Indian PM sends New Year greetings to Pakistan's Zardari

[IceCold]

My dad recently went to - morocco, he was there for 2 weeks and he met this pakistani guy- when he told him he is Indian. this guy just lost it. he showered so much affection and care toward him which left him shell shocked!
For these 2 week they had dinner ever evening together and this guy kept on insisting to pay for him and in the end he gave him souvenir and requested he would visit him in Pakistan. There been many such incident which happened to me in us of a DURING MY UNIV. days.
I somehow realized Pakistani are most trust worthy friends. its like you get what you give. Never the less there are bad weed everywhere but that does'nt take away the fact of situation that this bad conditioning of Indian and Pakistani brain by politics is just like cancer for our mind.
And love is all there in pakistan if you give love yo get love- like - you dont expect to have mango on cactus.

I hope the Pakistani guy didn't turn out to be a gay lol. The kind of story you are putting up, it seems more like a date thing and less of what you want to portray. Anyways since the other guy was your father so i wont comment any further and no offense intended.
By the way don't use the word lost it, the first impression one gets was as if he lost it and was going to knock your dad's teeth down his throat.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Defending the right to live

By Kuldip Nayar
Friday, 10 Apr, 2009

IT was a small albeit a significant gesture by those who took out a procession at the historic Jantar Mantar in New Delhi to express their solidarity with the people of Pakistan in their hour of challenge from terrorists.

It is a coincidence that thousands of people demonstrated on the same day at the Mall in Lahore to warn terrorists, some of whom had attacked a police academy.

In both countries the message was that the people would not allow bombs and bullets to defeat freedom and fraternity. Without any arms or security the participants of the demonstrations have made it clear that determined people are a far bigger force than all the gun-toting fundamentalists put together.

Civil society in both countries knows that the battle between terrorism and peace may last long. The loss may be enormous. But there is no doubting the victory of those who leave the comfort of their home to come on the streets to defend their right to live – and to live without fear. They want to build an environment where children can play without their parents worrying about them, where elders can go about their business with confidence and where every man can command respect regardless of his faith.

Unfortunately, neither New Delhi nor Islamabad comes up to a standard that prepares them for a firm response to terrorism. They are not even on speaking terms, much less anywhere near planning joint steps to fight the scourge. Who gets the better of the other in diplomacy or tactics has little significance when the people they represent have begun to feel as if they are on their own. Both societies are an exasperated lot and have little faith in their governments.

What happened in Mumbai or elsewhere a few months ago and what is happening in Pakistan in some shape or the other every day shows that the battle with the enemy – the terrorists – is yet to become a joint one. People do not see any short – or long-term strategy which the government on either side has charted to exterminate terrorism.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has a point when he says that when the Pakistani government is not doing enough to bring the perpetrators of the recent Mumbai attacks to justice, there is no use resuming dialogue with Islamabad. The Pakistani reply that it will not agree to ‘any precondition’ too makes sense. But asking for a quick trial is not equal to putting conditions. The simple fact is that neither appreciates the enormity of the danger posed by the terrorists to the two countries.

True, Islamabad created the Taliban for reasons of ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan. But now it finds that Frankenstein is killing the master. Pakistanis are dying by the dozen. Would putting blame on Islamabad help New Delhi?

By reaching within six kilometres of the Wagah border, the Taliban are giving a warning to India that they are not too distant. Kashmir has already reported the entry of the Taliban through Gurez in the north of the state. The Indian army has verified that some infiltration has already taken place.

The Taliban seem to have a well-worked-out plan to undo both India and Pakistan. As regards India, the threat is to the country’s secular structure. In Pakistan, they want society to go back to a mediaeval way of living. Armed with fatal weapons of firearms and fanaticism, the Taliban are killing those who differ with them or come in their way.

