India agrees to delink ‘Composite Dialogue’ from terror fight

[SecularHumanist]

SHARM EL SHEIKH: In a major retreat from its hard-line position on resumption of peace talks, India on Thursday agreed to de-link ‘Composite Dialogue’ from action against terrorism and hold talks with Pakistan on all outstanding issues.



The breakthrough at this Egyptian resort was achieved during a meeting between Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of NAM summit. Pakistani officials here described this as a major diplomatic success.



‘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,’ said a joint statement issued after the meeting which lasted close to three hours, including a 40-minute one-to-one session.



Talks between foreign secretaries of the two countries that preceded Thursday’s top-level interaction had failed to make any progress, apart from threadbare discussions on issues straining bilateral ties.



In their speeches at the NAM summit on Wednesday, the prime ministers had stuck to their stated positions and even when their meeting got under way on Thursday there was little hope that a joint statement would be issued.



However, the prime ministers proved that they had the courage to rise to the occasion and chart the way to improve their relations.



Since the 26/11 Mumbai attacks India had been insisting that the Composite Dialogue, which was started in 2004 and completed four rounds, could not be resumed without Pakistan taking credible action against terrorism and prosecuting the perpetrators of the attacks.



Pakistan has been consistently saying that all problems can be solved through dialogue.



It was not immediately clear what motivated India to change its position on the issue of resumption of peace talks.



One apparent reason is the forthcoming visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to New Delhi and the Indian desire to avoid being seen as unreasonable and inflexible.



Talking to media personnel after the meeting, Dr Singh said: ‘We have obligation to talk to Pakistan.’



This was a changed Dr Singh, who had snubbed President Asif Ali Zardari in Yekaterinburg last month by telling him that his mandate was limited to just telling Pakistan that it should not allow its territory to be used for terrorist attacks against India.



Although no timeline or mechanism has been decided for resumption of dialogue, diplomatic sources said that details would be worked out by the foreign secretaries between now and the UN General Assembly session in September when the foreign ministers of both countries would meet.



Dr Singh and Mr Gilani agreed during their meeting that 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’.



But, more important was India’s acceptance to hold discussions on all eight segments of the Composite Dialogue, casting away apprehensions in Islamabad that New Delhi wanted recasting of the dialogue, which would have nullified the progress made so far, particularly on Sir Creek, Siachen and Kashmir confidence-building measures.



Mr Gilani reassured Dr Singh that Pakistan would make all possible efforts to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice. ‘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,’ the statement said.



After the meeting, Prime Minister Gilani told media persons that his counterpart was satisfied with his commitment.



Another major development of immense importance is Indian willingness to discuss allegations that its consulates in Afghanistan were involved in subversive activities on Pakistani soil, particularly in Balochistan.



The joint statement states that ‘Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas,’ and Mr Singh in his media conversation conceded that India had agreed to discuss the issue.



‘I told him the consulates are not of recent origin and we have deep ties with Afghanistan but will discuss the issue in detail if Pakistan wanted,’ Dr Singh said.



Mr Gilani told journalists that India was ready to discuss its alleged involvement in Balochistan unrest.



Both the countries also agreed to share intelligence relating to future terrorist threats. ‘Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats,’ the two-page statement said.



Pakistan and India already have a Joint Anti-Terrorism Mechanism, which is currently dysfunctional, which has a similar provision for intelligence cooperation.



The agreement at Sharm El Sheikh to create an atmosphere of ‘mutual trust and confidence’ is likely to help the two countries make the intelligence-sharing agreement workable this time.



The two leaders committed themselves to promoting regional cooperation and acknowledged that the real challenge was elimination of poverty that restrained their countries and their people from realising their full potential.

DAWN.COM | World | India agrees to delink dialogue from anti-terror fight

 

[Neo]

India brought back to the table ​

SHARM EL-SHEIKH (July 17 2009): The joint communque issued at the conclusion of the prime ministerial talks between Pakistan and India reflects Pakistan's resolve to get India back on the negotiating table, something that New Delhi had stubbornly and carefully refused to do after the Mumbai incident.

Until the talks between the two heads of government began, there was uncertainty about the issuance of a joint communique although both sides had exchanged drafts for such a communique when their foreign secretaries had met last Tuesday.

