IPRI :: Islamabad Policy Research Institute

1.     Agra to Islamabad: A Chronology
2.     Pakistan –India Joint Press Statement
3.     India, Pak Announce Staff Increase, Other Measures to Consolidate
        Peace Process
4.     Favourable Public Opinion, International Concern Stimulus Behind
        Pak-India Dialogue: Kasuri
5.     Vajpayee Briefs Cabinet on Islamabad Talks
6.     Why Did it Work at Islamabad
7.     US Welcomes Forthcoming Indo-Pak Talks
8.     Press Statement on India-Pakistan Talks
9.     Pakistan, India Exchange Proposals
10.   Peace Roadmap for South Asia Rivals
11.   Text of India-Pakistan Statement
12.   Joint Press Statement (India – Pakistan Technical Level Talks on
        Khokhrapar-Munnabao Bus Service)
13.   Interview of President General Pervez Musharraf to The India
       Today Conclave 13 March 2004
14.   India-Pakistan Dialogue Optimism Belied: A Viewpoint
15.   Interview of India’s External Affairs Minister to Outlook
       (7 June 2004 Issue)
16.   India-Pakistan Talks Set for June
17.   Joint Statement, Meeting between Foreign Secretaries of India
        and Pakistan
18.   Talks on Nuclear CBMs: Well Begun but is it Half Done?
19.   Pitfalls in Dialogue
20.   On the Schedule for Meetings between India and Pakistan
21.   Pakistan, India Aim to Push Peace Process
22.   Seeking a Timeframe for the Kashmir Dispute
23.   The Future of Kashmir
24.   Joint Press Statement on India - Pakistan Discussions on Promotion of
        Friendly Exchanges in Various Fields
25.   Joint Press Statement on India-Pakistan Talks on Siachen
26.   Joint Press Statement on India-Pakistan Talks on
        Terrorism and Drug Trafficking
27.   Joint Press Statement on India-Pakistan Talks on
        Economic and Commercial Cooperation
28.   Composite Dialogue and Kashmir Issue
29.   Same Indian Mantra
30.   Shaukat for making Indo-Pak Talks more Substantive
31.   CSIS asks India, Pakistan to Build Workable Confidence-Building System
32.   Joint Press Statement on the Meeting between Foreign Secretaries of
        India and Pakistan
33.   Joint Statement Issued at Indo-Pak Talks Conclusion
34.   Joint Press Conference of Foreign Ministers
35.   Vision for Peace
36.   Joint Declaration of Pak-India Foreign Minister Talks Issued
37.   Kashmir Issue Demands Political Will: Kasuri
38.   Fresh Initiatives on Many Fronts: Determination in Joint
        Communique to Settle Kashmir Issue
39.   The New Delhi Round
40.   Enough of Politicking on Kashmir
41.   It's Crunch Time
42.   Joint Statement on India-Pakistan Summit
43.   Manmohan Calls it 'Historic Day' after Summit with Musharraf
44.   Summit in New York
45.   India-Pakistan Relations: Historic Meeting Redux
46.   Composite Dialogues with India can Survive CMBs: Musharraf
47.   Second Round of Talks Next Month: Calendar of Important Meetings
        Agreed

The ongoing process of “composite dialogue” between India and Pakistan is focusing on eight issues, i.e., Peace and Security including CBMs, Jammu and Kashmir, Siachin, Sir Creek, Wullar Barrage, Terrorism and Drug Trafficking, Economic and Commercial Cooperation and Promotion of Friendly Exchanges in Various Fields. It is hoped that it “will lead to a peaceful settlement of all bilateral issues including Jammu and Kashmir”, as specifically mentioned in the joint statement by Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the former Prime Minister of India, and General Pervez Musharraf, the President of Pakistan, issued at Islamabad, on 06 January 2004.

The Factfile commences with a chronology of main events from Agra Summit (15-16 July 2001) till the above joint statement. It concludes with the New York summit meeting between the Indian Prime Minister Mr Manmohan Singh and President Musharraf of Pakistan on 24 September 2004. The outcome of the meeting has been termed as “historic” by the Indian Prime Minister and augurs well for the peace process.

Besides notable developments, the Factfile contains selected statements, interviews, media reports, editorials and articles published from 06 January till 21 October 2004. The calendar of important Pak-India meetings till December 2004 is also given at the end.

Agra to Islamabad: A Chronology [Extracts]

14 July 2001: Musharraf arrived at New Delhi for the Agra summit. He was accorded a ceremonial welcome at the Rashtrapati Bhavan (The Hindu, 15 July 2001) Musharraf also held discussions with the leaders of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) and reiterated his full moral, diplomatic and political support to Kashmiris in their just struggle? (The Hindu, 15 July 2001)

15 July 2001: The First Phase of Indo-Pak talks began at Agra. India and Pakistan appeared to bury the recent bitterness over the Kargil war and renew a wide-ranging engagement that would address all outstanding issues in bilateral relations. (The Hindu, 16 July 2001)

The reported briefing by Sushma Swaraj on the proceedings of the Agra Summit triggered a furious reaction from the PTV, which alleged Swaraj of giving a one-sided briefing (The Hindu, 16 July, 2001)

16 July 2001: The talks between General Pervez Musharraf and the Indian Prime Minster failed to reach any positive conclusion. (The Hindu, 17 July 2001)

17 July 2001: Jaswant Singh dispelled the summit as a failure and said that the two countries covered a lot of ground in finding a framework to deal with their bilateral differences. (The Hindu, 18 July 2001)

Pakistani Foreign Minister, Abdul Sattar, said in Islamabad that the Summit was inconclusive but not a failure. (The Hindu, 18 July 2001)

19 July 2001: Vajpayee described the Agra summit as “not unsuccessful”, and said that talks with Pakistan would go on. (The Hindu, 20 July 2001)

27 July 2001: Musharraf formally invited Vajpayee to visit Islamabad at the latter's earliest convenience. (The Hindu, 28 July 2001)

29 July 2001: Vajpayee said he was not under any pressure to cancel his proposed visit to Pakistan. (The Hindu, 30 July 2001)

8 August 2001: The bilateral meeting, of India and Pakistan scheduled for August 10 in Colombo. (The Hindu, 9 August 2001)

16 August 2001: Vajpayee said India and Pakistan arrived at a broad framework to continue the dialogue. (The Hindu, 17 August 2001)

23 August 2001: The first political contact between India and Pakistan after the Agra summit took place with the meeting between Pakistani Commerce Minister, Razzak Abdul Dawood, and Vajpayee. (The Hindu, 24 August 2001)

30 August 2001: Musharraf said Advani blocked the joint declaration between India and Pakistan. (The Hindu, 31 August 2001)

5 September 2001: The spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs confirmed that Vajpayee was to meet Musharraf on 25 September. (The Hindu, 6 September 2001)

8 October 2001: Musharraf assured Vajpayee, of inquiry about Pakistani involvement in the suicide car bomb attack at the Assembly building in Srinagar. (The Hindu, 9 October 2001)

17 October 2001: Maj. Gen. Rashid Qureshi said India was moving its troops and relocating its Air Force assets along the Line of Control (LoC) and the International Border (IB) threatening Pakistan’s security. (The Hindu, 18 October 2001)

20 October 2001: Abdul Sattar said Musharraf would look forward to a meeting with Vajpayee on 10 November in New York. (The Hindu, 21 October 2001)

23 October 2001: Inam-ul-Haq gave the `demarche' to the Indian High Commissioner, Vijay K. Nambiar, over the alleged provocative anti-Pakistan statements' from New Delhi and the reported additional movements of troops on the LoC and the IB [International Border] (The Hindu, 24 October 2001)

28 October 2001: Musharraf expressed a desire for resumption of dialogue with India by reviving the format'' agreed upon at the Agra Summit in July. (The Hindu, 29 October 2001)

29 October 2001: Vajpayee ruled out talks with the Pakistan President on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session in New York. (The Hindu, 30 October 2001)

6 November 2001: Pakistan freed 41 Indian fishermen belonging to the Saurashtra region of Gujarat. (The Hindu, 7 November 2001)

8 November 2001: Musharraf said India was committing state terrorism in Kashmir. (The Hindu, 9 November 2001)

11 November 2001: Musharraf said Pakistan was ready to discuss nuclear and missile restraints and nuclear risk reduction measures with India. (The Hindu, 12 November 2001)

13 December 2001: Musharraf said he strongly condemned the attack by the terrorists on the Indian Parliament. (The Hindu, 14 December 2001)

18 December 2001: Vajpayee rejected the Pakistani suggestion to initiate a joint probe into the 13 December attack on Parliament House. (The Hindu, 19 December 2001)

20 December 2001: [Indian] Ministry of External Affairs ruled out a meeting between Vajpayee and Musharraf, on the sidelines of SAARC summit at Kathmandu. (The Hindu, 21 December 2001)

21 December 2001: Chokila Iyer said that India had decided to recall High Commissioner and terminate land transport links with Pakistan. (The Hindu, 22 December 2001).

27 December 2001: [Indian] Cabinet Committee on Security decided to reduce the strength of the respective High Commissions by 50 per cent, banning all over-flight facilities to Pakistan and restricting the movement of the residual officials of the Pakistani mission to the municipal limits of the national capital. (The Hindu, 28 December 2001)

Pakistani Foreign Office announced that the personnel strength of the Indian High Commission would be reduced by 50 per cent; officials of the Indian High Commission would remain within the municipal limits of Islamabad; Indian aircraft will not be allowed to fly over Pakistani territory. (The Hindu, 28 December 2001)

29 December 2001: Abdul Sattar said Pakistan would respond positively to any indication from the Indian Government for a meeting between Musharraf [and Vajpayee.] (The Hindu, 29 December 2001)

3 January 2002: Vajpayee said that there was no intention of meeting Musharraf at the SAARC Summit. (The Hindu, 4 January 2002)

6 January 2002: Musharraf and Vajpayee in the informal talks in Kathmandu decided on a roadmap for future talks. (The Hindu, 7 January 2002) Vajpayee said no immediate plans for bilateral talks with Pakistan but talks possible in the future. (The Hindu, 7 January 2002)

11 January 2002: [Indian] Army Chief S. Padmanabhan said that the Army was prepared for a conventional war in case of sufficient provocation from Pakistan. (The Hindu, 12 January 2002)

12 January 2002: Musharraf in his address to the nation banned the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad along with three other sectarian and religious extremist outfits, ruled out handing over Pakistanis wanted by India [on grounds that the alleged persons were not in Pakistan] and invited Vajpayee, for talks. (The Hindu, 13 January 2002)

13 January 2002: Pakistani Police locked over 250 offices and detained 533 activists of LeT and JeM in different towns. (The Hindu, 14 January 2002)

15 January 2002: Musharraf said that it was now for India to act and Pakistan would continue to give ‘moral, diplomatic and political’ support on Kashmir. (The Hindu, 16 January 2002)

16 January 2002: Advani said India will judge Pakistan’s sincerity based on the latter’s decision to hand over the wanted terrorists to India. (The Hindu, 17 January 2002). [Pakistan denies having terrorists wanted by India.]

19 January 2002: Abdul Sattar said Pakistan had a list of fugitives allegedly sheltered in India. (The Hindu, 20 January 2002)

22 January 2002: Pakistani Foreign Office Spokesman said that Pakistan was ready to hold talks with India on the issue of lists of terrorists. (The Hindu, 23 January 2002)

24 January 2002: Omar Abdullah said that India rejected Musharraf’s offer of a no-war pact and de-nuclearisation of South Asia. (The Hindu, 25 January 2002)

31 January 2002: Abdul Sattar said that Pakistan would have no objection on meeting the Indian Representative at the Security Conference in Munich. (The Hindu, 1 February 2002)

6 February 2002: Musharraf said that Pakistani cricket team was ready to play with the Indian cricket team. (The Hindu, 7 February 2002)

7 March 2002: Musharraf announced the lifting of ban on air links between the two countries, if India was prepared to reciprocate the gesture. (The Hindu, 8 March 2002)

9 March 2002: Abdul Sattar said Pakistan was ready for an agreement with New Delhi not to allow its territory to be used for hostile activities. (The Hindu, 10 March 2002)

11 March 2002: Nirupama Rao said India rejected the proposal on terrorism made by Abdul Sattar. (The Hindu, 12 March 2002) Sattar said he was ready to travel to New Delhi for a dialogue to resolve the Indo-Pakistan border tension. (The Hindu, 12 March 2002)

31 March 2002: Musharraf said in an exclusive interview to The Hindu, Pakistan had done enough to curb terrorism and it was for India to act. (The Hindu, 1 April 2002)

18 May 2002: The [Indian] Cabinet Committee on Security asked Pakistan to recall its High Commissioner to India, Ashraf Jehangir Qazi. (The Hindu, 17 May 2002) Pakistani Foreign Office said that Pakistan was for de-escalation of tensions with India. (The Hindu, 19 May 2002)

19 May 2002: The [Indian] Cabinet Committee on Security decided to place the paramilitary forces deployed along the border areas with Pakistan under the centralized command of the Army. (The Hindu, 20 May 2002)

20 May 2002: Aziz Ahmed Khan, Pakistan Foreign Office spokesman said Pakistan was for bilateral talks with India. (The Hindu, 21 May 2002)

22 May 2002: Vajpayee asked the Army to be ready for a decisive battle. (The Hindu, 23 May 2002)

23 May 2002: Vajpayee said that situation in the border with Pakistan was tense and challenging. (The Hindu, 24 May 2002)

24 May 2002: Mushrraf rejected suggestions for pulling back the Army from the border in Kashmir. (The Hindu, 25 May 2002)

27 May 2002: Musharraf in his address to the nation said Pakistan would not initiate a war against India. (The Hindu, 27 May 2002)

5 June 2002: Vajpayee said India and Pakistan could work on a strategy for joint patrolling at the border. (The Hindu, 6 June 2002) A statement from the [Indian] Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Pakistan rejected the proposal on joint patrolling. (The Hindu, 6 June 2002)

10 June 2002: [Indian] Foreign Office Spokesperson said India decided to allow Pakistani flights. (The Hindu, 11 June 2002)

Pakistani foreign Office spokesperson said steps were positive but more were needed to de-escalate tensions. (The Hindu, 11 June 2002)

8 July 2002: Fernandes said that India was willing for joint surveillance of the border. (The Hindu, 9 July 2002)

21 July 2002: Musharraf called for meaningful dialogue between India and Pakistan. (The Hindu, 22 July 2002)

14 August 2002: Musharraf said Jammu and Kashmir elections scheduled in September/ October was farcical. (The Hindu, 15 August 2002)

21 August 2002: Yashwant Sinha said there were signs of forward movement on Indo-Pak ties. (The Hindu, 22 August 2002)

22 August 2002: Inam-ul-Haq, Pakistani Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, said Pakistan was not averse to joint Patrolling of the border. (The Hindu, 23 August 2002)

9 September 2002: Vajpayee said LoC would not be converted into border between India and Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir issue. (The Hindu, 10 September 2002)

16 October 2002: The [Indian] Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) decided to withdraw troops posted in forward locations on the International Border with Pakistan. (The Hindu, 17 October 2002)

17 October 2002: The Pakistani Foreign Office decided to pull back its troops from the International Border. (The Hindu, 18 October 2002)

