 | « Back to article | Print this article |
Sticking to its guns on terror as the core issue between the two countries, India on Thursday sent back Pakistan foreign secretary Salman Bashir virtually empty handed, refusing to be diverted over issues like Kashmir and water.
Amidst repeated Pakistani requests for the resumpotion of the composite dialogue, India merely said that it will stay in touch with Pakistan and was in favour of a step by step approach to its engagement with Pakistan. Pakistan on the other hand came to India hoping to "reverse the tide of regression", resuming the composite dialogue process but instead it once again belligerently raised the issue of "Jammu and Kashmir as the core issue between the two countries, human rights violation in Indian occupied Kashmir, water, Siachen and Sir Creek".
Obviously continuing to cater to its domestic constituency and unwilling to put Kashmir on the backburner, the Pakistan foreign secretary in his interaction with the media after the completion of talks between the Indian and Foreign secretaries, was unable to give any satisfactory answers on the issue of Hafeez Sayeed saying that the Pakistani government had put him under detention but the courts found little evidence and he was therefore released on the instructions of the court.
The foreign secretary also described as "literature rather than evidence" the document given by India detailing the activities of Sayeed saying that the JUD has been listed under United Nations resolution 1267 and its assets have been frozen. But he emphasised that it was time India and Pakistan moved forward from naming individuals or events as that would lead them to be caught in a "time warp".
Bashir was not forthcoming on the information provided by the Indian foreign secretary in the three dossiers given to them saying that some of the persons like Ilyas Kashmiri and David Headley have just been named by India and Pakistan interior ministry would look into the information provided by India.
And in a telling statement which shows the wide gap between the current thinking of the Indian and Pakistani governments, the Pakistan foreign secretary said, "it is unfair, unrealistic and counterproductive to make the issue of terrorism in a generic way and stall the entire the entire process of overall relations between the two countries". This is a far cry from the Indian position that terror is generic to the talks between the two countries.
Bashir made it a point to emphasise that Pakistan does not need a lecture from India on the issue of terrorism. He said that in 2008 there were 727 terrorist attacks in Pakistan, in 2009 they were 1947 and till February 22 there have been 3043 terrorist attacks with every city in Pakistan having been affected with the casualties having crossed 5,366 and 12,982 injuries.
He said, "We are not desperate. If India wants more time, it will find Pakistan ready for it". "Let us not discard the composite dialogue process". But included in that is the point that Kashmir continues to be the core issue between India and Pakistan, with Pakistan continuing to cater to its domestic constituency even as it has come to the talking table with India after a gap of 14 months.
Repeating its 60-year-old formulation even at a point when Pakistan appears more desperate for talks than India, Bashir said "Pakistan would continue to support morally, politically and diplomatically the struggle of the people of Kashmir", he denied the Indian coinage that Pakistan is the epicentre of terrorism. Bashir said that post 9/11 Pakistan has done more than any other country in combating terror.
He said that Pakistan has been sharing intelligence with India whenever it got information even as he said that Pakistan has evidence of Indian involvement in activities which are prejudicial to the interest of Pakistan and said this includes its interference in Afghanistan.
Admitting and "knowing that all is not well", Bashir said that much more needs to be done if India and Pakistan the two nuclear neighbours need to travel together onto the highway of peace. He said that he did not want to characterise the talks as success or failure but merely as a good opportunity to convey their perspectives, to stop the regression between the two and the need to build confidence and trust.