The Indian side appeared to be obsessed with a single point agenda ie Terrorism; whereas Pakistan was of the view that while this issue is of vital importance for both sides, it should not obscure other matters of considerable concern to both countries and should form part of the structured Composite Dialogue process which should not be held hostage to talks on terrorism alone as it would serve neither side except the terrorists.

A careful reading of the communique issued reveals that all matters of concern to both sides have been fully reflected and the situation in Balochistan, that in great part owes its sustenance to foreign machinations has for the first time been mentioned in an Indo-Pak joint communique. The disproportionate number of Indian diplomatic outposts in Afghanistan is a matter of grave concern for Pakistan and there have been signs of Indian involvement in Balochistan.

The assertion that "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" is a vindication of Pakistan's stand on the issue.

Reading between the lines one can clearly discern that it would be quite somtime before the composite dialogue process would be resumed and during the interregnum official level contacts between the two sides would continue including sharing of real time intelligence, joint review of progress on the prosecution of the Mumbai carnage perpetrators and evidence of action against terrorist outfits.

It is expected that when the foreign ministers of both the countries would meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly session in September, a review of such co-operation would take place and then the next round of the composite dialogue may be scheduled.

 

[MFI]

PM Singh says no dialogue till Pakistan acts on terror

 

[Enigma SIG]

PM Singh says no dialogue till Pakistan acts on terror

I dont know why our PM is all over India over this; until they bring Kashmir to the table; and accept that it is disputed territory; not a place which their fathers gave them in their jahaiz; we should turn a blind eye to the indians...

 

[MFI]

Both India and Pakistan are under US pressure,the Americans want Pakistan to commit it's whole military to fight the Taliban.They can't do that till PA is occupied with India.
Anyway until 26/11 perpetrators brought to justice there should be no talks especially on Kashmir.

 

[NSG_BlackCats]

Dialogue to depend on actions by Pak: PM​

NEW DELHI: Under attack from BJP for the outcome of his meeting with his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday said the starting point for "any meaningful dialogue" will depend on actions by Islamabad to end cross-border terror and hoped there would be "forward movement" in the coming months.

Making a statement in the Lok Sabha against the backdrop of BJP's charge of reversal of India's long-standing position, Singh said "action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and therefore cannot await other developments."
BJP was not satisfied, with Leader of Opposition L K Advani charging that India had "conceded" and "capitulated". He then led a BJP walkout from the House.

Singh, who met Gilani at Sharm-el Sheikh in Egypt yesterday, said he had conveyed to the Pakistani leader that "sustained, effective and credible action needs to be taken not only to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack to justice but also to shut down the operations of terrorist groups so as to prevent any future attacks."

Underlining that India seeks cooperative relations with Pakistan and "engagement is the only way forward to realise the vision" of a stable and prosperous South Asia, he said India is "willing to go more than half way provided Pakistan creates the conditions for a meaningful dialogue".

He said "Whether, when and in what form we broaden the dialogue with Pakistan will depend on future developments."

Link

 

[MFI]

We should make it clear no Kashmir till Action on 26/11 attackers.Anyone know what was written in the letter Obama sent to Manmohan Singh?

 

[spsk]

Great News for the Kashmir Freedom fighters for preparing next attack , Government also gets a chance to stop all peace talks after next attack Clever move by Congress...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Great News for the Kashmir Freedom fighters for preparing next attack , Government also gets a chance to stop all peace talks after next attack Clever move by Congress...

Say what?

 

[Mig-29]

Hailing the decision of India and Pakistan to resume dialogue, Pak media said on Friday that credit must go to both sides for "seizing the moment and breaking the impasse" and that they should build on the "breakthrough" achieved in the meeting between the two Prime Ministers.

The influential Dawn newspaper, in an editorial titled "A Step Forward", said "considerable give and take" will be required by both countries in the days to come.

"Credit must go to both sides for seizing the moment and breaking the impasse. Instead of describing the outcome of the meeting as some kind of victory for Pakistan we would do well to hail India's timely recognition that terrorism and militancy should not be allowed to come in the way of improved relations," it said.

Following the meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the NAM Summit in Egypt, India and Pakistan agreed to cooperate in fighting terrorism and announced tentative steps aimed at resuming talks that were suspended in the wake of the Mumbai attacks in November 2007.

