:: P.C. Alexander

Shoddy draft sends muddled messages

P.C. Alexander

July.29 : The first thought that would have come up in the minds of most people in India on reading the joint statement issued at the end of the two-hour meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistan counterpart Yousaf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the Nonaligned Movement (NAM) summit at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt on July 16, would have been one of surprise and deep disappointment. In spite of India’s much-acclaimed diplomatic experience and drafting skills, we ended up with a bad bargain. Keeping in mind the timing, thrust and content of the joint statement, one is constrained to say that India is the loser.

After 26/11 terror attacks, there has been considerable disenchantment in India about Pakistan’s public pronouncements that it would not allow its land to be used by terrorists against India. After being let down by Pakistan, India announced the suspension of Indo-Pak composite dialogue.

In Yekaterinburg, during the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit, Dr Singh’s statements about Pakistan’s failure in dealing with terrorism offended Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari as he took some of Dr Singh’s observations as a personal snub. Mr Zardari chose not to attend the NAM summit which was to follow shortly in order to avoid another encounter with Dr Singh.

Mr Gilani was instead sent as the leader of the Pakistani delegation to the NAM summit. Though a proper atmosphere for resumption of talks between the two countries was conspicuously absent when the two Prime Ministers met on the sidelines of the NAM summit, India, instead of reading Pakistan’s attitude correctly and remaining firm in its demand for tangible evidence of Pakistan’s determination to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, chose to resume bilateral talks.

Indian diplomats may like to describe these as "talks about talks", but this really was a talk on substantial issues under dispute at summit level and not a casual exercise in courtesy.

A major drawback of these "sideline talks" at Sharm el-Sheikh was that the Indian side had hardly any time to prepare. There were some important visits from foreign dignitaries and a series of international conferences were being held one after another. The Indian delegation did not even have the time to carefully study the dossier that Pakistan had sent to India on the 26/11 investigations. The fact that the investigations were still under review was included in the joint statement, exposing the inadequate preparedness on the part of the Indian delegation for the talks.

Let us examine the two most controversial parts of the joint statement. The first was an innocuous sentence stating that "Pakistan had some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas". The joint statement does not say from where the threat had come, or what are the "other areas" facing threats. Further, it is a one-sided statement without any reference to the reply or reaction of Dr Singh.

The main objective in bringing up the issue of alleged threats in "Balochistan and other areas" was to convince the people of Pakistan that India was mainly responsible for some of its present internal problems. Pakistan was trying to establish the charge against India of instigating rebellion in certain areas as a counter to India’s charge about Pakistan’s disruptive role in Kashmir.

Dr Singh, well known for his polite manners and restrained language in bilateral discussions, stated, "I said our conduct is an open book and we are willing to discuss anything… If you have any evidence we are willing to look at it. We are an open society". This has been interpreted by Pakistan as a sort of admission by India that there may be some truth in its charge.

The least that the Indian side should have done was to turn down the suggestion of the inclusion of Pakistan’s reference to "Balochistan and other areas" in the joint statement. If Pakistan did not agree to drop the reference to Balochistan etc, our delegation should have taken a firm stand of not releasing a joint statement. Unfortunately, India did not press the matter. Every "sideline meeting" does not have to be followed by a joint statement.

How important Mr Gilani considered inclusion of a reference to Balochistan etc. in the joint statement is clear from the reports of the press meet which he held immediately after the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting. Mr Gilani said that the joint statement signed by him and Dr Singh "underlines our concerns over India’s interference in Balochistan and other areas of Pakistan". This allegation of "interference" was indeed preposterous but Pakistan got away with its inclusion in the joint statement because our side was not firm that if Pakistan insisted on its inclusion, India will insist on having no joint statement at all.

The other most controversial issue included in the joint statement is the assertion that action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and that these should not be bracketed. A curious feature about the issue of delinking is that both the Prime Ministers have interpreted it in diametrically opposite ways.

Dr Singh has insisted that composite dialogue cannot begin until there has been an accounting of what happened in Mumbai and the perpetrators are in the dock. On the other hand, Mr Gilani has asserted that the statement about delinking means that India should not keep the composite dialogue in suspense because of its perception that Pakistan has not taken strong action against the terrorists operating from its territory against India.

I can only say that the joint statement on so important a matter as the India-Pakistan composite dialogue process should have been handled by those responsible for its drafting with greater care and precision.

In this case the differences thrown up are not on minor details, but on the meaning itself of the sentence.

As far as India is concerned, we should go by the interpretation which Dr Singh has given. The reference to Balochistan and other areas in the joint statement has to be excluded from any bilateral discussion in future as it is totally inapplicable and unacceptable to India.

P.C. Alexander is a former governor of Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra