India Pakistan Dialog - Half Full or Half Empty?

[muse]

Cooperation is, OUGHT to be the desired end, not concerns about what kinds of clothes each side chooses to wear

 

[jeypore]

@Muse

The conspiracies and the blame game goes on, isn't it!!!!!

The true nature is to end and to fight the real cause, but if clear transparency is not created then it merely becomes a circle once again.......

 

[muse]

A highly significant and politically brave decision - I invite readers ot consider the article above by the former chiefs of the ISI and RAW -- please read the article critically:



India, Pakistan talks to go ahead: Delhi
By AFP
Published: July 14, 2011


NEW DELHI: Talks between the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan will take place as planned at the end of July despite the triple blasts in Mumbai, the Indian foreign ministry said Thursday.

India has moved to curb speculation about who was behind Wednesday’s bombings, and no group has claimed responsibility, but similar incidents in the past have led to a spike in tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours.

New Delhi has repeatedly accused the Pakistan military and intelligence services of aiding militant groups which carry out attacks on Indian soil.

“The talks are proceeding as scheduled,” foreign ministry spokesman Vishnu Prakash told AFP.

“There has been a heinous terrorist attack on Mumbai and we have duly noted the message of condolence from the president and prime minister of Pakistan.”

A date has yet to be finalised for the talks in New Delhi between Indian Foreign Minister SM Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart Hina Rabbani Khar, but Prakash said it would be in the last week of July.

In 2008, 10 gunmen went on a near three-day rampage through Mumbai, killing 166 people.

Delhi blamed the attack on the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba group and there were fears of another war between the two countries.

India broke off diplomatic relations with its neighbour in the aftermath and remains frustrated that the alleged masterminds are at large in Pakistan.

The foreign minister talks are the latest in a series of contacts between senior figures as the countries look to finalise a comprehensive peace deal that would put an end to 60 years of cross-border tension in South Asia.

Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan have fought three wars since independence in 1947.

 

[muse]

Pakistan, India promise ‘new era’ of cooperation

Relations back on track

* Both countries agree to work more closely in fighting terrorism and to ease commerce and travel across LoC

* Agree to explore dialogue on nuclear issues

* Kashmir will continue to be discussed ‘with a view to finding a peaceful solution’

* Khar says peace dialogue was now an ‘uninterruptible’ process

NEW DELHI: India and Pakistan’s foreign ministers insisted relations were back on track Wednesday after peace talks that highlighted a “new era” of cooperation over the ruptures of the past.

Although their meeting in New Delhi produced little in the way of substantive agreements, the tone was one of forward-looking optimism that acknowledged a joint responsibility to bring stability to South Asia. It was the first meeting of the arch-rivals’ foreign ministers for a year, and followed the formal resumption in February of the comprehensive peace dialogue suspended by India after the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

After the talks, Indian Foreign Minister SM Krishna said ties were back “on the right track,” while his Pakistani counterpart Hina Rabbani Khar spoke of a “mindset change” that had ushered in a “new era of cooperation”. “We have some distance to travel, but with an open mind and a constructive approach ... I am sure we can reach our desired destination of having a friendly and cooperative relationship,” Krishna said.

Khar said the peace dialogue was now an “uninterruptable” process that both countries were committed to taking forward. “A new generation of Indians and Pakistanis will see a relationship that will hopefully be much different from the one that has been experienced in the last two decades,” she said. A joint statement outlined the commitment of both sides to fight militancy, boost trade and keep the peace process going.

The pre-talks atmosphere had been soured by Khar’s decision to meet Kashmiri separatist leaders immediately after her arrival in New Delhi on Tuesday. A senior Indian government source said the meeting was “not a good idea at all” and served “no useful purpose.” But Pakistani Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir played down the issue, saying it had done nothing to cloud the Khar-Krishna meeting.

Both foreign ministers stressed the role constructive ties between New Delhi and Islamabad would play in ensuring peace in the wider South Asia region. The two agreed to work more closely in fighting terrorism and to ease commerce and travel across the Line of Control dividing. They also agreed their countries’ should explore dialogue on nuclear issues beginning in September — marking the first time they might share nuclear information since the late 1990s when both were conducting nuclear tests.

