There were two rounds of talks between the foreign ministers on Thursday. In between, Krishna had separate meetings with President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani.
However, say analysts, the direction of the talks can also be gauged from the timing of the joint press conference. Initially scheduled for 2 pm, the presser was postponed till 6 pm, ostensibly because talks remained inconclusive. But the second round also failed to yield concrete results and the press conference was delayed by more than two hours. And though both sides insisted the talks had been “friendly”, there was neither a joint communiqué nor a decision – on any issue. And this is the reason analysts have dubbed the meeting ‘talk, for the sake of talk’.
Qureshi said Pakistan has always desired ‘neighbourly’ relations with India and Pak-India dialogue from this point onwards will build on the talks in the last four years. He said all confidence-building options were discussed and that both countries will have to adopt a joint strategy to deal with the common enemy – terrorism. Qureshi said that ways to expedite the trial of the Mumbai accused were also taken up and that Pakistan is deliberating over the additional information provided by Indian home minister P. Chidambaram to interior minister Rehman Malik.
However, he was quick to identify other issues which are of “primary importance” for Pakistan – terrorist activities and violation of human rights in the Indian Kashmir, Siachen and Sir Creek – and insisted that these merited purposeful dialogue. Qureshi said India has made verbal representations for the immediate resolution of the Sir Creek issue, which will need to be reduced into writing. The release of prisoners and fishermen were also discussed, he said.
At his turn, Krishna said the two sides had gotten the opportunity to air their points of view and expressed India’s desire for ‘neighbourly relations’ based on peace and cooperation with Pakistan. He also expressed hope that Gilani’s assurance to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at Thimpu that Pakistani land will not be allowed to be used against India will be executed.
Krishna said Pakistan had been given the additional information procured from Mumbai accused David Coleman Hadley during his interrogation by the FBI. “The arrest of the people involved in the Mumbai attacks in the light of this information will be the single biggest step towards confidence-building,” he said, while reiterating India’s demand for expediting the trial in Pakistan of the seven accused of the Mumbai attacks.
“When we talk of progress in these trials, we should not forget that a judicial process is underway,” shot back Qureshi. “We’ve told India of the help we need. Pakistan has already declared Ajmal Kasab to be a proclaimed offender; now we need for the Indian magistrate and the investigators who recorded Kasab’s statements need to appear in a court here.” Insisting that the Pakistani judiciary is independent and that its decisions must be respected, Qureshi was categoric in his assertion that no timeframe could be imposed for the disposal of the case.
Perhaps in a bid to sound a more positive note, Krishna interjected here that the Pakistani foreign minister has accepted an invitation to India, the dates of which would be confirmed later.
So why wasn’t there a concrete outcome? “The nature of our relationship is complex; there are several impediments in the way of smooth relations,” said Qureshi. However, he insisted that democratic forces can redeem even hopeless situations.
To a specific question regarding the human rights violations in Indian Kashmir, Krishna said many rights activists and organisations are monitoring the situation.
Responding to another question, Qureshi said the two sides had discussed the issue of Indian involvement in Balochistan and Fata in great detail. “India has assured us that it does not desire instability in Balochistan and that if Bramdagh Bugti is a Pakistani national – which he is – his Indian passport will be revoked,” said Qureshi.
But Krishna would not let it go at that and the ‘friendly’ talks soon veered towards the point-scoring that has often characterised relations between the two countries. “Pakistan raised the issue of Indian involvement in Balochistan even at Sharm el Shaikh,” recounted Krishna. “But we haven’t received any evidence of Indian interference; if we were to get this, we’d look into the issue.”
“Infiltration in Jammu and Kashmir during 2008-09 shot up by 40 per cent,” continued Krishna. “India is obviously monitoring this situation and the attempt to create instability in a part of India.”
“Pakistan’s position on this is clear: infiltration is neither the policy of the Pakistani state or any of its intelligence agencies,” shot back Qureshi. “India is free to take strict action against individuals who pursue such policies; the hot line between the DGMOs of both countries was set up to discuss precisely such issues.”
A question by an Indian journalist regarding “hate speeches” by Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed was countered by Qureshi with an admonishment thinly disguised as a reproof. “Both sides agree that an environment free of negative propaganda needs to be created; when there’s mention of Hafiz Saeed, attention should also be paid to statements emanating from the other side. For example, the statement made by the Indian home secretary was uncalled for,” said Qureshi, referring to a remark by G.K. Pillai saying that the ISI was responsible for controlling and coordinating the Mumbai attacks. “Pakistan has not had – nor does it need to have – an apologetic attitude in talks with India,” asserted Qureshi.
To another question about Pakistan’s desire for strategic depth in Afghanistan, Qureshi said Islamabad wants a Pakistan-friendly government in Kabul. “A peaceful and stable Afghanistan is in Pakistan’s interests.”
Krishna is to meet PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif and ANP head Asfandyar Wali Khan today before he leaves for Delhi.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 16th, 2010.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