David Kilcullen, former adviser to top US military commander Gen David Petraeus has warned that Pakistan could collapse within months in the face of the snowballing insurgency. Is this prospect good for New Delhi? Imagine a buffer state between the Taliban and India disappearing. What is India doing except feeling smug? There may be Indians who are chuckling over the maelstrom of terrorism and thoughtlessness in which Pakistan is caught.

Both New Delhi and Islamabad should realise that hostility towards each other is only helping the Taliban and weakening the forces which believe in democracy and the rule of law. The more the two countries grow apart, the more viability they give to fundamentalists who have built a make-believe world on hatred and extremism. All problems pale into insignificance when the fight is for the survival of the basics for which people live.

India should be able to appreciate this much more than Pakistan because the former has been a stable democratic country for more than six decades. Unfortunately, when it comes to Pakistan, India does not act as a visionary. Note how New Delhi has stopped officials in the Pakistan High Commission from going to nearby Gurgaon or Noida to play golf indicating the former does not want people-to-people contact.

It is too much to ask the two nations to cleanse the slate of bias and bitterness. But can the two nations cobble together a plan to confront the Taliban? New Delhi should give a unilateral undertaking to keep the eastern border, along with Kashmir, quiet so as to enable Pakistani forces to fight on the western front, adjoining Afghanistan and Fata.

The gaping wounds of Mumbai will take time to heal. The Pakistani government should be seen doing all it can to punish the perpetrators. Let that process continue. Yet the two countries should be seen openly joining hands for exterminating terrorism. Islamabad must take steps to stop the alleged activities of the ISI in helping Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Only the other day some US generals accused the intelligence agency of doing so.

The matter was also raised during the Pakistani army chief’s recent visit to Washington where it was indicated that it would be in Pakistan’s interest to be clear on the issue. The Pakistani intelligence considers India a bigger enemy than the Taliban. The mere transfer of troops from the border with India to the NWFP from where the Taliban operate will not do. The attitude has to undergo a sea change. The plea that only rogue elements in the intelligence are mixed up does not wash.

On the other hand, New Delhi has to learn how to adjust and live with its neighbour. It has been the same story of deadlocks and dialogue for the last six decades. Pakistan genuinely feels that India, a far bigger and more powerful country, will one day gobble it up. This is not true. Both sides have to bury the hatchet to enable people to exercise their right to live.

The writer is a leading journalist based in New Delhi.

 

[notsuperstitious]

^^^^^

a must read for anyone who wishes for peace in the sub continent. Thank you Rabzon for posting.

Lets stop the human tragedy of Indo Pak mess.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Steps should be taken to prevent war . The major thing is India and Pakistan both mutually work together to stop proxy wars which is pathway of a full fledge war and try to setle all their dispute in a conginial environment.
Inida can become an economic superpower of asia only if it gives up its hostillities aginst Pakistan .

 

[Gabbar]

^^^^^

a must read for anyone who wishes for peace in the sub continent. Thank you Rabzon for posting.

Lets stop the human tragedy of Indo Pak mess.

Indeed!!!.

There are people exist in both countries who wants peace and also who wants was as well. It is nice to see people who wants peace get some media attention, usually it's war monglers who get most of the attention.
Peace can solve most of each others problems, India will get it's energy security through gas and oil pipe lines from mid-east through Pakistan and Pakistan will get access to cheap medicines and agriculture goods and machinery.

Hopefully this will happen some day, when I wont need visa to go to Pakistan from India and vis versa.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Samajwadi Party wants better ties with Pakistan: Mulayam Singh

April 12, 2009

NEW DELHI: The Samajwadi Party wants strong ties with Pakistan, party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav said on Saturday.

He was addressing a press conference in Lucknow after releasing his party manifesto. He said the party would ensure that New Delhi would have better relations with Pakistan if it came to power.

“The Samajwadi Party will increase security on the borders and ensure that India has better policies towards its neighbours like Pakistan and Bangladesh,” Singh said.

