Gilani claims victory as Manmohan delinks terror from talks

[seedhi]

I couldnt have imagined that even Manmohan Singh would stoop to such a miserable depth to appease Pakistan. His signature on this joint statement is a slap on the Mumbai terror victims.

Gilani claims victory as PM delinks terror from talks NEW DELHI: India has walked more than the extra mile for Pakistan. At the end of crucial discussions between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistani PM Yousaf Raza Gilani, the two sides came out with a joint statement, which Pakistan can justifiably describe as being "satisfactory". Even as India denied having made concessions or shifting of goalposts to Pakistan's benefit, the latter was gloating over the outcome. There are three aspects of the joint statement where India has given ground to Pakistan. First, the formulation "action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed" suggests a climbdown by India which had consistently maintained that the talks could not take place till the 26/11 perpetrators were punished. Pakistan, which pressed for resumption of talks, has merely promised to do "everything in its power in this regard", seen as too general a commitment. The PM was at pains to control the damage. He told journalists, "The composite dialogue process cannot resume unless and until terrorist acts, like the one which shook Mumbai, are properly accounted for and perpetrators of these heinous crimes are brought to book." Indian officials said the statement means Pakistan cannot ask for a resumption of composite dialogue by showing "action" against terrorism. But that's not how the statement is being read. Pakistan for instance read it very differently. Gilani said, "All core issues that were pending under composite dialogue should be discussed... That should not be bracketed with this Mumbai incident." The joint statement is silent on Pakistan's commitment of January 6, 2004 that that it will not allow its territory to be used for terrorism against India. In a sense Pakistan can feel freed from that promise. India's concession on this front comes even as intelligence and information mount of more and deadly terror attacks being planned against India from Pakistan-based and supported terror groups. Singh later took a completely different line to cover up. He said, "Dialogue process cannot move forward even if it resumes so long as Pakistan's territory is used for terrorism directed against India." But the area where India appears to have capitulated most is by agreeing to take Pakistan's Balochistan problem from being an internal affair of Pakistan to a bilateral issue, by allowing it to be placed in the joint statement. It's a big gain for Pakistan, because it legitimises Islamabad's contention that the Balochistan unrest was being fomented by India. When asked about this, the PM answered defensively, "India has nothing to be afraid about events in Balochistan. Our policies are an open book there. We are willing to discuss anything." But everybody is aware that India showed a chink that Pakistan will be quick to exploit. Singh and Gilani promised to meet in September on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, and until then, the two foreign secretaries will "meet as often as necessary". Even though top-level officials said India would only talk terrorism with Pakistan, the joint statement clearly says that the "entire gamut of bilateral relations" was considered. Pakistan has been asking for the dialogue to be more broad-based than mere terrorism. On the Mumbai attacks, the statement said PM had reiterated the "need to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice". "Prime Minister Gilani assured that Pakistan will do everything in its power in this regard. He said that Pakistan has provided an updated status dossier on the investigations of the Mumbai attacks and had sought additional information/evidence. Prime Minister Singh said that the dossier is being reviewed," the statement said. Later PM told journalists, "We have begun a process. How successful we are in achieving our objectives, only time will tell. I cannot predict the outcome of what will follow the foreign secretary-level talks, what will be our assessment of the dossier that Pakistan side has given to us a few days ago," Singh said. According to reports, foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon held several rounds of meetings with his counterpart Salman Bashir and even met Pak PM Gilani in a late night meeting in preparation for today's meeting. ""There is no way but dialogue to deal with issues either to take the relations forward or to address issues that divide us," Menon was quoted as saying. He added, "we have had difficult issues in the past and we still have difficult issues to address". The statement concluded with high-sounding sentiments. "Both leaders agreed that the real challenge is development and the elimination of poverty. Both leaders are resolved to eliminate those factors which prevent our countries from realising their full potential. Both agreed to work to create an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence." http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS-India-Gilani-claims-victory-as-PM-delinks-terror-from-talks/articleshow/4787081.cms

[seedhi]

PM has undermined national interest: G Parthasarathy http://www.ndtv.com/news/videos/video_player.php?id=1136087

[Lurker]

Yep I agree this is terribly disappointing. I was heartened early in the day by the news that Manmohan Singh maintained no-talks-until-26/11-is-resolved. But this one just seems like a U-turn.

