Talks for Talks,indian version

Pak haste on composite dialogue the deal-breaker?

Rajeev Deshpande, TNN, Jul 17, 2010, 02.36am IST

NEW DELHI: At 8 pm on Thursday, Indian and Pakistani delegations had been in discussion for close to seven hours. The Indians were still hopeful of declaring the meeting of foreign ministers a success and felt the waiting media posse could be given something substantial to chew on.

But as is often the case with India-Pakistan meetings, there were more than a few "nearly there" moments as the two sides looked for a formulation S M Krishna and Shah Mahmood Qureshi could take back. Though no one was ready to say there was a hitch, the manner in which the discussions were stretching on began to seem ominous.

The talks stumbled not on terrorism as such, but on Pakistan’s desire to restart the stalled "composite dialogue" which would address what it sees as the core issue of Kashmir. Indians had outlined an incremental approach and jumpstarting the peace process to Kashmir did not seem like a good idea even though they were prepared to discuss the deeply divisive dispute.

Well-placed sources said that it was made clear to the Pakistanis that if the composite dialogue, or in other words Kashmir, was to be taken up, there had to be some concrete takeaways on terrorism, more specifically with regard to the Mumbai attacks. This did not mean just quicker trial of seven accused, but several others, including Lashkar-e-Taiba boss Hafiz Saeed.

The Indian side argued that if Kashmir was to return prominently to the table, mere assurances that New Delhi’s leads would be investigated would not do. The evidence provided by India pointed to key actors — apart from Saeed himself, there were serving or ex-officers and jihadis like HUJI’s Illyas Kashmiri.

Qureshi provided a broad hint of Pakistan’s insistence when he said both dialogue and action on terrorism could proceed "in tandem" at the joint press conference. In the face of a persistent question whether the composite dialogue had been reinitiated, the Pakistani foreign minister carefully said that "dialogue has been resumed".

Sources also strenuously clarified that Krishna did not endorse any suggestion that home secretary G K Pillai’s remarks on ISI involvement in 26/11 were uncalled for. Krishna himself said "there can be no comparison" with LeT chief Saeed. In fact, the ambush reminded Indians of the infamous Agra summit. Despite being the injured party, India had been prepared to resume talks. Indian negotiators pointed out that composite dialogue was their formulation and was a laudable objective. Apart from the yawning trust deficit, all evidence on planning, the brains trust and equipment pointed to Pakistan, said sources. Mere IOUs of good intentions would not do. In the face of the Pakistani "take it or leave" stance, Indians said they would not deal with ultimatums.

There have been suggestions in Pakistan that it is time to "move on", a phrase used by Qureshi too. This implies that "one cannot be stuck at Mumbai" as Pakistan was doing all it could. "India cannot forget the trauma of Mumbai so easily," sources said, pointing to the specious nature of the argument.HT

===============================================

Pak’s 'all or nothing' timeline trap broke talks: India

HT Correspondent, Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, July 17, 2010

• Pakistan’s attempt at ambush diplomacy during foreign minister SM Krishna’s  visit to Islamabad led to the meeting’s failure. Indian sources say Pakistan sprung a proposal for fixed timelines to resolve all outstanding issues, including Kashmir, at the meeting. India rejected this “all or nothing” approach. Hours of negotiations later, the meeting ended  with Thursday’s acrimonious press conference.
  
  Diplomats of the two countries had carried out “painstaking preparations” for a number of confidence-building measures like the exchange of imprisoned fishermen and people-to-people movement across the Line of Control. These were expected to have been rolled out on Thursday in Islamabad.

Instead, Pakistan sprung a “trap”. It proposed a fixed timeframe for solving all the eight issues of the composite dialogue, including Kashmir and terrorism. Pakistani foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, on Thursday, had spoken of timelines that concluded by November. India saw this as hopelessly impractical.

"In diplomatic parley, we don’t go by timelines unless it is absolutely necessary,” said Krishna on his return to Delhi.
"I do not know what [Qureshi] means by a timebound solution to these problems. Given their complexity, it would not be prudent to insist on a timeframe."

As an Indian diplomat noted, "We haven’t found a solution to Kashmir in 60 years, and they want one in six months.”
India did press for some forward action on the trial of the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba commanders behind the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack. However, it had no expectation of a tangible result in such a short time.

New Delhi’s focus was on small steps, while ensuring the core concern of terrorism is “given proper focus” and 26/11 is “not brushed under the carpet”.  Even on this, India believed it made sense to be patient. Indian negotiators, for example, did not mention the Inter-Services Intelligence’s role in terror to the Pakistani side, preferring to leave that to the home ministry-based  dialogue.