The manifesto said the party would focus on unemployment, education, corruption, environment and reservation for backward classes, minorities and tribal. Samajwadi Party General Secretary Amar Singh and Bollywood star Sanjay Dutt were also present on the occasion. Recently, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that Dutt, who has served nearly two years of a six-year prison sentence for illegal arms possession, could not contest India’s general elections. app

 

[Contrarian]

Samajwadi Party wants better ties with Pakistan: Mulayam Singh

April 12, 2009

NEW DELHI: The Samajwadi Party wants strong ties with Pakistan, party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav said on Saturday.

He was addressing a press conference in Lucknow after releasing his party manifesto. He said the party would ensure that New Delhi would have better relations with Pakistan if it came to power.

“The Samajwadi Party will increase security on the borders and ensure that India has better policies towards its neighbours like Pakistan and Bangladesh,” Singh said.

The manifesto said the party would focus on unemployment, education, corruption, environment and reservation for backward classes, minorities and tribal. Samajwadi Party General Secretary Amar Singh and Bollywood star Sanjay Dutt were also present on the occasion. Recently, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that Dutt, who has served nearly two years of a six-year prison sentence for illegal arms possession, could not contest India’s general elections. app

I dont think Pakistan would want good relations with SP. Their election manifesto states that they want to get rid of computers as it is reducing employement in India. They ALSO say that they are against English language, as the masses are not getting jobs because jobs are given to the English speaking populace!!

For the life of me, they even beat the Communists in this one! They sure have an ally now-the CPI!

 

[wtf]

I dont think Pakistan would want good relations with SP. Their election manifesto states that they want to get rid of computers as it is reducing employement in India. They ALSO say that they are against English language, as the masses are not getting jobs because jobs are given to the English speaking populace!!

For the life of me, they even beat the Communists in this one! They sure have an ally now-the CPI!

Offtopic, but Communists are certainly not anti-English considering they are from Kerala/west Bengal. And Kerala/WB govt. IT policy is pretty decent too. They are liberals in everything except economic policy.Their method of poverty alleviation would be to get government to hire everyone and to raise PF rates. The West Bengal government on the other hand now is looking at Chinese style Capitalism.

Don't blame the SP mess on communists, their problems lie elsewhere.
(I hope the Pakistani poster who calls himself a Communist wouldn't hear me supporting CPI )

 

[RabzonKhan]

Gandhi kin asks India to resume talks with Pakistan

By Jawed Naqvi
Wednesday, 29 Apr, 2009

NEW DELHI: A grandson of Mahatma Gandhi has joined demands by a growing number of Indian activists for resumption of talks with Pakistan, saying the beleaguered country needed ‘neighbourly support’ as well as a self-help strategy to overcome its many challenges, a statement said on Tuesday.

In a petition signed by senior Indian citizens, including former prime minister I.K. Gujral, peace activist Rajmohan Gandhi said: ‘At this time Indians must express total and unqualified support to all Pakistanis striving to preserve normal life in their country.’

'Threats to Pakistanis are not only threats to close neighbours; they are threats moving towards India, and threats that can easily scale the international border.’

The statement said: ‘Self-interest plus the simplest humanity demands that Indians, citizens and the government, do all they can to make the challenges before Pakistanis less arduous. Despite India’s ongoing elections, and notwithstanding Indian complaints against Pakistani governments, agencies and groups, let India and Indians offer every encouragement and support to the people of Pakistan in the difficult times they face.’

Indians could not remain mute witnesses of the serious danger that Pakistan faces and of the brave effort of many Pakistanis to meet that danger, the statement said.

‘Going to work or school is today a hazard in several parts of Pakistan. Many children remain at home. Trust in institutions of government and in security forces has dropped steeply. Mutual blame often replaces joint action.’

Signatories to the public petition included former foreign secretary Salman Haider, rights activists Teesta Setalvad, Aruna Roy, legal activists Fali Nariman and former Justice Rajinder Sachchar.

