India, Pakistan are doing the right thing

Diplomatic jargon is anything but precise - its vagueness serves a purpose. There has been an overwhelming demand for India and Pakistan to resume their dialogue, but there has been disagreement over the terms - New Delhi contends that talks are not possible when the terrorists responsible for the Mumbai carnage have not been brought to justice.

The meeting between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari in Yekaterinburg, Russia, was timely. The two leaders were attending the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit as observers.

The meeting came about as a result of an official request from the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi. India was reluctant to be seen holding talks when its conditions had not been met, but realised it was important for the two countries to break the ice, in light of increasing tension between them.

So, diplomacy came into play and a roundabout way was found. At a media briefing, Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon said that the prime minister and the president would be "in the same room at the same time" , but that nothing could be said beyond that. It was obvious that New Delhi did not want to openly admit to the fact that the meeting had been arranged even before the prime minister set out for Yekaterinburg.

It is apparent that the ruling Congress did not want to risk going against public opinion, which had hardened against Pakistan after the attacks on Mumbai. Parliament too had taken a hard line in its first session this month, and had given Singh a limited mandate to ask Pakistan for assurances that it would do its best to prevent any future terrorist attacks on India.

I personally think India should have initiated the talks earlier as this would have increased the pressure on Islamabad. Perhaps then the Pakistan government would have filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the release by the Lahore High Court of Lashkar-e-Toiba leader Hafiz Saeed. As it is, the meeting in Yekaterinburg might have influenced the Punjab government's decision to appeal against the release.

America's relentless pressure on both governments was also apparent. I believe Washington was in constant touch to know about the progress of the talks, minute by minute. Unfortunately, the US may again be looking over the shoulders of the two foreign secretaries when they meet to discuss terrorism, as agreed by the prime minister and the president.

Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmoud Quraishi is quite right in describing the meeting as "a positive step". At last the deadlock has been broken. But some commentators in India have reacted adversely. They argue that New Delhi has once again given in to Islamabad without getting anything concrete in return. They believe that the international pressure on Pakistan was so great that it would have agreed to India's conditions for dialogue in due course.

My feeling is that there was also pressure on New Delhi to resume talks. Most of the critics in India are hawks. If it had been up to them, there would have been war a long time ago. Some TV channels in India always talk as if there is no alternative to hostilities.

The upcoming talks between the foreign secretaries will not only discuss the threat posed by terrorists to India - they will also consider the plight of Pakistan. India may want to participate in the war against terrorism in the region and evolve a South Asian approach. Indeed, Washington has reportedly requested that New Delhi send its forces to fight alongside the Pakistan army. But for that to happen, mutual confidence would be required. I wish there were some effort, however small, to build that.

The question asked in Pakistan is whether the meeting between the two foreign secretaries, scheduled for next month, will lead to 'composite dialogue'. In a way, this has already begun because the level of talks has been raised from home secretaries to foreign secretaries. This is yet another opportunity to lessen the distance between the two countries.

Too much time and money has been wasted in talking at each other, instead of to each other. The two countries have not experienced peace since independence. Sixty-two years is a long time for people to live in fear of war.

Zardari is said to have been embarrassed by the tough talk from Singh. The Pakistan president would be even more embarrassed by the talk in which most people in India indulge. They are exasperated and suspicious of Pakistan. Yet, however, different people are politically, they are emotionally and mentally the same. Increased contact between the ordinary people of the two nations would help.

The meeting between Singh and Zardari should not be seen - as it is by some hawks - as a compromise. Instead, it should be recognised as a long-awaited step in the right direction.

Kuldip Nayar is a former Indian high commissioner to the United Kingdom and a former Rajya Sabha member.