28 November 2002: Musharraf said there was no change in the Pakistani policy on Kashmir. (The Hindu 29 November 2002)

1 January 2003: India and Pakistan exchanged lists of their nuclear installations and facilities as stipulated under the Agreement on the Prohibition of Attack Against Nuclear Installations and Facilities between India and Pakistan, 1988. (The Hindu, 2 January 2003)

11 January 2003: The Indian High Commission denied visa to 13 Pakistani writers to attend the Punjabi Writers’ Conference. (The Hindu, 12 January 2003)

22 January 2003: Arun Kumar Singh, Joint Secretary in the MEA said India had decided to expel four Pakistani embassy personnel. (The Hindu, 23 January 2003)

23 January 2003: Pakistan expelled three Indian Diplomats and a staffer. (The Hindu, 24 January 2003)

8 February 2003: India and Pakistan expelled each other’s diplomats and staffers and asked them to leave the respective countries. (The Hindu, 9 February 2003)

10 February 2003: Aziz Ahmed Khan, Pakistan Foreign Office spokesman said Pakistan is ready to send a replacement for the expelled Diplomat. (The Hindu, 11 February 2003)

13 February 2003: India and Pakistan announced the appointment of new diplomats to their High Commissions. (The Hindu, 14 February 2003)

18 April 2003: Vajpayee extended hand of friendship to Pakistan. (The Hindu, 19 April 2003)

23 April 2003: Musharraf said Pakistan was ready for a comprehensive dialogue with India. (The Hindu, 24 April 2003)

28 April 2003: Jamali invited Vajpayee to Pakistan for talks. (The Hindu, 29 April 2003)

29 April 2003: Vajpayee said he was non-committal to the Pakistani invitation. (The Hindu, 30 April 2003)

2 May 2003: Vajpayee announced appointment of High commissioner to Pakistan and restoration of civil aviation links. (The Hindu, 3 May 2003)

3 May 2003: Vajpayee said careful preparation needed for Indo-Pak talks. (The Hindu, 4 May 2003)

6 May 2003: Jamali announced restoration of diplomatic ties with India. (The Hindu, 7 May 2003)

17 May 2003: Pakistan appointed Riaz Mohammad Khan, as new High Commissioner to India. (The Hindu, 18 May 2003)

18 May 2003: 20 Indian nationals freed from Pakistani jails as part of the CBMs. (The Hindu, 19 May 2003)

26 May 2003: The External Affairs Ministry announced resumption of Delhi-Lahore bus service. (The Hindu, 27 May 2003)

28 May 2003: Vajpayee said India was ready for a dialogue with Pakistan on all issues. (The Hindu, 29 May 2003)

26 June 2003: Musharraf said India should show more magnanimity for a solution on Kashmir. (The Hindu, 27 June 2003)

11 July 2003: The Delhi- Lahore bus service resumed. (The Hindu, 12 July 2003)

23 July 2003: Rais Munir, Pakistani Tourism Minister said Pakistan had agreed to resume rail links with India. (The Hindu, 24 July 2003)

10 August 2003: Vajpayee said cooperation is the key to resolving the Indo-Pak disputes. (The Hindu, 11 August 2003)

11 August 2003: Musharraf offered conditional ceasefire along the LOC. (The Hindu, 12 August 2003)

20 August 2003: Pakistani High Commissioner said Pakistan was ready to discuss India’s concerns. (The Hindu, 21 August 2003)

29 August 2003: Vajpayee said no dialogue with Pakistan possible until the existence of terrorist attacks stopped. (The Hindu, 30 August 2003)

23 September 2003: India offered Pakistan an increase in staff strength of High Commissions. (The Hindu, 24 September 2003)

22 October 2003: India decided to resume cricketing and other sporting links with Pakistan. (The Hindu, 23 October 2003)

28 October 2003: India announced steps to implement three of the 12 CBMs. (The Hindu, 29 October 2003)

29 October 2003: Pakistan today accepted many of the 12 confidence-building measures (CBMs) proposed by India. (The Hindu, 30 October 2003)

15 November 2003: Pakistan banned three militant outfits including Jaish-e-Mohammad. (The Hindu, 16 November 2003)

23 November 2003: Jamali offered [unilateral] easefire along the LOC. (The Hindu, 24 November 2003)

25 November 2003: India and Pakistan agreed for a formal ceasefire along the LOC. (The Hindu, 26 November 2003)

1 December 2003: India and Pakistan reached accord on the resumption of flight links. (The Hindu, 2 December 2003)

1 January 2004: India and Pakistan resumed air links. (The Hindu, 2 January 2004)

3 January 2004: Vajpayee arrived at Islamabad for the SAARC Summit. (The Hindu, 4 January 2004)

4 January 2004: Vajpayee and Jamali engaged in bilateral dialogue and decided to further the peace process. (The Hindu, 5 January 2004)

6 January 2004: India and Pakistan agreed to start dialogue process in February. (The Hindu, 7 January 2004)

Research Scholar, Jawaharlal Nehru University
B Rajeshwari, IPCS, 20 January 2004

<http://www.ipcs.org/ipcs/issueIndex2.jsp?action=showView&kValue=1293&
issue=1011&status=article&mod=b>

Islamabad, January 6: The President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India met during the SAARC Summit in Islamabad.