‘We extend our solidarity to those Pakistanis who in this crisis are working for reconciliation among Pakistan’s divided groups, thereby making the Pakistani soil less hospitable to extremism and violence.’

‘We express the earnest hope that Pakistan will overcome its internal trust-deficit —whether between parties, ethnic groups or sects, or between the political class and security forces, or even among relatives —and thereby emerge stronger.’

The petition came as a departure from the relentless pressure mounted by the mainstream Indian parties and the government on Pakistan to dismantle terrorist infrastructures they accuse Islamabad of allowing on its territory.

Even as the statement was circulated, Indian Army chief Gen Deepak Kapoor said infiltration of terrorists into Jammu and Kashmir, helped by Pakistani establishment, had risen substantially, with March recording the highest influx as compared to the corresponding month in the last seven years.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Editorial: Dialogue with India: old or new?

June 17, 2009

Speaking at a Pugwash conference in Islamabad on Monday, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani stressed the importance of resuming the dialogue between Pakistan and India “to address issues that have for long been the reason for tensions between the two countries”. He has referred to issues of “long” gestation and therefore desires a return to the Indo-Pak composite dialogue that started in 2004 and stopped in 2007 without resolving the deeply buried issues to which he alluded.

The reference is to the Kashmir issue. It was made a part of the old composite dialogue, and during the Musharraf government, much meaningful advance was made on “normalising” or “rationalising” the status quo rather than changing it. President Musharraf was able to put forth innovative proposals that no earlier government had done as “variations on the theme”, but without moving India from the all-party position taken on Kashmir in the Lok Sabha. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, keener than all prime ministers in the past to move on the economic sector, disarmed criticism at home by setting the baseline: no change of the map in Kashmir. “Backdoor” diplomacy did not bear fruit simply because it was deniable, and succeeding governments denied that any progress had been made.

The composite dialogue survived for three years because the Pakistani side had lifted the condition that no progress would be allowed without “movement” on the Kashmir issue. The new formulation was that dialogue on Kashmir should go on without blocking other fronts. Unfortunately, movement on other fronts was not made either, revealing that India had created additional “non-core” issues — Siachen, Sir Creek, Wullar Barrage, Baglihar, etc — as defensive moats to the main theme of Kashmir. Not even the simpler issue of Sir Creek has been resolved although the United Nations had made it a condition for the determination of the maritime zones for both countries, and had set a deadline for it in 2009.

President Musharraf was pilloried in Pakistan for being soft on Kashmir — as if taking a hardline à la Kashmir Committee was going to bring Pakistan any dividends. He weakened and finally fell from power trying to assuage India after his Himalayan blunder, the Kargil adventure. Today, everyone in Pakistan hates the Kargil operation and the then prime minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif, says he never authorised it. And yet the lesson that “adventures” will not redound to Pakistan’s advantage doesn’t make Pakistan decide what it wants to do vis-à-vis India if it doesn’t budge on Kashmir. Innovative proposals like the opening of trade routes to make the two countries interdependent and thus more willing to resolve bilateral issues make shipwreck on the rock of the Kashmir issue.

What is needed is a new dialogue, the old one having run its course and brought no change. It should be predicated on the absolute interdiction of war between the two nuclear states, overt or covert. Since Pakistan was guilty of the Kargil adventure, it should accept that after the establishment of nuclear deterrence, only normalisation is possible, and that challenging the status quo has to be given up as policy. In fact, nuclear weapons will provide the “security of negotiation” as Pakistan engages India for the promotion of trade and investment between the two countries.

The new dialogue should be about sorting out the consequences of past hostility, of policies that did not succeed but were insisted upon as a kind of national emblem of pride. It is only through a new dialogue that India and Pakistan can take care of the allegation they level at each other of “interference”. The two have tried to undermine each other’s domestic scene on which they must exchange views frankly. The entire world knows what they do to each other, and the verdict is that such strategies have been robbed of all meaning and should now be given up.

