and visible action against the perpetrators of the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai. The Pakistan government and its supporters are claiming that the Sharm-el-Sheikh talks proved a success for Islamabad and Prime Minister Gilani, seen until now as a political novice lacking authority compared to the all-powerful President Asif Ali Zardari, is being credited with outmanoeuvring his much older and experienced counterpart from India.

Relatively young and energetic, Gilani is increasingly being seen as the man to watch in case Pakistan's civil and military establishment decides to get rid of President Zardari altogether or curtail his vast powers. Gilani has also won appreciation from the former prime minister Nawaz Sharif's PML-N and other political parties for his accessibility and politics of reconciliation with the opposition. The fact that the breakthrough with India, following a period of stalemate, came in Gilani's meeting with Manmohan Singh and not in the earlier talks between President Zardari and the Indian prime minister would further enhance the position of the prime minister of Pakistan.

The Pakistan government's supporters were also happy that India for the first time had agreed to discuss the issue of 'threats to Balochistan' and 'other areas'. It is seen in Pakistan as some kind of 'admission' by India that it has an intrusive role in the affairs of Balochistan. It implies that despite denials India has some role in the troubles Pakistan is facing in its two volatile provinces, Balochistan and the NWFP. The Pakistani authorities have consistently claimed that India had a hand in the acts of violence not only in Balochistan but also in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Swat and rest of Malakand region in the restive North-West Frontier Province (NWFP). In view of such allegations, getting New Delhi to agree to a reference to Balochistan and other areas in a joint Indo-Pak statement is seen as an achievement for Gilani and his team of negotiators at Sharm-el-Sheikh.

However, some commentators feel that the reference to Balochistan and other areas in Pakistan in the joint statement would give India a role in discussing an internal Pakistani matter and influence decision-making on the issue. India would never accept Pakistani allegations that it was interfering in Balochistan or that it was assisting the Baloch separatists, many of whom according to Pakistan's Interior Minister Rehman Malik were being hosted by the Afghan government in Kandahar, Helmand, Kabul and other places in Afghanistan and supported by India with arms and money. As some Indian commentators pointed out, India shouldn't have any issue with Pakistan's wish to bring up its 'internal issue' in bilateral talks and internationalise Balochistan.

It would be wrong to suggest that India gave away everything in the Sharm-el-Sheikh talks and abandoned its known position post-Mumbai attacks for not resuming the composite peace dialogue with Pakistan until the Lashkar-i-Taiba leader Hafiz Mohammad Saeed and his men were brought to justice for their role in sponsoring the carnage in Mumbai. The Indians could justifiably claim that they managed to avoid mention of Kashmir in the joint India-Pakistan statement. In fact, some opposition politicians in Pakistan have condemned the PPP-led coalition government of Zardari and Gilani for failing to  convince India to mention Kashmir in the joint statement. Some critics also pointed out that Pakistan's position on Jammu and Kashmir issue wasn't constant and that it changed with the change of its rulers.

Members and supporters of the Zardari-Gilani government, however, argued that the issue of Kashmir is inherently included in the text of the joint statement, which said that 'India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.' In their view, the word 'outstanding issues' took care of the issue of Jammu and Kashmir.

The pro-government Pakistanis were also patting themselves on the back by pointing out that Islamabad had prevailed upon New Delhi to agree     that resumption of the peace dialogue was the only way forward in their uncertain relationship. This was acknowledged in the joint statement in the following words: 'Both Prime Ministers recognized that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.'

Taking this as a victory, Gilani said, 'All core issues that were pending under composite dialogue should be discussed... That should not be bracketed with this Mumbai incident.'

Pakistan merely made yet another promise that it would do everything in its power to combat terrorism but for India it was a departure from its stated position that no talks could be held unless the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks were punished.

Manmohan Singh subsequently tried to make amends by explaining the     joint statement in the following words: 'A composite dialogue cannot begin unless and until the terrorist attacks that shook Mumbai are accounted for and the perpetrators of these heinous crimes brought to book. The starting point of any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan has to have their commitment not to let their territory be used for terrorist activities against India. If acts of terrorism continue to be perpetrated, there is no question of a dialogue, let alone a composite dialogue.'

Despite the difference in approach to the contentious issues between the two prime ministers and criticism by opposition in both countries, their governments have stood by the     Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement. The Pakistan government is anxious for resumption of the peace dialogue after having convinced India that this was in the interest of the two countries. It had made an effective argument that India could suffer more terrorist attacks if there were no peace talks and in case Pakistan was weakened further in tackling its homegrown extremists and terrorists. India was told a strong and stable Pakistan was in New Delhi's interest and this could happen only if Islamabad's war against terrorism was strengthened through Indo-Pak talks focusing on resolution of the Kashmir and other pending disputes.
In India, the ruling Congress party has stood by Manmohan Singh following strong criticism by the opposition BJP and other parties for conceding to Pakistan on the Balochistan issue on his joint statement with Gilani. The opposition parties contended that reference to Balochistan was tantamount to giving credibility to Pakistan's allegations of Indian interference in the affairs of that province. Singh reportedly won support from his party leader Sonia Gandhi and lawmakers by arguing that reference to Balochistan in the joint statement was merely taking cognisance of Pakistan's stance at the Sharm-el-Sheikh talks. He stressed that India agreed to discuss the issue as it had nothing to hide.

The BJP had also seized upon a statement by Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon in which he had described the joint statement as a case of bad drafting. The BJP demanded his resignation and also questioned the role of the Prime Minister Office in drafting the Indo-Pak statement that went in Pakistan's favour. It held that the prime minister owed responsibility for the 'bad drafting' and should accept his mistake.

Another controversy was generated when Pakistan objected to a statement by India's Minister of State for External Affairs, Shashi Tharoor, in which he described Islamabad's charges of   India's involvement in acts of terrorism in Pakistan as 'preposterous' and maintained that New Delhi had no interest anyway to destabilise its neighbouring country. This was preceded by Indian denials of receiving any dossier from Pakistan about its involvement in terrorist acts in  Pakistan, including Balochistan and the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore.

These are, however, the usual disagreements between the two distrusting neighbours and were to be expected given the uncertain state of their relations these past 62 years. To expect the two countries to start showing good-neighbourliness so soon after the summit meeting of their prime ministers in Egypt amounts to wishful thinking. Also, there shouldn't be high expectations that resumption of their peace dialogue would make any significant headway. In fact, this should be termed as resumption of the 'talks about the talks,' meaning these preliminary talks would be about the format of the future dialogue and setting of priorities before serious negotiations could begin about resolving pending issues ranging from Kashmir to Sir Creek and Siachin to Mumbai attacks. There were both domestic compulsions and international pressure on both Pakistan and India to resume their dialogue and, therefore, their governments agreed to do so to avoid being labelled as inflexible and opposed to the peace process. Indian refusal to resume the composite dialogue could have exposed it to criticism that it   wasn't doing enough to support the U.S.-led war on terrorism in the region as this amounted to distracting Pakistan from cooperating with the U.S. and its Western allies in stabilising Afghanistan.

top