The Indian Prime Minister while expressing satisfaction over the successful conclusion of the SAARC Summit, appreciated the excellent arrangements made by the host country.

Both leaders welcomed the recent steps towards normalization of relations between the two countries and expressed the hope that the positive trends set by the confidence building measures would be consolidated.

Prime Minister Vajpayee said that in order to take forward and sustain the dialogue process, violence, hostility and terrorism must be prevented. President Musharraf reassured Prime Minister Vajpayee that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan's control to be used to support terrorism in any manner. President Musharraf emphasized that a sustained and productive dialogue addressing all issues would lead to positive results.

To carry the process of normalization forward the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India agreed to commence the process of the composite dialogue in February 2004. The two leaders are confident that the resumption of the composite dialogue will lead to peaceful settlement of all bilateral issues, including Jammu & Kashmir, to the satisfaction of both sides.

The two leaders agreed that constructive dialogue would promote progress towards the common objective of peace, security and economic deve1opment for our peoples and for future generations.

ISLAMABAD: India and Pakistan have decided to increase the staff strength in their diplomatic missions, lift restrictions on diplomats' movements besides working out a new time table to hold talks on stepping up transport links and narrowing down differences on the construction of a power project in Jammu and Kashmir, a news agency reported.

Diplomats of both the countries during the past few days have agreed on a new set of confidence building measures, (CBMs) to consolidate the peace process.

A meeting between Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf resulted in the two countries agreeing to hold composite dialogue next month on bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir.

Under the new measures, diplomats of the two countries could now travel to anywhere other than sensitive places of military value by informing the host governments. Earlier their movements were restricted to the Capital cities.

The two sides have also agreed to increase the staff strength in their respective diplomatic missions from the present 55 to 75.

The News, 8 January 2004
<http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jan2004-daily/08-01-2004/main/update.shtml#37>

Favourable Public Opinion, International Concern
Stimulus Behind Pak-India Dialogue: Kasuri [Extract]

ISLAMABAD, Jan 8 (APP): Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri has said the concern of international community and favourable public opinion compelled both India and Pakistan to agree to continue the dialgue process.

Talking to CNN, Kasuri disagreed with a questioner that international pressure compelled both the countries to hold dialogues. "Pressure has a negative tone, rather it was international concern," he added.

Kasuri said dialogue was in the interest of the people of both Pakistan and India and for achieving a lasting peace in South Asia. He said the timing and modalities of talks with India was not as important as the real issues. The real issue is political will. The will being demonstrated by both President Pervez Musharraf and Prime minister Jamali.

"Pakistan and India have realised that both of them were not in a position to impose their will militarily on each other," he said. Kasuri said Pakistan has full intentions of abiding by whatever was agreed with India.

He said President Musharraf, as his record shows, always kept his commitments both internally inside the country as well outside the country. Answering a question, he said in both countries certainly some elements do have some reservations on maintaining good relations with each other.

But as far as Pakistan was concerned there was a minority who have reservations as far as maintaining good relations with India, Kasuri said. "We should not give opportunity to such elements to mislead the public opinion in either country," Kasuri added…

The News, 8 January 2004
<http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jan2004-daily/08-01-2004/main/update.shtml#37>

NEW DELHI: Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee on Wednesday briefed his security cabinet on his historic talks with leaders in Pakistan that opened the doors for the resumption of bilateral dialogue next month, officials said.

Vajpayee, who returned from Islamabad on Tuesday, spoke to his cabinet colleagues for 80 minutes about his meeting with President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali on the sidelines of the now-concluded South Asian summit.

"Issues relating to India and Pakistan figured at the meeting," said a news report, quoting informed sources. Vajpayee also exchanged views with his cabinet colleagues on contents of forming an agenda for the forthcoming Indo-Pak talks.

Though the two countries have agreed on resumption of talks on all issues including Jammu and Kashmir, the level and the format of dialogue has to be worked out, the CCS dwelt at length on contents of the proposed talks, added the sources.

The meeting was attended among others by Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani, Defence Minister George Fernandes, Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha, Finance Minister Jaswant Singh and top military brass. Cabinet Secretary Kamal Pande and Defence Secretary Ajay Prasad were also present on the occasion.

Premier Vajpayee’s ruling Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), meanwhile, said the February talks would be "possible" only if cross-border militancy ended in Kashmir.

"We are happy to take note of the fact that India has maintained its consistent stand during their meeting with Pakistani leadership that sustained dialogue with Pakistan would be possible only after cross-border terrorism is brought to an end," BJP President Venkaiah Naidu said.

"We are happy that Pakistan has given this assurance and is ready to move forward on the road to peace with India," Naidu said of Musharraf’s pledge that Pakistan would not allow its soil for terrorist activities.

President Pervez Musharraf spoke the simple truth when he said at his January 6 press conference that "after Agra I was a disappointed man, today I am a happy man." The success at Islamabad resulted from major policy-making and trust-building preparations. In contrast Agra was a summit with virtually zero preparations. The only focus of pre-summit preparations for Agra was to assure the Indians that the Musharraf government would acknowledge the abiding relevance of the Simla and Lahore Agreements. Beyond that there was no joint preparation between the two sides on any substantive matters.