The old dialogue is not there to resume. New conditions dictate a new dialogue. Once assurances of non-interference are exchanged and mutual fear of military attack is removed, the “non-core issues” will be ready to resolve, and Pakistan and India will be ready to talk sensibly about such more important issues as waters. The “core issue”, as Pakistan’s policy on Kashmir spells out, can be resolved only through peaceful means.

 

[wtf]

Pak newspapers are reporting that the talks are back on ?
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

* Zardari, Singh to hold second meeting in Egypt next month
* Menon says dialogue with Pakistan to focus only on terrorism
* Zardari reiterates cooperation in Mumbai attacks probe

By Iftikhar Gilani

YEKATERINBURG: The eight-month long Pakistan-India stalled peace process got a fresh lease of life on Tuesday, as President Asif Ali Zardari and Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh agreed for their foreign secretaries to meet on “mutually convenient dates”.

Meeting on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, they said they would then meet on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Egypt in July to review any progress. “The two foreign secretaries will meet at mutually convenient dates and discuss the steps taken on either side to deal with extremism and terrorism. From those discussions, the political leadership will re-engage at Sharm-el-Sheikh (Egypt),” Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi told APP after the meeting.

Only terrorism: Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon said both leaders had agreed to resume foreign secretary level contacts, but had chosen to focus only on terrorism. He said the officials would assess the steps taken by Pakistan to address India’s concerns. The meeting in Egypt would decide whether to resume bilateral process, and its format, he added.

Qureshi said it was in the interest of both countries to resume the dialogue process. “The most sensible thing to do now would be to resume dialogue as soon as possible. It is in our mutual interest. Both countries stand to gain by resumption of dialogue. Pakistan feels it is an useful exercise,” he said. “We made progress (through composite dialogue). It was slow but steady. The people of South Asia would stand to gain from it,” he added. He said Pakistan itself was a “victim of terrorism” and the menace was not country-specific.

“We are victims of terrorism, but as a nation we have decided to act in a decisive manner and there has been lot of dislocation,” he said, likely referring to the situation in Swat. He said all countries agree that terrorism has to be condemned and fought “from wherever it emanates ... India, Pakistan, UK and America”.

To questions, Qureshi said Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani’s comments that Kashmir was the core issue between India and Pakistan were reflective of the issue being one of the components of the composite dialogue. “It is an outstanding issue. Both countries recognise it as such,” he said. He said Pakistan has to respect the independence of its court system, and could not interfere in the lawful release of Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafeez Muhammad Saeed. The provincial government is contemplating appealing the court’s decision, he added.

On whether he thought India and Pakistan should make joint efforts to restore peace in Afghanistan, Qureshi said: “There has to be a regional approach. All regional players can contribute and should contribute.”

Cooperation: President Zardari also reiterated Pakistan’s desire to cooperate with India in bringing the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice, according to a statement issued by the Foreign Office. “It is imperative the Pakistan-India Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism be reactivated,” Zardari told Singh.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Couples counseling for India and Pakistan

Deepak Chopra and Salman Ahmad
Monday, June 29, 2009

Suspicions over a cooked election in Iran have brought a glimmer of hope for real reform. It takes glimmers in the long, fractious fights that hold societies in thrall. Can we find one in the toxic fight that has plagued India-Pakistan relations for six decades?

We've already had a Camp David moment. When the two heads of state met to shake hands in mid-June, Manmohan Singh of India and Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan obeyed some new forces. One was the force of economics, which has cut both ways. Economics promises to make India a prosperous player on the world scene. With money has come the expectation of rational behavior, and India can see rationally that a stable, nonaggressive Pakistan is the kind of neighbor it wants to have.

The other side of economics is the downturn. The mini-Cold War that has raged between the two countries keeps draining much needed resources that neither side can afford to squander.