The Himalayan territory of Kashmir — a major source of tension that fuelled two of three wars fought by the rivals since 1947 — will continue to be discussed “with a view to finding a peaceful solution,” Krishna said. Krishna said that he was “satisfied at the progress achieved” in the talks held today with his Pakistani counterpart. The Indian foreign minister said, “We have reaffirmed our commitment to resolve all outstanding issues through a comprehensive, serious and sustained dialogue.” agencies

 

[third eye]

Without intending to sound cynical.

By Indo Pak relations standards it is too early to rejoice.

One swallow after all does not make a summer.

 

[venu309]

I didnt like the reporters aggressive tone.

That is Karan Thapar's style of interviewing. He is always like that.

 

[muse]

Without intending to sound cynical.

By Indo Pak relations standards it is too early to rejoice.

One swallow after all does not make a summer.

Excellent point - and we can be sure that this bonhomie, of sorts, will be tested, friendly neighborhood terrorists will be seeking opportunities to make themselves felt -- and if relations are too successful, international elements can and will act as well - I really do fear US policy in this regard may not be calibrated for optimal relations between Pakistan and India - such an eventuality will make US irrelevant, in a military and security sense

 

[hembo]

Was it a successful diplomatic visit at all?

Behind the scene events were sometimes more eventful, Iftikhar Gilani takes an overview of the Khar-Krishna talks

Taking lessons from previous near-diplomatic disasters — the Prime Ministers’ meet at the Egyptian resort Sharm al-Sheikh, and the one between Foreign Ministers of the two countries last year in Islamabad— External Affairs Ministry here had gone that extra-mile to shield the just concluded India-Pakistan talks from any inconvenient situations. Both sides took extra care to convey a feel good factor to sustain optimism, possibly till the Prime Ministers of the two countries meet in September on the sidelines of UN General Assembly session to take some concrete decisions, possibly on Sir Creek and Siachen.

Much of the time during the talks between the Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabani Khar and External Affairs Minister SM Krishna on Wednesday, was devoted to reaching a unified how-to-face-media strategy. Ultimately, it was decided that the two will make a quick appearance before the media, read out statements, and not take any questions. A limited press conference was left to experienced foreign secretaries to explain provisions of the joint statement.

Despite putting so many shields to prevent talks from wrecking, late night former Union Minister Ram Jethmalani had tried to puncture the “fee good” factor. Just when everybody had finished meals at the dinner hosted by Pakistan High Commissioner Shahid Malik at the ITC Maurya Sheraton hotel, the senior lawyer took the mike and praised the deposed Pakistan president Pervez Musahrraf. Not stopping here, Jethmalani also attacked China, in the presence of Chinese envoy Zhang Yan. He said, “China was an enemy of both countries and asked them to join and defeat Beijing hegemony.”

The Pakistan High Commissioner took mike from Jethmalani to clarify that these views were not shared by Pakistan. Indian government officials scrambled too. Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs Rajiv Shukla, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and some other MEA officials were seen rushing to Chinese Ambassador’s table to clam his nerves and apologised for the remarks. He was sitting with the US charge d’ affairs Peter Burleigh.

Jethmalani made the 34-year-old foreign minister of Pakistan blush. He said he had secured invitation for the dinner after looking a the pictures of Khar in the morning newspapers. Agreeing that India-Pakistan talks could not have been held in great cordiality and phraseology as these talks, experts fear that choice of words on terrorism in the joint statement may haunt the External Affairs Minister like it happened in Sharm al-Sheikh in July 2009.

The joint statement speaks of having agreed to strengthen cooperation on counter-terrorism to bring those responsible for terror crimes to justice. It also says that “ministers reviewed the status of bilateral relations and expressed satisfaction on the holding of meetings on the issue of Counter-Terrorism (including progress on the Mumbai Trial)”.

Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibal, objected to the reference to counter terrorism and progress on the Mumbai trials while omitting altogether any reference to the status of the trials of those charged in the conspiracy in Pakistan. Former deputy national security advisor Leela Ponappa also believed that there should have been a more extended reference to terrorism.

Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao took pains to explain the provision. She refuted it meant to revive defunct joint-terrorism mechanism (JATM). It was set up by the two prime ministers at Havana in 2006. But India dumped it when it failed to check Mumbai terror attack in 2008.

To keep talks on track following India’s annoyance at Khar’s meetings with Kashmiri separatist leaders, Syed Ali Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, chiefs of their respective factions of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), Pakistan Foreign Minister avoided tricky issues and refrained from mentioning Kashmir at the brief media interaction. In a finely scripted plan, it was left to Krishna to mention Pakistan’s core concern. He said, “on Jammu and Kashmir, we will continue discussions with a view to finding a peaceful solution by narrowing divergences and building convergences.”

The issue cropped up at the foreign secretary’s joint press conference as well. Rao said the meetings illustrated the ‘divergence’ between the two countries. “We have a very different point of view from Pakistan on that particular event (the meeting) and we have expressed our concerns in a frank and candid manner to the Pakistan side,” she said. Her counterpart Salman Bashir moved quickly to dismiss the Indian apprehensions. “This matter of the meeting yesterday cannot be construed in any manner including intentionally or by design to cast any shadow on today’s talks,” he said. “I think we should not read more into it.”

Behind closed doors at Hyderabad House, the venue of talks, 79-year old Krishna told Khar: “Half of India, which is your age, looks towards you not just for your good looks but also dynamism and the fresh approach that you have brought to the table.” Sources said both sides did discuss Kashmir and Mumbai trials at length.

Khar said: “A new generation of Indians and Pakistanis will see a relationship that will hopefully be much different from the one that has been experienced in the last two decades.” Krishna said the two countries had agreed to ease travel restrictions, boost bus services frequency and double the number of days goods could be traded across the Line of Control. “I can confidently say our relations are on the right track,” he said.

Meanwhile, Khar’s visited the dargah of Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti in Ajmer before flying back to her country. Her helicopter ride to Ahmer was delayed due to heavy clouds around Jaipur. Her special Pakistan Air Force plane had earlier landed at Jaipur, to take her to Ajmer in an Indian Air Force helicopter. Late in the afternoon she, landed at Ghughra helipad near Ajmer and was taken to the dargah. She offered a chaddar and paid obeisance at Aastana Sharif. Earlier, the Pakistani minister has visited the dargah of Sufi saint Nizamuddin Auliya in New Delhi.

Iftikhar Gilani is a Special Correspondent with Tehelka.com.

 

[DkBose]

i do believe,its time pass as it used to be.

 

[muse]

Friends:

Regardless of where we come down on particulars, we can't deny that a great opportunity may be at hand - for long Indian policy makers have argued for greater "people to people" contact - but lack of trust, terrorism and poor mechanisms to promote such contact have served to keep or rather "enforce" a separation between peoples increasingly curious about each other -- the root of this curiosity?? Youth Bulge - Pakistan and India have huge youth populations, these populations have no experience of each other - similar but not -- lets look at some of the dynamics:



South Asian Spring?

Like the youth revolutions of the Middle East, renewed talks between India and Pakistan have the wind of youthful hopes for peace pushing these long-time, nuclear rivals. Obama's exit plans from the Afghanistan war rest on it.

By the Monitor's Editorial Board
posted July 27, 2011 at 3:19 pm EDT

Let’s go out on a limb here and say that President Obama’s hopes for a US pullout from Afghanistan by 2014 hinges in part on the youth of India and Pakistan.

Exhibit A is Hina Rabbani Khar.

The 30-something woman who holds a master’s degree from the United States and owns a nightclub in Lahore became Pakistan’s top diplomat this year. This week, she made a splash among India’s youth during important talks aimed at ending a cold war between the two South Asian nuclear rivals – a rivalry that only fuels the Afghan conflict.

Like most young people on both sides, Ms. Khar tends to let bygones be bygones. (The two countries fought three wars since 1947 and still struggle over terrorist attacks and claims to Kashmir.)

“A new generation of India and Pakistan will see a relationship which is going to be much different than the one we experienced in the last few decades,” she said with calm eloquence during the talks that propelled bilateral ties forward. “We have learned lessons from history but are not burdened by history.”

