Let the talks begin: Baby steps to a new future?

2

Tweet

So the talks about talks have finally resulted in talks. If all goes to plan, India and Pakistan will over the next six months have seven rounds of talks. The dates will be worked out through diplomatic channels but it's a fair bet that the talks on terror between Home Secretaries will set the ball rolling. Pakistan wanted a resumption of the composite dialogue and they've got that, in principle. But India will keep the talks focussed on picking the low lying fruit, so to speak - the areas where they can find meeting ground more easily. The sub-text - Kashmir will have to wait for mutual trust to be restored to a large extent. For Pakistan, that's an incentive to keep a lid on terror.

Lessons have been learnt from the past. The build-up to the Thimphu thaw was quiet, the breakthrough even quieter. Officially, the reason for keeping low was that the two diplomats would brief their foreign ministers when they returned. But the announcement - when it came - was virtually simultaneous in Islamabad and Delhi. Both governments have learnt how not to hold talks and how not to talk about the talks they hold! It also shows their desire to be on the same page. So far, so good!

What's changed since July last year, say insiders, is the attitude of the Pakistani government. Pakistani officials now tell the Indians they want to reap a 'peace dividend'. That was a mantra till now chanted almost ad nauseam by New Delhi. The civilian government has also indicated that the army is backing the dialogue effort. So South Block, at least, credits Pakistan for the thaw more than it does itself! But India has helped by not speaking a language that irritates Pakistan. The official press release makes no mention of the desirability of talks in an environment free of terror.

I pointedly asked the Foreign Secretary about the fate of the 'comprehensive' (not 'composite') dialogue in case there's another terror attack. Nirupama Rao's answer was instructive. She said, "That is a difficult question to answer. That is an unfair question, actually. I cannot say I believe the talks are insulated from terror", before hurrying on to elaborate on the imperative for normal relations.

So while India has moved on from explicitly making the absence of terror a pre-condition, terrorism will willy-nilly impact the future of the dialogue. It's clear the government is still hurting from the Sharm al Sheikh joint statement when terror was de-linked from talks -- giving rise to the interpretation at home that talks would continue regardless of terror. The opposition pounced on it and attacked the PM. The government, and the Congress party especially, is also aware of the public mood. It's largely ambivalent to the peace process at this point -- but will quickly turn against UPA2 if there's another major strike.

So Pakistan finally has a dialogue that it has been hankering for since the Mumbai attacks. But the onus of nurturing it rests squarely with it. Another Mumbai and the bets will be off.