The second new force is social, and it has arisen since the terrorist attack in Mumbai last November. The fact that the Indian populace did not call for reprisals against Pakistan, combined with Pakistan's seemingly genuine efforts to crack down on terrorist camps, had an unexpected result. The xenophobes and zealots on the right lost the recent Indian election, and now the ruling Congress party has seen a peace benefit in real-time politics.

Now what?

Both countries need to test if a deeper shift in consciousness has taken place. Family feuds make for the bitterest wars. Behind the facade of nationalism, Delhi and Islamabad have been acting like battling exes in a never-ending divorce dispute.

It's on this human basis that peace could make progress. The point isn't how to slice up Kashmir or stop brandishing useless nuclear bombs. Until the divorced parties stop demonizing each other, both sides will cling to the one thing that all family feuds are based on: feeling right. India and Pakistan mutually feel justified in calling the other side wrong, and their emotional stance has ossified for 60 years.

May we offer some suggestions as a form of couples counseling?

First, the two countries need to recognize their commonality. Both were born on the same day in 1947, share the same ethnic and many of the same tribal backgrounds. India has a massive Muslim population, and on both sides of the border millions more identify as Punjabis. Their young people go to the same rock concerts and download the same songs, while their grandparents tell the same folk tales around the fire and relive the same myths.

With this commonality in mind, we propose a new paradigm for moving toward peaceful relations:

1. Increase people-to-people exchanges.
2. Use the arts and culture in building new cultural bridges.
3. Adopt a proactive realignment in loans to serve all the people, not just the privileged few.
4. Make the public feel safer by a joint agreement renouncing nuclear weapons and massive standing armies on each other's border.
5. Agree to isolate violent extremists of all shapes and stripes, whether Hindu or Muslim.
6. Resolve the Kashmir conflict through international intermediaries.


India's current national leadership can help immeasurably in strengthening the region by playing an astute and farsighted role in normalizing relations. An older generation couldn't conceive of India without Pakistan as a blood enemy and vice versa. But the younger generation wants to be free of such rigid conditioning. With 60% of Pakistan's population under 24 and India's young people being globalized via the Internet, the race between MySpace.com and the politics of hatred looms large.

Given the right signals, beleaguered Pakistanis and Indians will recognize and embrace a sincere, open approach toward conflict resolution. This may take a leap of faith on both sides, but the time is ripe. Iran isn't unique. Change is in the air everywhere.


Deepak Chopra is the author of over 50 books on health, success, relationships and spirituality, including his most recent novel, "Jesus: A Story of Enlightenment," available now at Deepak Chopra.

 

[BATMAN]

China congratulates Pakistani nation, cricketers on winning T-20 World Cup tourney

Now this was a missed opportunity by Mr. Singh to take the lead and approach Pakistan with a positive approach.

Pak-China friendship rocks...

 

[RabzonKhan]

Editorial: Why talk to India?

July 16, 2009

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has gone to the NAM Summit at Sharm al-Sheikh saying he will meet his Indian counterpart Mr Manmohan Singh with “an open mind” and that if Pakistan and India don’t join hands the advantage will go to the third party, the terrorists. He is hopeful that the meeting — on top of the foreign secretaries’ “no-ground-given” meeting earlier — will break the ice, and India and Pakistan can get back to the “composite dialogue” abandoned after November 2008 when non-state actors attacked Mumbai.

Why is Pakistan so keen on talking to India? Is it a reflex developed out of the practice of past years when both sides try to come back to a dialogue after a period of tension or is it the yearning for peace in South Asia without which this region cannot survive? There is an argument that Pakistan needs peace more than India; that India has reached the status of a regional power in the eyes of many countries in the world without being at peace with Pakistan. Hence, why should India want to talk to Pakistan unless it can get something good out of it?

The fact is that while India has shown good economic indicators and has generally been courted by the West over the last few years, all its efforts can go awry without being at peace with Pakistan. Non-state actors can pull the two sides to war and while such a conflict would be deadly for Pakistan, any victory would be more than pyrrhic for India. At the least it would set India back many decades. That was the result of a war game played by the two sides in Washington last year. The game was overseen by American experts and it left everyone chastened.