While the Agra summit failed the Islamabad summit produced results almost comparable to what the Lahore, February 1999 Nawaz Sharif-Vajpayee summit produced. Indeed it took Pakistan and India almost five years, peppered by a long drawn military stand-off between the nuclear armed armies, unending hostility, withdrawal of High Commissioners, expulsion of diplomats and the termination of all transportation links, to return to the Lahore process which was derailed by Pakistan at Kargil.

The Lahore summit was a crucial first step of a peace process between India and Pakistan, as is the Islamabad summit. However the military’s distrust of a civilian government’s motives to enter into negotiations with India caused the derailment of Lahore. Kargil was a mere symptom of the Pakistan military’s strategic miscalculation plus of its distrust of both the Pakistani and the Indian leadership. The Lahore process, despite its diplomatic merits, was to become a victim of Pakistan’s internal power play.

Yet the Lahore summit set the model for India-Pakistan peace-time bilateral summits. Tashkent and Simla were post-war summits. Islamabad was a return to Lahore some crucial ‘additionalities.’ One: Pakistan’s military leadership as the principal interlocutor on the Pakistani side thereby reducing sabotage of the process from within. Two: Unlike Lahore where the focus of the pre-summit preparations was entirely on policy content, for Islamabad the pre-summit preparations factored in policy elements, policy articulation and policy projection.

Multiple factors contributed to the January 6 breakthrough achieved at Islamabad. Five are noteworthy. One, back-channel interaction, although limited, had set the stage for the success at Islamabad. Trusted men of Musharraf and Vajpayee had first interacted around late 2003 to examine possibilities of genuine engagement between the leaders. A pattern of ‘peace offer’ by public statements combined by accusations and counter accusations and complaints to the Americans had been triggered since Musharraf’s take-over in October 1999. Between Pakistan’s complaint of Indian state terrorism in Indian Occupied Kashmir and India’s complaint of "Pakistan’s sponsorship of terrorism," all peace moves evaporated. President Musharraf’s offers for unilateral ceasefire beginning May 2000 to his offer to use influence to encourage Mujahideen ceasefire inside the Valley in exchange for Indian willingness to begin dialogue on Kashmir and Vajpayee’s April 2003 offer for talks were stillborn. All peace moves were stone-walled by the angry rhetoric by both sides, Indian atrocities on the Kashmiri freedom fighters and LoC infiltration and be withdrawn, peace initiatives beyond the public rhetoric.

The UNGA speeches of the two leaders too triggered nauseating verbal clash between the Pakistani and Indian diplomats. The back channel interaction heightened after the CBMs were announced and the Indian Prime Minister decided to attend the SAARC summit. The last four to six weeks were critical. The two interlocutors also reportedly met in a third country. The draft of the joint statement was prepared by the two sides in advance of the Saarc summit but was reviewed and finalised on January 5 and 6.

The second factor was the ground realities that both sides seem to have acknowledged. Pakistan that through cross-LoC infiltration alone or through non-existent international pressures the Kashmir dispute could not be resolved. Unless dialogue with India begins the Kashmiri suffering would continue without giving the suffering Kashmiris a break from torture and turmoil. Similarly an important section of the Indian leadership recognised that it could not win the Kashmir war through state terrorism and that the problem would stay for as long as right steps for its resolution are not taken. As Vajpayee himself acknowledged in his interview of January 3 that sustained dialogue with Pakistan on Kashmir had yet to take place and that there was need to go beyond our old positions. Similarly combination of steps like unilateral cease-fire and back channel dialogue convinced the Indians that Pakistan would genuinely prevent LoC infiltration if India would begin the composite dialogue and stop human rights violations in Indian Held Kashmir.

The third factor that made the Islamabad meeting a success was the personal factor. Both Musharraf and Vajpayee personally oversaw the last few weeks of the ‘thaw’ in bilateral relations. They led the process personally on both sides not leaving it to the bureaucrats alone. Both the Pakistan Foreign Office and the powerful Indian Ministry of External Affairs were not necessarily kept in the back channel loop. Just before the Islamabad summit some elements within the MEA in Delhi had fed the Indian paper The Hindustan Times of December 30 on how desperate Pakistan was to have a meeting between Musharraf and Vajpayee and how the Indian High Commissioner in Islamabad had told his Pakistani counterpart that unless cross border terrorism did not end such a meeting was not possible. Similarly much to the surprise of the Indian Prime Minister’s office the MEA decided to return the greeting card sent by President Musharraf to Prime Minister Vajpayee because it had Skardu’s photograph on it!

Similarly on the Pakistani side when the Indian MEA decided to refuse President Musharraf’s offer that a chartered plane fly the Indian Young President’s Organisation direct to Delhi, the presidency wanted the spokesman to remain silent on the matter. Pakistan’s ‘second take’ on the CBMs through Prime Minister Jamali’s eid speech and the announcement of unilateral ceasefire came on Musharraf’s advice. Significantly the two leaders personally got involved in clearing the January 6 statement. Till mid-day on January 6 most MEA and FO officials believed the statement would not go through.