[Ram]

You could not a worser source than ToI to back your statements. Just going through the article casually makes it plainly clear how stupid it is, stuff like 'Pakistan/India have agreed to convert Balochistan from a internal issue of Pakistan to a bilateral issue'.. What an utter load of bull! Will any state (in this case, Pakistan) openly accept that unrest in certain parts of its country is a matter to be dealt with bilaterally with another country? Only a person with absolutely ZERO knowledge of foreign affairs or diplomacy could ever come up with an article. There are so many more glaring irregularities in the article, its not even worth commenting on.

[Lurker]

^^ That was my first impression too. I had to check it out on Indian Express, its there as well Sriram.

[seedhi]

You could not a worser source than ToI to back your statements.

Did you look at the video in my second post. G Parthasarthy was High Commissioner to pakistan and he is saying that the PM has compromised national interest.

Just going through the article casually makes it plainly clear how stupid it is, stuff like 'Pakistan/India have agreed to convert Balochistan from a internal issue of Pakistan to a bilateral issue'.. What an utter load of bull!

Then why did Manmohan Singh say the following:"India has nothing to be afraid about events in Balochistan. Our policies are an open book there. We are willing to discuss anything." Till today no Indian PM ever referred to Baluchistan. This is sickening.

Will any state (in this case, Pakistan) openly accept that unrest in certain parts of its country is a matter to be dealt with bilaterally with another country? Only a person with absolutely ZERO knowledge of foreign affairs or diplomacy could ever come up with an article. There are so many more glaring irregularities in the article, its not even worth commenting on.

For your information here is the text of the joint declaration. Read it carefully and then respond. I have highlighted the interesting parts:

Following is the text of Joint Statement issued after the meeting between the Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt today: "The Prime Minister of India Dr. Manmohan Singh and the Prime Minister of Pakistan Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani met in Sharm El Sheikh on July 16, 2009. The two Prime Ministers had a cordial and constructive meeting. They considered the entire gamut of bilateral relations with a view to charting the way forward in India - Pakistan relations. Both leaders agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both countries. Both leaders affirmed their resolve to fight terrorism and to cooperate with each other to this end. Prime Minister Singh reiterated the need to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice. Prime Minister Gilani assured that Pakistan will do everything in its power in this regard. He said that Pakistan has provided an updated status dossier on the investigations of the Mumbai attacks and had sought additional information/evidence. Prime Minister Singh said that the dossier is being reviewed. Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats. Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas. Both Prime Ministers recognized that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues. Prime Minister Singh reiterated India’s interest in a stable, democratic, Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Both leaders agreed that the real challenge is development and the elimination of poverty. Both leaders are resolved to eliminate those factors which prevent our countries from realizing their full potential. Both agreed to work to create an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence. Both leaders reaffirmed their intention to promote regional cooperation. Both Foreign Secretaries should meet as often as necessary and report to the two Foreign Ministers who will be meeting on the sidelines of the forthcoming UN General Assembly." http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=50474

THIS IS F***ING SHAMEFUL CAPITULATION!! What a complete sellout MMS has turned out to be..

[hassan_113]

Don't read too much into it. I'm glad Pakistan and India are talking. I dare to hope.

[Ram]

Full text: India-Pakistan statement Here is the full text of the joint statement issued after talks in Egypt on 16 July 2009, in which Pakistani and Indian leaders agreed to co-operate in fighting terrorism. The two prime ministers had a cordial and constructive meeting. They considered the entire gamut of bilateral relations with a view to charting the way forward in India-Pakistan relations. Both leaders agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both countries. Both leaders affirmed their resolve to fight terrorism and to co-operate with each other to this end. Prime Minister [Manmohan] Singh reiterated the need to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice. Prime Minister [Yousuf Raza] Gilani assured that Pakistan will do everything in its power in this regard. He said that Pakistan has provided an updated status dossier on the investigations of the Mumbai attacks and had sought additional information/evidence. Prime Minister Singh said that the dossier is being reviewed. Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real-time credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats. Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas. Both prime ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues. Prime Minister Singh reiterated India's interest in a stable, democratic Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Both leaders agreed that the real challenge is development and the elimination of poverty. Both leaders are resolved to eliminate those factors which prevent our countries from realising their full potential. Both agreed to work to create an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence. Both leaders reaffirmed their intention to promote regional co-operation. Both foreign secretaries should meet as often as necessary and report to the two foreign ministers, who will be meeting on the sidelines of the forthcoming UN General Assembly. ---------------- Do you want to read this and see if its any different to the 'joint statement' you had posted, Seedhi?