The two sides, in the run up to the meeting, say Indian sources, held many informal meetings so “they were aware of where we stood on all issues.” New Delhi had “clear ideas of what was doable” and this meant starting with small things like the CBMs.

Pakistan, however, seemed to have had expectations that did not fit in with the present relationship. This included attempts, said an Indian official, to skirt the Mumbai issue altogether. The gap between Pakistan’s insistence on “a calendar on every item of the dialogue and India’s preference for small steps” proved impossible to bridge.

Krishna continued to stress the positive after his return, noting that merely making his first trip to Pakistan as foreign minister was a tangible gain for the relationship.

Changing character of the Kashmir Movement

• Submitted by admin on 16 July 2010 - 8:25pm.

By Balraj Puri
For three consecutive summers, Kashmir has been on a boil. In 2008 protest started jointly by all separatist parties over allotment of 100 acres of government land to Shri Amarnath Shrine Board which its Chief Executive Officer wrongly said was purchased permanently. The land was to be used for construction of pre-fabricated huts for langars and other facilities for the yatris (pilgrims). It was interpreted by the leaders of the agitation as a conspiracy to change demography of Kashmir.
The government withdrew the allotment. It triggered an unprecedented agitation in Jammu for 63 days with various ups and downs against what was called discrimination by Kashmiri rulers against the region in 60 years of independence. What further caused protest in Kashmir was blockade call to Kashmir by the Sangarash Samiti, which was spearheading the agitation in Jammu. I was able to get it withdrawn after speaking to LK Advani and the Prime Minister. But a chain reaction continued for some time more.
In 2009, trouble started over alleged rape and murder of two young women in Shopian in South Kashmir. Finger of suspicion pointed towards the police. After some administrative action, a judicial enquiry by a retired High Court also confirmed the suspicion. But a CBI enquiry reversed their conclusion. It gave a fresh lease of life to the popular agitation. Significantly the unity between the separatist parties was lacking this time.
In 2010, the current phase of agitation is started by groups of teenagers. It is not being run by any group of the Hurriyat but was triggered by the killing of “seventeen year old Tufail Ahmad Mattoo on June 11, who as his parents say was playing cricket when a teargas bullet struck his head. Thereafter a vicious circle was set, killing of a boy was followed by protest demonstrations and clashes with police and CRPF in which another boy was killed which led to anther protest by the boys till by June 29, eleven boys lost their lives.
As all the troubles happened in summer, which is a tourist season, the main source of income for Kashmiris, no well wisher of Kashmir could have planned them. So the theory that the current agitation was sponsored or pre-planned by any agency does not hold good.
Thus when Union Home Minister P Chidambaram blames LeT and other outside agencies for the present trouble he has to explain why they choose the present season. And could not they have supplied better weapons than stones to the teenagers and how did they contact them or their leaders when they are not known to the state government.
Further the fact that the character of the agitation and its leadership changed every time in the last three years shows that specific issues that agitate the people are no less important. The common factor could be lack of trust in the state or the Indian government.
Therefore chief minister Omar Abdullah’s understanding of the current situation seems to be partial when he made a plea to work together towards a lasting peace, as per the aspirations of the people. He suggested working to “facilitate a dialogue between India and Pakistan as well as one between the centre and various shades of opinion in the state.” Till that happens, shouted all the problems of the people be held in abeyance? The National Conference contested last elections and sought votes on the promise of development and good governance which now he says cannot assuage the aspirations of the people.
Has he done full justice to the agenda on which he has sought votes? Why people of every region and every district are complaining of discrimination in the development of their area? Why are they denied a say in the process of governance? Why there is no pachayati raj in the state? Even when panchayats will be formed under the state panchayati raj act, they will be more an instrument of centralization and regimentation than institutions of decentralization and empowerment of the people at the grass roots.
Before proper status for the state is sought through Indo-Pak dialogue, it is important that it acquires a composite and harmonious personality. One must be clear that is it a solution for the Kashmir valley that is being sought or also for other two regions and non-Kashmiri communities. But is there a consensus even within the valley?
As far the stand of the National Conference, which stands for autonomy of the state, is its present leadership aware that Pandit Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah agreed in July 1952 with my proposal for autonomy of the state within India and autonomy of the regions within the state? And the All Parties State People’s Convention, representing the entire spectrum of politicians of the value, minus Congress, which was convened by Sheikh Abdullah in 1968, unanimously adopted draft constitution for the state with autonomy for the regions and devolution of power to districts, blocks and panchayats, and that is provided in the party’s manifesto New Kashmir as revised in 1975.
Moreover will the autonomous state accept jurisdiction of the Union autonomous institutions, which curb the powers of the Union executive to encroach into the affairs of the state, like Supreme Court, Election Commission and Auditor and Comptroller General? It may be recalled that if Supreme Court’s jurisdiction extended to the state in 1953, Sheikh Abdullah could not be dismissed and detained.
As far as complaints of regions and district are concerned, the repeated commitments of the present government in 1998 to ensure equal development of all areas of the state are meaningless without an objective and equitable formula for allocation of funds. The State Finance Commission is supposed to be working on this task for the last several years. But nothing is known about what it has done and when it will submit its report.
Meanwhile the formula that I proposed in my report on regional autonomy submitted to the state government as head of the Committee set up for the purpose may be considered. It suggested an eight point indices to determine the stare of each region and district. It consists of area, population, share in state services, and share in admissions to higher and technical institutions, road connectivity in proportion of area, female literacy, infant mortality and contribution to state exchequer. The formula can be put to a computer to determine the share of each region and district. This is a basis for a further discussion and arriving at a consensus. At present allocation of funds is done on subjective, arbitrary or political considerations which do not inspire confidence of all sections of the people.
And should we wait for dialogue between India and Pakistan or between the centre and parties in Kashmir to prevent human rights violations? Why Machail fake encounter which killed three innocent civilians could not be entrusted to a judicial commission instead of the police? And why no enquiry has been held in the killing of Tufail Ahmad which triggered the present movement.
Finally, but most importantly, the character of the protest of the teenagers protest has to be understood. As Umar Farooq points out “the baton of the present movement is in the hands of the new generation.” Why is it disillusioned with the older generation? A group of stone pelters told the media that “the pro-freedom leaders have failed to take up the issue of the detained youth seriously and remained silent over their plight.” They demanded release of all youth who have been arrested as the condition for withdrawing their movement. It is important to know who their leaders are and what exactly their grievances are. A dialogue with them need not wait till Indo-Pak dialogue or centre-Kashmir dialogue.