The fourth factor was the continuous external nudges primarily by the British and the Americans ambassadors in both India and Pakistan consistently ‘encouraged’ initiation of back channel diplomacy. When the back channel became somewhat active around the last quarter, Washington and London were keen that two main interlocutors to work for a Musharraf-Vajpayee meeting. They argued that without top level engagement the peace process would neither gain momentum nor be sustained. While phone-call ‘encouragement’ from Washington was a constant factor their diplomats maintained regular contact with the principal interlocutors of the two sides. Significantly the two key interlocutors have both interacted with top US officials on behalf of their respective bosses on policy matters. This external factor became more active in the post December 13 phase when US, Russia and China all realised that both countries were likely to remain in a political and diplomatic deadlocked position even if military withdrawals took place.

The fifth factor was keeping the decision to meet and to produce a joint statement ‘under wraps.’ As an interlocutor correctly pointed out "if we would announce a bilateral meeting even 100 hours before the media on both sides would ask us about what we would or would not say about Kashmir. So even before the meeting would begin it would have failed over what we would or would not say about Kashmir to each other. "It was wise to keep the meetings under wraps. That was needed for the success of the process." Equally it is important to bring into the open what has been decided and how the three track process of CBMs, composite dialogue centering on the Jammu and Kashmir issue and anti-terrorism would go forward.

The requirements of the success of the Islamabad summit were relatively easy compared to what is required to keep the peace initiative on track. There are multiple parties involved and above all the Kashmiris themselves. Their interest as much as that of the Pakistanis and Indian have to be factored in if the peace process has to remain credible and sustainable.

WASHINGTON: The US has welcomed the resumption of dialogue between India and Pakistan in Islamabad next month as part of the process to normalise ties between the South Asian neighbours.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher on Wednesday said the US had always encouraged discussions between India and Pakistan on Kashmir and all other issues.

"That kind of dialogue is something we have always supported and encouraged as well," he said.

India and Pakistan on Tuesday announced to have three-day dialogue Joint Secretary-level talks on February 16 and 17 and parleys between their Foreign Secretaries on February 18 to discuss modalities for the composite dialogue as agreed by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and President Pervez Musharraf earlier this month.

Talks between the delegations of India and Pakistan were held in Islamabad in a cordial and constructive atmosphere. The two delegations discussed modalities and time frame for resumption of composite dialogue. Some proposals were exchanged in this regard. Discussions will continue tomorrow. Both sides expressed satisfaction on the progress made on the first day. The Indian side was led by Shri. Arun K. Singh, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs and the Pakistan side was led by Director General, South Asia, Mr. J.A. Jilani.

FO says both sides satisfied with first day of talks; timeframe for composite dialogue, modalities, Kashmir part of agenda; foreign secretaries meet tomorrow

ISLAMABAD: India and Pakistan exchanged some proposals as their first formal talks in nearly three years started here on Monday.

Pakistan’s Director General for South Asia Jaleel Abbas Jilani and Joint Secretary of Indian External Affairs Ministry Arun Kumar Singh led the respective sides in the first session of talks. "You have to look at ways to find a peaceful resolution of the outstanding disputes between the two countries," said Foreign Ministry Spokesman Masood Khan at a weekly press briefing.

Despite repeated questions, the spokesman refused to share the ‘proposals’ exchanged by the two sides on the first day of talks. Masood, however, said the talks included the agenda, structure, ambit and timeframe for the composite dialogue process. He said both sides were satisfied with the first day of talks, which had been "cordial and constructive".

The joint secretary-director general level talks will conclude today and the two foreign secretaries, Riaz Khokhar and Shashnak, will hold talks on Wednesday (tomorrow). The Indian foreign secretary is arriving here on Tuesday (today). After meeting his Pakistani counterpart, Shashnak will also call on President Pervez Musharraf.

Masood said Kashmir, of course, remains part of the dialogue. About the Line of Control (LoC), Masood Khan simply said all concerns of the two sides would be addressed. "The talks will also address the issue of timeframe for resolution of disputes as well as modalities," he observed.

Responding to a question, the spokesman said: "The time has come for the two countries to show flexibility on mutual disputes". He added that India and Pakistan realised war was not an option. "You have to look at ways to find a peaceful resolution of the outstanding disputes," he said.

The spokesman said the talks are a continuation of the process starting with Musharraf-Vajpayee meeting on January 6. "Right now what you have is the political will of President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee behind these talks. There is a new momentum and this momentum must be maintained. You should have a clear timeframe and a sustainable process. These talks have to be substantive, structured and sustained," he said.

"We are looking for a solution which can ensure peace and stability in the region, justice for Kashmiris and a secure future for the people of South Asia," the spokesman said, adding: "We have commenced a composite dialogue process, which will look at all the issues. These talks have to be substantive, structured and sustainable."

Masood Khan said both the countries had discussed nuclear and conventional confidence-building measures (CBMs) and "we would like to discuss a restraint regime between ourselves". He said all aspects would be clear when the two foreign secretaries meet on Wednesday.

He termed baseless the reports on nuclear leaking involving Chinese designs. Responding to another question, the spokesman said the investigations against scientists are continuing and Dr AQ Khan is under strict security.

APP adds: Masood Khan said investigations into the reports of nuclear proliferation were continuing and were expected to conclude soon. He said the FIR against Dr Khan had been sealed.

When asked whether the CIA chief had visited Pakistan in the recent past to discuss the issue of the nuclear scientists, he said: "I will neither confirm nor deny ... I have absolutely no knowledge about it."

