|
 All the major Pakistani English dailies carried big headlines about the Indian foreign minister, S.M. Krishna's interview in which he expressed his displeasure over the Indian home secretary, G.K. Pillai's reference to the ISI on the eve of his trip to Islamabad. These papers conveniently failed to notice that Mr. Krishna did not disagree with the contents of Pillai's statement about the involvement of ISI in the Mumbai attacks but only criticized its timing. The foreign minister thought the home secretary should have waited for him to return. He has a point, known to all; and one should not miss his agreeing with Pillai's allegation.
Actually, Mr. Krishna apparently is fighting a losing battle in the South Block (location of India's Ministry of External Affairs) in Delhi to retain his ministry against the current Home Minister Chidambaram. The latter has his eyes set on Krishna's position and Pillai's statement should be read in this context. Similarly, our vocal foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi was a prime ministerial candidate in 2008, and one should not be in any doubt that he would still aspire to become one now if possible. The support of the military and the ISI, also called `the Establishment', is crucial if not indispensable in assuming such an important position. And what more can be helpful in this scheme of things than appearing as a hard-liner when it comes to negotiating with the Indians. This may partly explain a series of anti-Indian statements emanating from him, following the talks. This is, however, no way to conduct negotiations; and particularly after a break-down of talks that occurred after the Mumbai tragedy. One cannot also help wondering as to what had the foreign secretaries met for if there was no common ground. The two secretaries after their parleys in Islamabad sounded quite optimistic and promised the media that there would be good news during the ministers' moot. Apparently, the secretaries agreed to a few steps, like release of prisoners, loosening the visa restrictions, and improving the trade ties, but the tension in the July 15 ministers' meeting destroyed whatever that had been agreed to earlier. It would be improper to blame the foreign ministers for the deadlock, unless they were heeding to someone's advice not present in the talks. It was more a question of issues involved. India continues to remain hell-bent upon teaching Pakistan a lesson for the Mumbai attacks. The attacks were accompanied by immense media hype. It showed the vulnerability of the State of India at the hands of terrorists and was embarrassing for the Manmohan Government which now desires to show results. We should not forget that the Indian Government had to sack its home minister after the debacle. The Pakistan Government was under pressure as well. The masses in the Indian occupied Kashmir are once again on the streets in record number and 17 have so far been killed by the Indian troops since early June. The timing for the talks could not have been worst from the Pakistani point of view as it was giving a message of indifference to the Kashmiris and the negotiating team had to show some progress as far as Kashmir was concerned, even if it amounted to cosmetic gestures. India was in mood for such concessions, as it insists that everything relating to its part of Kashmir is its internal affair. Similarly, India is unlikely to resume `actual talks', until it sees conviction by local courts of the Mumbai master-minds. If not convicted, India may still eventually resume the talks but it would then take a long time. We should thus stop hoping for a miracle at least for now from any talks.  The writer is a seasoned lawyer and has authored several books.
Anees Jillani is an advocate of the Supreme Court and a member of the Washington, DC Bar. He has been writing for various publications for more than 20 years and has authored several books.
|
Show/hide comments
Show/hide comment form