[seedhi]

Full text: India-Pakistan statement Here is the full text of the joint statement issued after talks in Egypt on 16 July 2009, in which Pakistani and Indian leaders agreed to co-operate in fighting terrorism. The two prime ministers had a cordial and constructive meeting. They considered the entire gamut of bilateral relations with a view to charting the way forward in India-Pakistan relations. Both leaders agreed that terrorism is the main threat to both countries. Both leaders affirmed their resolve to fight terrorism and to co-operate with each other to this end. Prime Minister [Manmohan] Singh reiterated the need to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice. Prime Minister [Yousuf Raza] Gilani assured that Pakistan will do everything in its power in this regard. He said that Pakistan has provided an updated status dossier on the investigations of the Mumbai attacks and had sought additional information/evidence. Prime Minister Singh said that the dossier is being reviewed. Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real-time credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats. Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas. Both prime ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues. Prime Minister Singh reiterated India's interest in a stable, democratic Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Both leaders agreed that the real challenge is development and the elimination of poverty. Both leaders are resolved to eliminate those factors which prevent our countries from realising their full potential. Both agreed to work to create an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence. Both leaders reaffirmed their intention to promote regional co-operation. Both foreign secretaries should meet as often as necessary and report to the two foreign ministers, who will be meeting on the sidelines of the forthcoming UN General Assembly. ---------------- Do you want to read this and see if its any different to the 'joint statement' you had posted, Seedhi?

In response to your earlier post, I had already posted the joint statement, which clearly shows a capitulation by India. Instead of reading that and responding to it, you have simply posted the statement once again. Do you even know what you want to say before responding?

[Ram]

That was because the ‘joint statement’ and your inferences of them that you had posted was riddled with ‘reading between the lines’ and glaring irregularities; The first one, as I had mentioned in my first response was this;

But the area where India appears to have capitulated most is by agreeing to take Pakistan's Balochistan problem from being an internal affair of Pakistan to a bilateral issue, by allowing it to be placed in the joint statement. It's a big gain for Pakistan, because it legitimises Islamabad's contention that the Balochistan unrest was being fomented by India.

I don’t where the article author got this piece of information from, but there was absolutely no mention of Balochistan in it. Second, even if there was questions and answers based on the Baloch problem, its ludicrous to suggest ‘India has allowed the Baloch problem to transform from a internal affair of Pakistan to a bilateral issue’. First of all, who is India to convert a Pakistani issue into a bilateral issue? Its like saying Pakistan has allowed the Cauvery issue to convert into a bilateral issue, from an internal issue of India. And if you have any idea of foreign policy nuance, you’ll know that NO country will ever want its own matters to be the subject of either bilateral or multilateral discussions. Clearly, there was not even inkling of a suggestion that Balochistan was going to be a bilateral issue. The author plainly made that up and you conveniently highlighted it in your post, without realizing the fallacy of the argument. And what do you have to show us to implicate Manmohan Singh on this issue? A harmless quote which goes along the lines of ‘When asked about this, the PM answered defensively, "India has nothing to be afraid about events in Balochistan. Our policies are an open book there. We are willing to discuss anything." I am puzzled, what is so ‘sickening’ about this? Manmohan has just stated that he is willing to discuss ANYTHING with Pakistan with an open. He didn’t actually say India is directly involved with any of what is happening in Balochistan. Besides, the Congressi govt. is the last govt. you should accuse of appeasing Pakistan. Your own BJP boys and their beloved leader (Vajpayee) was exchanging hugs and mithaii with Nawaz Sharif at the Wagah Border in ’99, even as the Pakistani army was busy plotting and preparing for its most audacious incursion into Indian territory. If anything, for the first time in the history of India-Pakistan relations, India has got Pakistan to accept masterminds of terror attacks in India were based in Pakistan and actually took public actions against them.

