Pak one up, gets best of the joint statement

Point your mobile to: http://m.ibnlive.com

India and Pakistan have set the ball rolling. The two countries have agreed to start the dialogue process again but there is a big shift in the pattern. Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Yusuf Raza Geelani gave a joint statement delinking terror from talks. Despite this, action against 26/11 perpetrators is still the big condition for complete normalisation of relations. The question that is being now asked is: Who has got the best deal in Egypt - India or Pakistan? Strategic Affairs Expert, Sushant Sareen; former diplomat, K C Singh; and political analyst from Pakistan, Imtiaz Gul; joined CNN-IBN on Talking Point to debate the question.

CNN-IBN: This statement seems to indicate to most right thinking people that India has agreed to de-linking terrorism from the composite dialogue process and that after 26/11, the two countries are back on track. Action on terrorism, says the statement, should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. What is your understanding of this KC Singh?

KC Singh: My understanding is that this is a statement where both sides brought their wish-list together and they have tried to marry them. However, it's an unhappy marriage and it's not a very good statement to make. It discloses less and hides more and that is why the two prime ministers have come out with two different interpretations of the statement.

CNN-IBN: We would have liked to believe the Indian side, but the Pakistanis are equally clear it seems that the Indians have conceded to their principle demand that the two countries have to start talking on all outstanding issues. Is that your interpretation?

KC Singh: Bertrand Russel said once that you don't fight with someone who says two plus two is five because you know that they are stupid. He says that normally when there is an argument or a disagreement they are half right and that is where wars are fought. I think both countries have got something out of this. India got in 26/11 and Pakistan brought in Balochistan which sticks out like a sore thumb in their statement. What India thinks about Balochistan is not mentioned in the Pakistani statement. But I think there is no way we can share active intelligence with them, the intelligence agencies cannot do that for it will blow our entire cover of sources in Pakistan in a jiffy.

CNN-IBN: If that is the case, then what has changed qualitatively on the ground since 26/11 that we have agreed to make this statement? If nothing has changed, if Pakistan has done nothing, then what is the need for talks?

Sushant Sareen: That is the crux of the problem. You climb up a slippery slope that you can't sustain, then without having any of your demands met, you climb down. I agree. Why do we have to go into this if nothing has changed? There was a certain desperation in the Indian side to come out with a statement and the Pakistanis probably played tough. I think it's the big stick which Uncle Sam is wielding on our heads.

CNN-IBN: Both leaders have agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both the countries. Pakistan for a long time has been saying that we too are a victim of terrorism. If there is an attack on Pakistan, Pakistan will expect support from India. If there is an attack on India, then the dialogue process will again be halted says Manmohan Singh. So we are conceding that Pakistan is a victim of terror and not getting anything in return from them.

PAGE_BREAK

KC Singh: They came with their list of things and we went with ours. But I think that there is some strategic confusion in the Prime Minister's mind. I beg to differ with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when he says we have no option but to have a dialogue. Even if there is no option, you never say it in public. If you are negotiating with Pakistan, then you never say that I have no option but to negotiate to you, then the other person will fox you every time around. You never do that, never concede a strategic advantage. You always go in saying that we are a large country, a strategic country. Also, you can't say that the greatest threat to India is terrorism. I don't think so. There are many other threats to India and we have dealt with terrorist challenges in the past.

CNN-IBN: Let's get in a Pakistani view. Mr Gul, how is Pakistan taking this statement? Do you see a concession in the sense that the word Kashmir is not mentioned in the joint statement, as a suggestion perhaps that Pakistan realises it can't reiterate Kashmir as the core issue?

Imtiaz Gul: Let's not treat any statement of two countries on the media level. I think we should not question the wisdom and strategy of leaders of two countries. I think we cannot relegate the statement to the realm of the media. I think Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said it very correctly that you can choose your friends but not your neighbours. And I think this is a reality that has prevailed in the Indian establishment.

CNN-IBN: So do you believe that the mood in Pakistan will be that this is a positive step forward?

Imtiaz Gul: I think generally the mood in both countries is that it is a positive step that the two have decided to resume talks regardless of whether it is composite dialogue or normal talks. The reality is that both prime ministers reiterated their resolve to resume talks and I think that that is very important for both countries.

CNN-IBN: What is Pakistan's take of this statement? Are you saying that the composite dialogue is back on track or are you saying that we are just going to talk in the days ahead?

Imtiaz Gul: We should really not get into this. The reality is that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made it clear that we have decided to resume talks but I think he left the nature and the structure of the composite dialogue very open by saying that we have to decide in what form we have to take this composite dialogue forward.

CNN-IBN: What is the big take away at the end of the day Mr KC Singh? Has it been that the so-called coercive diplomacy post-26/11 haven't really resulted in changing the ground situation. Have the Pakistanis handed over something in that dossier that we all don't know?

KC Singh: I think Prime Minister Geelani said that 'I was able to convince Prime Minister Manmohan Singh about the genuineness of my desire to see that people are punished'.

CNN-IBN: Including Hafiz Saeed and the Lashakar-e-Toiba?

PAGE_BREAK

KC Singh: What he has managed to convince Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with we will know in the days to come. However, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is hedging a bit by saying exactly what the interlocutor is saying, that we haven't mentioned composite dialogue, though Prime Minister Geelani seems to be very sure that it is a resumption of complete dialogue. This means that you can pick and choose what you want to discuss with Pakistan and it may not be up and running at full pace until we get satisfaction on 26/11. So, now, scope has been provided by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh here, but the danger is that this can come apart very quickly if there is another attack, or suddenly if you find that action is not taken against Hafiz Saeed, or there is a roll back on the statements made by Prime Minister Geelani, then the Government of India may be very embarrassed, very quickly.

CNN-IBN: What is your take on this Mr Sareen? Has there been any winner in Egypt or is this a glorious draw at the end of the day?

Sushant Sareen: I think it is a 6-4 in Pakistan's favour. The point is that the intentions are all very good but we have been down this path before. This thing about not letting terrorism interfere with the dialogue process. This is exactly the formulation in 2005 when former Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf had come to India. And yet the point is that even after a 26/11, we had a strong point of talking to the Pakistanis at that point of time because they were under pressure. You might have been able to get a lot more out of them than what you will get seven months down the line. The other thing is that I am not very sure what just holding out on the composite dialogue is going to achieve. After all, we got into the composite dialogue because we stood to gain something from it. So just holding off on it seems to be just cutting your own nose to spite the other person's face. So we might as well get into the dialogue process.

CNN-IBN: In diplomacy Mr KC Singh, it is often the words you use that matter. Should we simply change now from composite dialogue to a calibrated dialogue? Is that what it is about now - that every step will depend upon specific actions taken?

KC Singh: That is unsaid but obviously there is some calibration in the mind of the Indian Government and that will come out as we go forward.

Click to play video