Corollary: both countries need peace. Caveat: they can’t move forward without respecting each other’s sensitivities. The time for oneupmanship is over.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Editorial: Indo-Pak dialogue: not yet in sight?

July 17, 2009

Speeches made by the prime ministers of India and Pakistan on Wednesday at the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit at Sharm al-Sheikh do not indicate much progress towards an unconditional resumption of the “composite dialogue” because the foreign secretaries’ meeting has produced a deadlock. Addressing the summit theme of International Solidarity for Peace and Development, Mr Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, said, “The infrastructure of terrorism must be dismantled and there should be no safe haven for terrorists because they do not represent any cause, group or religion. In recent years, terrorist groups have become more sophisticated, more organised and more daring. Terrorists and those who aid and abet them must be brought to justice”. He did not mention Pakistan but his signalling was clear.

Mr Yousaf Raza Gilani unsurprisingly referred to Kashmir, expressed the desire for a composite dialogue, and conceded that: “We are currently engaged in a resolute national effort to eliminate terrorism and militancy. Our valiant security forces and the people of Pakistan have rendered enormous sacrifices in fighting this menace. Millions of our citizens have been recently dislocated”. If this looked like another deadlock, the impression was somewhat dispelled by the news that diplomats from both sides were busy preparing a joint statement that would remove the odour of failure from the Manmohan-Gilani encounter.

The foreign secretaries jousted in a separate meeting, bringing out the ugliness of the bilateral equation, the Indians reportedly wanting Kashmir out of the dialogue and Pakistanis putting forward proof of Indian interference in Balochistan and the Tribal Areas. If something positive occurs before the summit adjourns it will be because the United States and the European Union want India and Pakistan to talk instead of fighting their covert war in South Asia.

The pressure on Pakistan will of course be more, lightened no doubt by the earnest of the war Pakistan is waging against its “non state actors”. The pressure on India would be against its current policy of not talking and thus complicating the situation in Afghanistan and putting Pakistan’s back up needlessly despite Islamabad’s efforts to help India investigate the Mumbai episode and promising to punish the culprits in view of any incriminating evidence.

The world wants both sides to talk. But while it favours India, it has also shown some weariness regarding India’s position that terrorism must first come to an end before anything meaningful can be done. The problem is that terrorism in today’s world is not a phenomenon that can be toggle-switched by any state. Neither can it be seen sans any context in which inter-state conflicts in this region have unfolded. What Pakistan is doing now is quite correct: it is fighting the non state actors and trying quite honestly to get its internal sovereignty back. What India wants from it will be possible only if New Delhi begins to understand that contexts cannot be set aside, not least because nothing takes place in a vacuum.

There is a moot point about whether the world can have enough traction with India. The issue of India getting plugged into the world economy can work both ways and paradoxically does. Even as India gets more clout, it also becomes more amenable to accepting world opinion on certain issues. For instance, the US can talk to it effectively to soften its approach in return for what Pakistan can “realistically” deliver. The world has a lot more traction with Pakistan but its understanding of Pakistan’s current role in the war against terrorism is more sophisticated. It understands that an internally weakened Pakistan cannot deliver the entire “peace” agenda in one go. It must be helped militarily and economically if the region is to be saved from the heat produced by the insurgencies and terrorism racking the region. India knows this too but is reluctant to take a politically bold step because of domestic reasons.

Finally it is no use talking to India if the two countries retain their hostile stances and keep on regurgitating their old positions. For Pakistan it is important to know if it is going to the talks merely because it is under pressure from the international community or because it needs the talks to enhance its security on the western border as it fights the Taliban and their assortment of Punjabi and Pashtun fellow-travellers. The talks must not be a repetition of what has been happening in the past. They must be based on a new agenda formulated after back-stage diplomacy and a prior mutual accommodation over the basic issues.