Pak media hails decision to resume Indo-Pak talks

 

[MFI]

^^ That's not what PM Singh told India and the Parliament

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Rising disquiet in Congress over PM's Pak line​

TNN 18 July 2009, 01:24am IST
|
NEW DELHI: Faced with deep disquiet within Congress and protests from the Opposition over the "concessions" he is widely seen to have made to Pakistan, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh claimed here on Friday that India's stand on terrorism had not been compromised by the controversial joint statement he signed on to on Thursday at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.

"It does not mean any dilution of our stand. It only strengthens our stand," Singh said in Rajya Sabha. The assertion, however, failed to satisfy either Congress or the Opposition. "There are clear contradictions between what was released from Sharm el-Sheikh and what we heard in the two Houses," said a senior Congress leader just after the PM made his statement in Parliament.

In the Lok Sabha, BJP rejected Singh's explanation as "unsatisfactory" before staging a walkout.

Singh's defence of the joint statement came against the backdrop of strong murmurs of resentment in Congress. Party circles feel that the Sharm el-Sheikh document leaves room for suspicion that the Indian delegation relaxed its condition not to resume the composite dialogue with Pakistan till the latter met its condition to bring the 26/11 perpetrators to justice and take credible and sustained measures to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism in Pakistan.

Sources in Congress were also upset with the mention of Balochistan in the joint statement, saying this was fraught with the risk of giving Pakistan room to fling the terror charge back at India at a time of its choosing. Significantly, PM skirted what party circles are calling the 'Balochistan bungle'.

His senior colleagues in Congress also feel that the joint statement was out of tune with the reality of Pakistan's recalcitrance over the 26/11 probe and its continuing support to terrorists -- something confirmed by home minister P Chidambaram in an interview to Times Now channel.

Speaking in the Rajya Sabha, Singh countered the argument that the joint statement had uncoupled the issue of revival of composite dialogue with India's insistence that Pakistan deliver on its litany of promises to take action against terrorists using its territory to launch strikes against India. PM argued, "It only strengthens our stand that we would like Pakistan not to wait for resumption of the composite dialogue as and when it takes place. But take action against terrorist elements regardless of these processes that may lead to the resumption of the dialogue."

In his statement in the two Houses as well as replies to queries from Arun Jaitley and Sitaram Yechury in the Rajya Sabha, the PM stressed that in his talks with his Pakistani counterpart Yousaf Raza Gilani, he stuck to India's bottomline that "sustained, effective and credible action needs to be taken not only to bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack to justice, but also to shut down the operations of terrorist groups so as to prevent any future attacks".

He also denied that India had made any commitment to return to the table for composite dialogue irrespective of what Pakistan does vis-i-vis its concerns about terrorism. "Whether, when and in what form we broaden the dialogue with Pakistan will depend on future developments. For the present, we have agreed that the foreign secretaries will meet as often as necessary and report to the two foreign ministers who will meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly," he said, suggesting that India reserves the option of not starting the dialogue if Pakistan does not comply with its wishlist.

The anxiety to dispel the perception of concession was clear when the PM made a reference to the commitment made by Pakistan on January 6, 2004 not to let terrorists use its territory as the base for attacks on India. The omission of the 2004 pledge from the joint statement issued on Thursday is one of the reasons why it has drawn flak.

To many, the PM seemed to be making amends when he emphasised, "It has been and remains our consistent position that the starting point of any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan is a fulfilment of their commitment, in letter and spirit, not to allow their territory to be used in any manner for terrorist activities against India."

The contrast between the tough tone Singh used and the text of Sharm el-Sheikh was highlighted by Jaitley, Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha. "The explanation which the prime minister has given seems directly in odds to what is in the declaration. The two seems patently inconsistent with each other," Jaitley said. He also argued that it was the joint statement and not statements made in the country which will be taken as reflecting India's stand.

CPM's Sitaram Yechury, who supported the PM's intent to improve ties with Pakistan, supported Jaitley's contention about inconsistency. Comparing prime minister's statement in the House with the joint statement, Yechury said the two appeared to be in conflict.

For once, Congress leaders seemed to share the Opposition's perception. They also feel that the government failed to capitalise on Pakistan's dire need for early resumption of the stalled composite dialogue. "The very debate as to who has gained should not have been there had we played our cards well," said a senior leader who added that the party was wary of how the PM and his team negotiates on the sensitive issues of WTO and climate change.