--
Balraj Puri is Director of the Institute of Jammu and Kashmir Affairs in Jammu.

Talks turn into verbal duel

Imtiaz Ahmed and Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, Hindustan Times
Email Author
Karachi/New Delhi, July 16, 2010

The last act of the failed Indo-Pak meeting was a slanging match between the two foreign ministers. On his arrival in New Delhi, Indian Foreign Minister SM Krishna had to deny claims by Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi that he was constantly on the phone, receiving directions from New Delhi, during the negotiations. Even before Krishna had left

related stories

• Pak’s 'all or nothing' timeline trap broke talks: India

Pakistan, Qureshi said in a press conference that the Indian team had been "prepared" for the talks. He disparaged Krishna's negotiating style, saying the latter had kept stepping out to "attend phone calls" and "receiving foreign policy directions from New Delhi repeatedly during our meeting".

But his principal criticism was that while he had been prepared to negotiate with "full mandate", the Indian minister did not seem to have any. Krishna is the principal for giving direction to foreign policy, so why were directions being sent repeatedly from Delhi?
Krishna said these were "extraordinary statements". He said he had been completely "cut off" from India and had not used a phone during the talks.
"I did not talk to anybody. The mandate given to me was so precise and clear that I did not need any additional instructions from New Delhi," he said.
In any case, Krishna added, there was nothing wrong in a minister consulting "with his base, with the political leadership and governmental leadership" during negotiations.
Krishna and Indian officials refuted claims by Qureshi that there was "no seriousness from the Indian side for resumption of the dialogue process".
They also said talk of ill preparation from the Indian side could not have been further from the truth. New Delhi had worked on small confidence building measures along with Islamabad.
Qureshi had pulled out a complete surprise timetable for fixing all bilateral issues in a matter of months, without any warning or preparation.

Krishna did not make any personal comments about Qureshi, addressing only his charges. Indian officials described Qureshi's comments as "not normal diplomatic behaviour, a school of Pakistani diplomatic behaviour we do not subscribe to".

Cong, BJP slam Qureshi

HT Correspondents, Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, July 16, 2010

Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi's digs at Foreign Minister SM Krishna and Union Home Secretary GK Pillai came in for sharp attack from the Congress and the BJP. The Congress praised Krishna for exercising restraint. The BJP accused him of lowering the "pride" of the country even while professing to stand with him on the "humiliation" heaped on

him.