[seedhi]

That was because the ‘joint statement’ and your inferences of them that you had posted was riddled with ‘reading between the lines’ and glaring irregularities; The first one, as I had mentioned in my first response was this; I don’t where the article author got this piece of information from, but there was absolutely no mention of Balochistan in it.

I feel as if I am banging my head against the wall. I am sure you have not even gone through the joint statement. You should have at least made that little bit of effort before spouting so much garbage. Here is the reference to Balochistan in the statement:

Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas.

I am at a loss to understand how MMS allowed the above line to be inserted in the statement which indirectly accuses India of creating problem in Balochistan.

Second, even if there was questions and answers based on the Baloch problem, its ludicrous to suggest ‘India has allowed the Baloch problem to transform from a internal affair of Pakistan to a bilateral issue’. First of all, who is India to convert a Pakistani issue into a bilateral issue? Its like saying Pakistan has allowed the Cauvery issue to convert into a bilateral issue, from an internal issue of India. And if you have any idea of foreign policy nuance, you’ll know that NO country will ever want its own matters to be the subject of either bilateral or multilateral discussions. Clearly, there was not even inkling of a suggestion that Balochistan was going to be a bilateral issue. The author plainly made that up and you conveniently highlighted it in your post, without realizing the fallacy of the argument.

Read the joint statement line by line. Pakistan as raised the supposed "terror threat" in Balochistan, indirectly accusing India of terrorism.

And what do you have to show us to implicate Manmohan Singh on this issue? A harmless quote which goes along the lines of ‘When asked about this, the PM answered defensively, "India has nothing to be afraid about events in Balochistan. Our policies are an open book there. We are willing to discuss anything." I am puzzled, what is so ‘sickening’ about this? Manmohan has just stated that he is willing to discuss ANYTHING with Pakistan with an open. He didn’t actually say India is directly involved with any of what is happening in Balochistan.

It is sickening that instead of clear cut references to the Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammad, we have a reference to Balochistan in the joint statement.

Besides, the Congressi govt. is the last govt. you should accuse of appeasing Pakistan. Your own BJP boys and their beloved leader (Vajpayee) was exchanging hugs and mithaii with Nawaz Sharif at the Wagah Border in ’99, even as the Pakistani army was busy plotting and preparing for its most audacious incursion into Indian territory.

I dont recall Vajpayee going to hug Musharraf or Nawaz months after the Kargil war. I dont recall Vajpayee saying that action on curbing terrorism can be set aside and the talks can go on regarding all other issues.

If anything, for the first time in the history of India-Pakistan relations, India has got Pakistan to accept masterminds of terror attacks in India were based in Pakistan and actually took public actions against them.

And the result? The Lashkar, the Jaish, all are flourishing as before under different names. By the way, my post was about the joint statement India has signed. First of all you should read it before posting.

[seedhi]

A scathing analysis by G Parhasarthy (former High Commissioner to Pakistan) of the abject surrender by the UPA govt.

