Discussing the situation in Kashmir, Dr. Singh spoke of 'disturbing trends' in infiltrations from across the Line of Control (LoC). These had come down materially, but now there was a 'surge' in them. Moreover, these infiltrators were 'more battle-hardened, better equipped and in possession of sophisticated communication equipment'.

In his speech during the parliamentary debate on the Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement Dr Singh, invoking president Ronald Reagan of the United States, had declared that his motto was to 'trust but verify'. A widespread interpretation of his speech was that he had trusted Pakistan but his verification showed that the neighbouring country wasn't trustworthy.

No wonder then that initially at least it gave Pakistan a mild jolt. For, the first Pakistani reaction to it was that the Indian Prime Minister's remarks were 'uncalled for'. The author of this statement, however, was the junior Minister of Information, Sumsum Ali Bokhari, who spoke to the media in     the port city of Karachi, not in Islamabad. 'I wish he (Dr. Manmohan Singh) had not made this statement because Pakistan and India are moving towards better relations … As Pakistanis we would not want any problems to occur anywhere. We are ourselves victims of terrorism'.

Within a few hours it became clear that this nonentity had spoken out of turn. For a considered statement by the Pakistan Foreign Office, first handed to the Indian deputy high commissioner and then repeated in public, was conciliatory in tone and clever in content. Its substance was that the Indian Prime Minister's statement had to be taken seriously, and Pakistani would do everything to treat it so. However, said the Pakistani Foreign Minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, since India has 'credible information', let it be conveyed to Pakistan so that it could take the necessary action. He rubbed in that, in the joint statement, the two countries were committed to exchanging 'credible intelligence'. This has led a former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan to remark that the 'ill-considered and badly drafted' joint statement would 'haunt the Prime Minister for a long time to come'.

However, exchange of credible intelligence is easier said than done. As the Americans have ruefully told Indian officials, the U.S. had given 'real time intelligence' to Pakistan that was immediately passed on to Afghan Taliban. Former president and retired general, Pervez Musharraf, publicly admitted in London the other day that the Pakistani ISI had to remain in touch with the Taliban across the Durand Line because it does not want India to dominate the Afghan scene after the Americans have withdrawn.

In this context, there seems consensus on both sides of the sub-continental divide that Pakistan has 'lobbed the cross-border terrorism issue back into India's court'. Neither this kind of one-upmanship nor fluctuation from optimism to pessimism is infrequent in India-Pakistan relations. Which only underscores what K. Natwar Singh — later foreign minister — had said as high commissioner to Pakistan way back in 1980s. Relations between these two neighbours, he had said, were 'devilishly complex'. Since then both the complexity and devilishness have multiplied manifold. Excellent personal relations among the people of the two countries coexist with unending tensions between the two states. India and Pakistan have to muddle along as best they can.

Meanwhile, most Indian observers are saying that his tough statement on terrorism indicates that Singh wants to put a lid on the storm of criticism that had hit him on arrival from Sharm-el-Sheikh. Not just the principal opposition party, the BJP, but also the Left Front and even his allies like the Samajwadi Party and the Rashtriya Janata Dal had accused Singh of a 'sell-out'. Most of them also alleged that he had done so 'under American pressure'.

The two major objections to the document signed in Egypt were about the 'de-linking' of terrorism and dialogue, and the inclusion in the joint statement, for the first time ever, of an elliptical reference to Pakistan's complaint of Indian interference in 'Balochistan and some other areas'. Emphatically and repeatedly, Dr. Manmohan Singh declared that there could be 'no dialogue, composite or otherwise' until Pakistan punished the perpetrators and masterminds of the horrific attack on Mumbai and there were 'credible' assurances that Pakistani territory would not be used for terrorist attacks on India. On Balochistan, his take was that India's hands were clean and its record was an open book and therefore it was prepared to discuss this issue. Unfortunately, no answer was forthcoming to the simple question as to why the prime minister's sentiments were not reflected in the joint statement.

What must have troubled Dr. Singh the most was that his own party, the Congress, withheld its support to him for several days. All its spokesmen would say was that the prime minister had made a statement and there was nothing to add to it. One day before the parliamentary debate the Congress Core Group met. According to reports, the PM had to face some flak. But on the floor of the two houses Congress MPs supported him. The next day Congress president Sonia Gandhi spoke to the party and gave 'full support' to the prime minister's presentation to parliament but never said a word about the 'joint statement'.

top