Rising disquiet in Congress over PM's Pak line - India - NEWS - The Times of India

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

PM’s great peace gamble​

As with the move he began five years ago to end India’s nuclear isolation, so it seemed on Friday — that the Prime Minister’s vision of peace in his time is a policy gamble now driving dialogue with Pakistan.

That vision of change — pushed gently by the US, as the Congress privately admitted — clashed with the Bharatiya Janata Party’s insistence on continuity as the BJP walked out of the Lok Sabha, after calling Manmohan Singh’s agreement to decouple action against terrorism from bilateral talks “capitulation” to Pakistan.

Singh (77) repeated what he said yesterday in Egypt to both houses of Parliament: India’s stance on terror has not changed; there will be no “meaningful dialogue” without progress on terrorism against India.

Here’s the gamble: A failure by Islamabad to take action against the perpetrators of Mumbai 26/11 or, worse, another major terrorist attack against India would immediately undermine Singh’s new policy.

At the heart of the BJP’s disagreement with the PM were differing visions of Islamabad’s attitude toward terrorism. This had changed, Singh argued.

He quoted his Pakistani counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani: “There is consensus in Pakistan against the activities of these terrorist groups, that strong action is being taken and this is in Pakistan’s own interests.”

As an Indian official who has worked closely with Singh said: “There is an assumption Pakistan’s willingness to tackle terrorism will be weakened by the delinking. Critics should consider the possibility that the opposite will happen.”

Before leading his party out, BJP opposition leader L.K. Advani asked: "It is only because of Bombay that you stopped it (the dialogue). What has changed since then?"

The answer lies in Singh’s track record of ignoring the day’s realities, making major shifts in policy and sticking to them with a tenacity that belies his soft-spoken demeanour.

In Singh’s broad foreign policy vision, instability in India’s neighbourhood is seen as the primary obstacle to India’s economic and political rise.

The Prime Minister has come to believe that changing circumstances in Pakistan, most notably the country’s growing hostility to the Islamic militants it once sponsored, means India needs to move beyond the sterile debate of terrorism versus Kashmir. US pressure is apparent.

“I’m sure the US has made some commitment on behalf of Pakistan to India about dealing with the terror issue,’’ said a senior Congress functionary, requesting anonymity. “The PM has to move forward.”

The joint statement is being seen by some as part of a drive to find a new basis for the Pakistani relationship.

Besides decoupling, the joint statement had no direct reference to Kashmir.

The government struggled, however, to explain the statement’s references to the “threats” that Pakistan faces in Balochistan.

If Gilani, said Congress spokesman Manish Tewari, “wanted to put some information about Balochistan in it, India has no objection because we do not interfere in any country’s internal affairs and we are also ready to talk, if anybody wants.”

Pakistan has long accused India of fomenting insurgency in Balochistan, a claim New Delhi has denied.

Tewari said the statement in Sharm al Sheikh sent “a clear message to Pakistan that it will have to take action against terrorism unilaterally and this has nothing to do with composite dialogue”.

The BJP also accused the government of buckling to international pressure. Washington denied it had applied any pressure on India regarding talks with Pakistan, though it welcomed the joint statement.

The BJP walkout, and even the mildly critical stance of the CPI(M), that the Sharm-el-Sheikh episode had caused “confusion”, underlined the political risks that Singh’s reworking of the traditional Indo-Pakistani diplomatic dialogue represented.

PM?s great peace gamble- Hindustan Times

 

[Maritimer]

There seems to be a gap in the interpretation of the joint statement on both sides and also within India. The Indian govt's contention is that there will be no composite dialogue for now, but actions on terror will continue, since the two are now de-linked. Pakistan cannot now say that action on terror will depend on resuming dialogue (thereby linking them).

Also, by including Balochistan, Pakistan has brought its internal issue onto the dialogue table. Imagine India including the Assam insurgency into the bilateral dialogue with Pakistan, on the basis of some information of links between jihadi groups and ULFA. In future discussions on Balochistan, it gives scope for India to raise issues of human rights abuses, custodial killings and military action by Pakistan Army in that province.

The Egypt summit can be seen as smart diplomatic choreography and play of words by the both sides to cater to domestic audiences. The clarifications issued by Minister of State, Sashi Tharoor last night on NDTV confirms this.