A Sharm-less surrender G Parthasarathy On July 12, Indian security forces in Jammu & Kashmir captured two well-armed Pakistani terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, Mohammed Adnan and Mohammed Shafkat, hailing from Sahiwal district of Pakistani Punjab, who had infiltrated across the Line of Control. The captured terrorists revealed that they belonged to a group of 15 militants who had been trained in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to attack the Baglihar dam in Jammu & Kashmir. They also revealed that a secret tunnel was being built near the border town of Sialkot for infiltration into India across the international border. Three days later, Mr Richard Barrett, the coordinator of the UN Security Council’s Al Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions Committee warned that there was a “real risk†that the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba would target India again. In these circumstances it has not only been necessary, but essential to make it clear to Pakistan and the international community, more so after the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist outrage, that there cannot be “business as usual†with Pakistan, unless Islamabad provides a categorical assurance that it will not allow territory under its control to be used for terrorism against India and that the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan will be dismantled. Barely a month ago when Mr Manmohan Singh met Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari in Yekaterinburg the normally soft spoken Prime Minister bluntly told him: “My mandate is limited to telling you that the territory of Pakistan must not be allowed to be used for terrorism against India.†But recent developments show that the Prime Minister’s warning has gone unheeded as the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan remains alive and kicking. The Vajpayee-Musharraf Declaration of January 6, 2004 makes it clear that India agreed to resume the ‘composite dialogue process’ with Pakistan only after a categorical assurance from Gen Musharraf that “territory under Pakistan’s control†would not be used for terrorism against India. There has thus been a direct link between Pakistan dismantling the infrastructure of terrorism and India agreeing to continue the composite dialogue. Despite this, the joint statement issued after Mr Singh and Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani met in Sharm el-Sheikh astonishingly notes: “Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.†Any number of statements or any amount of sophistry that this does not constitute an assurance that we will continue dialogue irrespective of whether or not the infrastructure of terrorism is dismantled will be laughed at by anyone who understands the basics of diplomacy, or even has a rudimentary understanding of the English language. This provision will haunt us when the next major terrorist attack hits us. Pakistan will deny its citizens were involved and insist that we continue with dialogue. Let us not forget that there were two main reasons why some progress was made after the Mumbai outrage. The first was the capture of Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab. Even though Pakistan denied for over a month that Kasab was a Pakistani national, it was compelled to ultimately climb down in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Moreover, as American, British and Israeli nationals were killed in Mumbai, unprecedented international assistance was forthcoming for the investigations and for pressure on Pakistan. It would, however be naïve to believe that any of the accused now under arrest will be punished. Pakistan is yet to complete the trial process of Omar Syed Sheikh, convicted of brutally murdering American journalist Daniel Pearl in 2001. People like Omar Syed Sheikh, AQ Khan, Hafiz Mohammed Saeed or Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi cannot be punished because they will spill the beans on the involvement of Pakistan’s military establishment in terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Union Home Minister P Chidambaram’s comments suggest that he at least recognises this reality. Pakistan has been trying to counter growing international support for India’s accusations that the ISI has been sponsoring terrorism against India, by alleging that India is sponsoring terrorism in Baluchistan and even aiding pro-Taliban forces in Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province. Given the presence of nearly 100,000 American and Nato forces in Afghanistan, any action by India that complicates the Nato mission would have invited American wrath and even retribution. The Americans have ignored and, by implication, rejected Pakistan’s baseless claims of Indian interference. But the statement issued in Sharm el-Sheikh asserts: “Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Baluchistan and elsewhere†— a signal to the whole world that Mr Gilani told Mr Singh that India was meddling in Baluchistan and the NWFP. Pakistan will use the fact that India did not deny Mr Gilani’s assertion in the joint statement as Indian acceptance of baseless Pakistani allegations. This is the most disastrous feature of the fiasco at Sharm el-Sheikh. Assertions by Mr Singh that India and Pakistan are both equally “victims†of terrorism, that they share a “common destinyâ€, or that a rising India cannot assert its rightful place in the comity of nations without good relations with Pakistan, are factually incorrect and undermine Indian diplomacy. A democratic, secular India cannot share a “common destiny†with a theocratic, feudal and military-dominated Pakistan, which is being challenged by terrorists the ISI backed to ‘bleed’ India and seek ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan. India, on the other hand has been a victim of the terrorism sponsored by Pakistan. Equating the two countries, as we have done in Sharm el-Sheikh, is ill-advised. India’s economic growth has accelerated and its international profile has flourished by its partnership with the international community in forums like the G-8 and G-20, despite Pakistan-sponsored terrorism and diplomatic hostility. We can ‘rise’ in the world with or without Pakistan’s cooperation. The more we suggest that we need Pakistan’s meherbani to accelerate economic growth, or rise in world affairs, the more those who cannot countenance India’s rise in the world within Pakistan’s establishment will continue to ‘bleed’ us. There are serious differences between Mr Zardari, who has genuinely sought accommodation and cooperation with India, and Mr Gilani, who rose in politics with the support of Gen Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s. Mr Gilani echoes the hardline approach of Pakistan’s military establishment. How then are India’s national interests served by embarrassing Mr Zardari in Yekaterinburg and appeasing Mr Gilani in Sharm el-Sheikh? http://dailypioneer.com/190959/A-Sharm-less-surrender.html

[seedhi]

Yet another analysis by Satish Chandra, former High Commissioner to Pakistan.