Nearly two-thirds of Indians and three-quarters of Pakistanis are under 35 years old and may see their history differently than previous generations. Their dream of a peaceful, prosperous future – which elected leaders cannot ignore – was best summed up in a banner held up by fans in a stadium last March during a friendly Pakistan-India cricket match:

“We have two common religions – cricket and cinema. Why then fight?”

Such youthful atmospherics do count in the difficult diplomacy that lies ahead for Pakistan and India, especially on the issue of Kashmir. Just the fact that they are talking is a milestone, as talks since 1997 have been easily derailed by some blowup, such as the 2008 Mumbai bombings by Muslim militants from Pakistan.

A year ago, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh resolved to forge ahead. Dr. Singh has shown special courage in fending off domestic pressure to be tough on Pakistan. He was tested again just before this week’s talks when a series of blasts hit Mumbai July 13, killing 24.

Overcoming a deep “trust deficit” won’t be easy. Yet both leaders know this rivalry hurts their economies and opportunities for young people.

The rise of China and the pending withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan add strategic reasons to reconcile. A nuclear war between Pakistan and India is unthinkable. Pakistan has finally woken up to its own domestic terrorism (and was weakened by the US killing of Osama bin Laden on its soil). India needs to be a peacemaker if it wants a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.

And each side knows the issue of Kashmir can be solved by allowing a “soft border” between the divided peoples. Indeed, the talks this week did result in an agreement for increased travel and trade in Kashmir, among other small steps. People-to-people exchanges between two countries is the best way to build up trust.

“I visualize a resurgent South Asia, proudly marching forth on a path of development, in a terror-free and harmonious atmosphere,” said India’s external affairs minister, S.M. Krishna, during the talks.

As Khar’s counterpart (and a man more than twice her age), Mr. Krishna is looking far ahead – just like the youth of India and Pakistan. He’ll need such hope. In September, talks will begin on the issue of nuclear weapons.

 

[Bang Galore]

A shaky dialogue

IT looked good, it sounded good — and in the fraught world of Pak-India relations, that was probably good enough, for now.

The young Pakistani princess outshone her dapper Indian counterpart; the media was agog; and the outside world looked on approvingly. So are the constituencies for peace in India and Pakistan back with a bang? Not quite.

What this week has been about is atmospherics and optics. Make the environment in which talks are conducted more congenial and make all the noises necessary to reassure the other side of interest in talks — without ceding anything meaningful on any front.

Improving atmospherics and optics is nothing to scoff at when you’re talking about a six-decade-old problem to rival any other on the global stage. But Pakistan and India have been down this road many times before. It is reasonable to ask, will this time be any different?

On the Indian side, the peace constituency appears to have been bolstered by at least four things. The Indian PM and his national security adviser are still keen on better ties with Pakistan. The US is pushing for an improvement in Pak-India relations because of the potential regional dividends.

India has realised that the post-Mumbai attempt to diplomatically isolate Pakistan was a bad idea because the rest of the world doesn’t see Pakistan through an Indian lens. And India wants to see the Mumbai perpetrators brought to justice, something unlikely to ever occur if India disengages Pakistan.

But the first real public test for the peace constituency in India will come when it has to push domestically for a deal on some of the mid-level stuff, a deal on Sir Creek perhaps or more improbably, Siachen.

Another significant opportunity will come in private, when the contours of the post-American future of Afghanistan begin to get fleshed out in the months ahead. If India and Pakistan accommodate each other there, or at least refrain from intractable stubbornness, the dialogue between India and Pakistan would get a boost.Sitting here in Pakistan, though, it’s difficult to predict whether the supporters of dialogue on the Indian side will prevail or not.

Not that it’s any easier predicting stuff about the Pakistani side.

Hina Rabbani may bring a touch of soft power, Salman Bashir may talk tough, Shahid Malik may look tough, but the real power lies in the hands of the generals. And it’s hard to say what they are ultimately thinking. At least this much is clear, though: keeping relations with India on the boil at the moment isn’t in the army’s interest.