It also asked the government not to continue talks with Pakistan.  
Qureshi had compared Pillai to Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Sayeed and claimed that Krishna came unprepared for the talks and was taking telephonic instructions from Delhi, which Krishna stoutly denied.      
"The remarks were completely unjustified and condemnable," said Congress spokesperson Jayanthi Natarajan.
She defended Krishna, saying, "Whatever important mandate was given to the minister was carried out in an admirable way on foreign soil."
BJP chief spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad said, "We deeply condemn the utterly irresponsible statements of Qureshi against Indian Foreign Minister SM Krishna. Basic diplomacy is not in the grain of Qureshi."
The BJP gave a hint of things to come in the coming Parliament session when it accused Krishna of lowering national pride by staying silent.
"Etiquette and dignity are all right, but the country's pride is also important," said Prasad.
"Krishna was silent when home secretary GK Pillai was compared to Hafiz Sayeed." Opposition leader Sushma Swaraj said there was no need to continue talks with a disinterested Pakistan. 

NDA convenor Sharad Yadav accused the Centre of having "no consistency" in its foreign policy, recalling that the government had said it would not talk to Pakistan after the Mumbai terror strikes.

Two SMs and the elusive personal chemistry

Jayanth Jacob, Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, July 16, 2010

SM Krishna's visit to Pakistan was his 33rd trip to a foreign country as the External Affairs Minister. Among the 27 countries Krishna has visited since June last year, this Pakistan trip was the most challenging. Unlike with many of his colleagues around the world, Krishna is yet to develop a personal rapport with Pakistan counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi, with whom he

related stories

• Pak’s 'all or nothing' timeline trap broke talks: India

shares his initials - SM.

The one-on-one informal chat between the two on the day of Krishna's arrival lasted just fifteen minutes.
The two sides met at the delegation level for some two hours on Day One, then from 11 am to 4.30 pm, and again from 6 pm to 8 pm on June 15.
"Considering the immense complexities involved in the relationship, the minister has to be business-like. Also they haven't met often enough to develop a personal rapport," an official said.
But in diplomacy, personal chemistry plays an important role - and Krishna has it in ample amounts with many of his colleagues.
Krishna had a personal touch in his dealings with Iran Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who knows the minister's mother tongue Kannada. When Mottaki came to New Delhi last November, a South Indian spread - including masala dosa and idli - was served for him.
David Miliband, former UK counterpart of Krishna, could talk about tennis - a game Krishna is fond of.
A diplomat also recalled that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave Krishna a pair of platinum cuff-links when he was in the USA for the opening edition of strategic dialogue.

"Krishna is one of the few Indian leaders who wears a cuff-link and that, too, in style. And this gift was personal and indicated their rapport," he said.

Engagement must go forward
India and Pakistan, as Atal Behari Vajpayee remarked famously in 1998, can alter their history, but not their geography. That sentiment has been voiced by other Indian and Pakistani leaders since. It is born of the wisdom that enmity between two countries with a shared boundary can only take both along a mutually undermining path and there must be a commitment to finding peace and cooperation. Only sustained engagement over the long term can bring these. Such engagement is possible only when both sides stop treating every episode as a make-or-break event. When Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Yusuf Raza Gilani agreed that their Foreign Ministers should meet to find ways to bridge the “trust deficit,” it was clear that the road ahead would be difficult. The talks between Foreign Ministers S.M. Krishna and Shah Mehmood Qureshi are seen in this perspective. That they could not arrive at common ground in their discussions is disappointing but this should not be blown out of proportion. After the positive tone of the preparatory discussions between the Foreign Secretaries in Islamabad last month, there was an expectation that the ministerial meeting would flag off action on certain “doables” aimed at rebuilding confidence and trust. The inability of the two sides to do so only underlines the extent of the mistrust that has set in since the 2008 Mumbai attacks. India wants Pakistan to go after the perpetrators and masterminds of the attacks; Pakistan says it has already done all that it can and India must get over Mumbai to begin talking about other issues. Nevertheless, the agreement by the Ministers to meet again in New Delhi is a definite plus and both governments must now ensure that it takes place.
Meanwhile, both India and Pakistan can be more restrained in their public statements. An official of the position and experience of the Home Secretary, G.K. Pillai, should have known better than to state in an interview, a day before the Foreign Minister talks, that the interrogation of David Headley had revealed the role of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence in the Mumbai attacks “from the beginning till the end.” The relevant information must have been conveyed by Home Minister P. Chidambaram during his talks with his Pakistan counterpart Rehman Malik last month. Its public airing at a sensitive moment raises troubling questions about the motives for doing so, and about who really runs this government. This is not the first time Mr. Pillai has misspoken on sensitive issues. The Pakistan Foreign Minister too has been unnecessarily aggressive in his posturing towards India, perhaps out of domestic political compulsions. Far from being faulted, Mr. Krishna must be commended for the sobriety and statesmanship with which he handled a tricky situation. It is the responsibility of mature political leadership on both sides to take constructive engagement forward.

Hindu