New Delhi
16 July 2010
The dissonance in the India-Pakistan discourse continued into the morning after,
but both sides were careful not to allow their differing narratives to torpedo their chances
of remaining engaged.
External affairs minister SM Krishna, who returned to New Delhi Friday after his three-
day visit to Islamabad, described his talks with his Pakistan counterpart, Shah Mahmood
Qureshi, as useful in gaining a better appreciation of each other's positions while
Qureshi maintained that the meeting did not end in a "deadlock".
Divergences persisted on how to take the dialogue forward, with Pakistan insisting on
talks "in tandem" on all issues and a calendar of future engagements. India, on the other
hand, was for "graduated and incremental steps", preferring a bottom-up approach over
the top-down approach preferred by Pakistan. India also maintained that a timeline would
neither be possible nor feasible given the complexities in the relationship.
Qureshi, who had caused a flutter the night before when he sought to compare Jamaat-
ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed's hate-India speeches with Home secretary GK Pillai's
remarks about Pakistan's involvement in the Mumbai attacks, did not help matters by
setting off a volley of avoidable references to the Indian delegation's alleged inflexibility
in the talks and taking potshots at Mr Krishna.
Qureshi told reporters in Islamabad that the Indian delegation appeared to be unwilling
to commit to a roadmap for future engagement because it felt it did not have the mandate
to do so. He contended that India's "selective" approach of discussing certain issues at
the expense of the others did not conform to the spirit of Prime minister Manmohan
Singh's meeting with his Pakistan counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani in Bhutan in April.
"If we focus more only on those issues which India gives importance to and ignore those
considered important by Pakistan, then I don't think the talks can move forward," Qureshi
said, adding that it would not make sense to discuss issues such as promotion of
cultural and trade relations at the expense of the core issues for Pakistan, such as
Kashmir, peace and security, and Siachen.
The Pakistan minister also appeared to question Mr Krishna's authority when he said
that while he did not step out of the talks to "attend any phone calls", the Indian minister
"received foreign policy directions from New Delhi repeatedly during our meeting".
"I led Pakistan's team and I didn't need to make even a single phone call (to Pakistan
leaders) during the day-long talks. Krishna is the principal for giving direction to foreign
policy (but) why were directions being sent repeatedly from Delhi? Who is the top foreign
policy adviser for India?" Qureshi wondered aloud, which New Delhi promptly dismissed
as a futile exercise at scoring brownie points.
Mr Krishna, who spoke to media upon his arrival in New Delhi, responded to Qureshi's
remarks by saying that he had confined himself to the mandate given to him pursuant to
the Manmohan-Gilani meeting. He described Qureshi's remark about him making
telephone calls as an "extraordinary" statement.
"I have not spoken to anybody. The mandate given to me was so precise, so clear, that it
does not need any additional instructions from Delhi," Mr Krishna countered. "Foreign
ministers are always in touch with their base, with the political leadership and
governmental leadership. There is nothing wrong even if something has happened on
these lines," he elaborated.
New Delhi believed Qureshi's remarks about Home secretary GK Pillai was a
"diversionary tactic'' by Pakistan, which has so far failed to take action on its promises
made to Home Minister P Chidambaram during his visit to Islamabad. Top government
sources said certain ''hawkish elements'' in Pakistan wanted to wreck the talks between
the home ministers and the home secretaries of the two countries.
The sources said that Qureshi's outburst was the handiwork of elements who were upset
with the resumption of India-Pakistan dialogue. The sources noted that Mr
Chidambaram's visit to Pakistan was a success as Pakistan's Interior minister Rehman
Malik had gone to the extent of conveying to Mr Chidambaram that New Delhi would not
be disappointed when Islamabad replies to terror related queries in the future.
Furthermore, the Home ministry sources said the contents of Mr Pillai's remarks had
already been conveyed to Pakistan. "For the rest of the information, India has told
Pakistan to get in touch with the US Department of Justice and FBI. Home secretary has
only repeated what the Pakistani agencies and government are well aware of," a source
said.
Another source who was familiar with India's engagement of Pakistan said that the next
steps in the dialogue process had been shared with the Pakistani side in the run-up to
the talks and India went ahead with its proposals based on the responsiveness of
Pakistan. They included the holding of talks between commerce and home secretaries,
promotion of people-to-people contacts, and trade. India had even indicated its
willingness to discuss the issue of sharing of river waters and had mooted that the talks
be raised to the level of secretaries, but the "complex chemistry at work" in Pakistan put
paid to India's hopes of making incremental progress in the talks.
The source said terrorism remained New Delhi's core concern. Pakistan needed to bring
the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice as the attacks were too serious a
trauma for the one billion Indians to forget. On Pakistan's claim of being as much as
victim of terrorism as India is, the source said India was the injured party as it was
suffering from terrorism unleashed from Pakistan. Everything about the Mumbai attacks
pointed to Pakistan and the brains trust of the 26/11 attacks was based in that country, it
was emphasised.
However, there remained a sliver of hope after the Pakistan government acknowledged
that progress had been made in dialogues held between 2004 and 2008 and that both
sides needed to build on it. Qureshi reiterated Friday that the progress made in the
previous rounds should not be wasted. "Those issues and segments for which
modalities have been already decided between the two countries should not be
reopened," Qureshi said.
Pakistan also held out the assurances that it would "very seriously" take steps on the
leads provided in the wake of additional information gleaned from the interrogation of
David Coleman Headley. Also, that it will take steps to hasten the trial of Lashkar-e-
Tayyiba (LeT) commander Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi and six others who are being tried in a
Pakistani court on charges of planning and facilitating the Mumbai attacks. Further,
Pakistan had agreed to reach an amicable settlement of the Sir Creek issue and it had
asked India to furnish its proposal, conveyed orally, in writing to the Pakistan
government.
No comments:
Post a Comment