With so many irons in the fire — fending off the US, salvaging a domestic reputation tattered in recent months, trying to recover internal security, figuring out what’s next in Afghanistan, cash drying up — stoking the fires with India doesn’t really make sense.

But India-centricness remains. The generals’ stripes are too deep to scrub out and a ‘cold peace’ is the most the generals have been able to contemplate in terms of concessions to an opponent they viscerally mistrust and are suspicious of.

Cold peace would amount to conjoined twins staring off in different directions, interacting with the rest of the world on separate terms, ignoring cooperative solutions that would benefit both and each quietly watching for any harm directed its way from the other side.

So, are the generals just buying time and space for themselves by letting the civilians and bureaucrats talk peace but keeping them on a very short leash, hoping ultimately to return to competing strategically or perhaps forcing a cold peace?

History suggests the generals are unlikely to have changed their stripes. And with the civilian government having surrendered the national security and foreign policy domains to the uniformed lot, there’s little pressure on the generals to change their minds, if not mindsets.

Reality, however, can have its own way of intervening.

We threaten India, India threatens us — historically, the spill-over of conflict has been limited. But with the addition of nuclear weapons, the rise of India and the terrorism problem in Pakistan, along with sorting out Afghanistan in the medium term, the relationship has taken on a new dimension.

When the relationship between India and Pakistan was at its lowest ebb following the stand-off over prosecution of the Mumbai plotters in Pakistan, it was the US that was essentially keeping the two sides talking to each other.

And as far as the US is concerned, economic integration of the region, stretching from Central Asia to India with Afghanistan and Pakistan in between could be just the right tonic to reduce strategic tensions in the region.

The generals have always resisted economic integration with India, arguing that political issues have to be resolved before economic opportunities can be tapped.

But as the economy continues to sag and the effects of that continue to spread deeper and wider, business and trade interests may become more vocal in their demands. Economic integration — trade and investment opportunities from roaring India — remains the one element that has the potential of transforming the relationship between India and Pakistan, and undercutting the generals’ view of the relationship.

Interestingly, an attempt within the last year by big business to convince the generals of the merits of trade with India was initially met with a cautious nod of approval. But then, when the plan was ready to be unveiled to the public, the generals pulled the plug.

So as atmospherics and optics are improved in the latest round of dialogue, perhaps there is also an opening for a significant and long-lasting success: more trade and investment between India and Pakistan.

A shaky dialogue | Opinion | DAWN.COM

 

[SpArK]

news.outlookindia.com | Indo-Pak Talks Helping Develop Better Understanding

 

[AnGrz_Z_K_Jailer]

i do believe,its time pass as it used to be.

^^^

How come explain? You always through one liner without backing your claims, at least give us terse explanation about your disagreement ..

regards
Jailer

 

[AnGrz_Z_K_Jailer]

^^^^

Thank you mate! Interesting article to read, You always "bang" the forum with your post. I wish India and Pakistan settle down their issues ASAP.We badly need peace in our respective countries.

regards
Jailer

 

[somebozo]

I for one is a huge supporter of normalcy between Indo-Pakistan ties given the historical bitterness we all agree they will never cultivate to the status of friendly or historical however there is a great potential the two sides can concentrate on and put aside the difference for a while. There is nothing impossible in this world and not when the two sides have the will power. We will discuss the possibilities in context of benefit to Pakistan in better relations with India.

Indian and Pakistan are a geographic reality which is here to stay unless some natural disaster comes to separate the two and in the process kills millions of people.

Education:
Pakistani education sector at least the higher one is well developed though inadequate for nation need. Co-Operation with India could open new venues of valuable research and scientific exploration given the english fluency in both nations and less cultural barriers.

Trade:
Pakistan as a trade and energy corridor between India and Central Asia could bring prosperity to its people as well be at advantage in proceeding negotiations.

Culture:
India has long shed feduocracy and has established a culture which highly values literary and academic activities. In contrast to Pakistan, our youth culture is rapidly diverging towards anarchy, showoff and political gangship. The bridging of gaps between the youth of two nations will highly help to shed stereotypes and motivate the youth to be competitive in academic activities.