It’s a sellout By Satish Chandra The joint statement will encourage Pakistan to continue its involvement with terrorist activities against us. The Manmohan Singh government’s post-26/11 Pakistan policy has taken a dramatic U-turn. From the position hitherto taken that there wouldn’t be any talks with Pakistan until it brings to book the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks and dismantles the infrastructure of terror, the India-Pakistan joint statement of July 16, 2009 signals a sellout. This should not, however, come as a surprise to a people long inured to the government’s brazenness and ineptitude as demonstrated by its handling of 26/11, its conclusion of a seriously flawed nuclear deal with the United States and its sudden discovery, after over five years in office, that it had ‘underestimated’ the menace of left wing extremism. Showing an utter lack of professionalism, the joint statement, issued by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Gilani after their talks in Egypt, is harmful to our interests and was best avoided as evident from the textual analysis given below: The two prime ministers “considered the entire gamut of bilateral relations with a view to charting the way forward in India-Pakistan relations†and agreed that the foreign secretaries should “meet as often as necessary and report to the two foreign ministers†who would meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. The above formulation, along with the fact that the two prime ministers met for two hours, indicates that the India-Pakistan dialogue is already under way and contradicts our assertion that the dialogue would begin only after the perpetrators of 26/11 are brought to book and that there is no roadmap for resumption of talks. Take a look at this second important formulation in the statement: “Both leaders agreed that that terrorism is the main threat to both countries.†This equates India and Pakistan in respect of terrorism, glossing over the fact that the latter is involved with terrorist activities directed against the former. It constitutes a flashback to 2006 when Delhi made out that Pakistan like India is a victim of terror. Third, according to the statement, the prime minister asked his counterpart to bring the perpetrators of 26/11 to justice. To this Gilani stated that Pakistan would “do everything in its power in this regard,†that it had given an updated status dossier on investigations into 26/11, and that it sought additional information/evidence. PM said that the dossier was under review. Obviously, Singh’s demand was minimalist, restricted only to seeking satisfaction on 26/11 with no call for dismantling the infrastructure of terror or even an assurance, as given by Pakistan in January 2004, that the area under its control would not be used for terrorist attacks against India. Pakistan’s response was also minimalist and not even in the nature of a guarantee that those responsible for 26/11 would be brought to justice. Most significantly, through the statement, Gilani mentioned that “Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas.†What is the relevance of such a formulation? It is, from a Pakistani perspective. This is the first time that an India-Pakistan joint statement hints at Indian involvement in Balochistan and in “other areas.†It is myopic to see this as a harmless formulation as it virtually equates India with Pakistan as perpetrators of terror. The international community, which hitherto was convinced of our bonafides on this count, will now begin to have doubts. Islamabad will no doubt use this to discredit the Balochistan freedom struggle and take harsher measures against it. And, then the final act. Both the prime ministers recognised that “dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.†Singh added that India was ready to discuss with Pakistan all issues “including all outstanding issues.†It is a cardinal error to renounce all one’s options for dealing with any country. In the instant case, it relieves all pressure on Pakistan to eschew the use of terror as an instrument of foreign policy against us. Secondly, it demonstrates that India is a paper tiger unwilling to stand up for its critical national interests. Thirdly, the sentence read in its entirety, debunks the Indian assertion that Pakistan is required to give us satisfaction on 26/11 before the composite dialogue can begin. It is puerile to contend, as some have, that the “K†word does not figure in the statement as the phrase “outstanding issues†is shorthand for the same. The joint statement is not only badly worded but also not in the national interest as it will encourage Pakistan to continue its involvement with terrorist activities against us and will undermine our standing particularly in the region. This is all the more so as it comes at a time when Pakistan has thumbed its nose at us on the Hafiz Saeed issue. Had Singh wanted a dialogue with Pakistan only on terrorism this could have been held at the official level without the drama of a long prime minister level meeting and an elaborate joint statement. Obviously, the US pressure is at work and the conclusion of the joint statement on the eve of Hillary Clinton’s visit gives the game away. (The author is a former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan) http://www.deccanherald.com/content/15317/its-sellout.html