He said that Pakistan was already cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and did not have to prepare for supportive documents for the IAEA.

When asked whether Pakistan and India will cooperate in ending nuclear proliferation, he said both the countries should fight against international black market. "Pakistan and other countries must work collectively to eliminate and help IAEA unearth this illicit network," he added.

India and Pakistan have agreed to a "roadmap" for peace that will begin with high-level talks in May or June.

The nations' foreign secretaries will meet first, followed by foreign ministers in August, the two sides said in a joint statement.

The deal was announced on the final day of a landmark meeting in Islamabad - the first such talks in three years.

Top of the agenda is Kashmir, over which the nations have fought two wars since independence in 1947.

"We do have a basic roadmap for a Pakistan-India peace process, to which we have both agreed," Pakistani Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar told a press conference after the Islamabad talks.

The roadmap was finalised by Mr Khokhar and his Indian counterpart, Shashank, who arrived in Islamabad on Tuesday.

Earlier, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, in an address to Islamic scholars in the Pakistani capital, said: "What has been decided is that in May/June there will be a composite level dialogue... soon after Indian elections, and in it the Kashmir issue will be discussed.

"In August a foreign minister-level composite dialogue will take place inshallah [God willing] and after that we will see."

"Composite dialogue" means the nations will tackle all bilateral issues together. Pakistan had previously demanded Kashmir be tackled before other matters.

March 29 and 30: Talks on a bus service between Pakistan's Sindh province and India's Rajasthan state

March or April: Border security officials to talk on smuggling and drug trafficking

President Musharraf said the peace process was progressing smoothly and he was confident that it would produce results that were acceptable to all sides, particularly the Kashmiri people.

The first talks will come after the Indian general election in April, although technical talks on such issues as transport will be held before that.

If all goes well, Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursheed Kasuri and Indian External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha will meet in August.

Speaking in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad on Wednesday, Mr Sinha said he hoped there would be a "new understanding between the two countries".

He said there would be talks to set up two new bus links between the nations, in addition to the current Delhi-Lahore service.

Mr Sinha also hoped an Indian consulate could be opened in Karachi and a Pakistani consulate in Bombay (Mumbai).

Officials say the two sides will try to resolve some of the relatively minor matters before moving on to the more complicated issue of Kashmir.

The BBC's Paul Anderson in Islamabad says Pakistan also wants talks about what it calls a strategic restraint regime, reducing nuclear and conventional weapons to limit the risk of an arms race and war. This has been mooted before but never pursued.

In the past, moves to discuss Kashmir - control of which is the most serious of all the disputes - at the very start of talks has proved a non-starter, BBC correspondents say.

Observers believe India and Pakistan have come to the dialogue with a new recognition that the conflict in Kashmir cannot be won by military means.

News of the talks was generally welcomed by Kashmiris, although some separatist leaders advised caution.

Maulana Abbas Ansari, chairman of Kashmir's main separatist group, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, said: "We welcome the decision of officials of India and Pakistan, but without the participation of the people of Kashmir such talks will not yield any results."

Tens of thousands of people have died in the disputed territory since militants took up arms against Indian rule in 1989.

The decision to hold talks was announced after President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee met on the fringes

The following is the full joint statement issued at the end of talks between the Pakistani and Indian foreign secretaries in Islamabad on Wednesday.

They reviewed and endorsed the agreement worked out at the Director General/Joint Secretary meetings on 16 and 17 February on the modalities and timeframe for discussion on all subjects on the agenda of the composite dialogue.

Both sides agreed that they would approach the composite dialogue with the sincere desire to discuss and arrive at a peaceful settlement of all bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir to the satisfaction of both sides.

They reiterated their commitment to promote progress towards the common objective of peace, security and economic development for their people and for future generations.

They reviewed the existing links between the director-generals of military operations of Pakistan and India and agreed to consider further strengthening these contacts.

The foreign minister of Pakistan and the external affairs minister of India would meet in August 2004 to review overall progress.
This would be preceded by a one-day meeting of the foreign secretaries."

Joint Press Statement (India – Pakistan Technical Level
Talks on Khokhrapar-Munnabao Bus Service)

Technical level talks between Pakistan and India to start Khokhrapar-Munnabao Bus Service were held in Islamabad on 9-10 March 2004. The Pakistani side was led by Mr. Mussadaq Mohammad Khan, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Communications, while the Indian delegation was led by Mr. Alok Rawat, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.

3. Both sides affirmed their commitment to commence the bus service between Khokhrapar and Munnabao, and agreed to meet again to continue discussions.
4. Date and place for the next meeting would be fixed through diplomatic channels.

Interview of President General Pervez Musharraf to
The India Today Conclave 13th March 2004

Arun:- Ladies and gentlemen I have immense pleasure in welcoming His Excellency the President of Pakistan General Pervez Musharraf to the 3^rd India Today conclave. Ladies and gentlemen please welcome the President of Pakistan “Good evening sir,” an audience says, which is in very good mood after a cricket match.

Compere:- Ladies and gentlemen, we are indeed privileged to have with us as a key note speaker for the evening, President Musharraf, live via satellite from Islamabad. As we sit here tonight, we are also privileged to have ringside seats to history in the making today. We witnessed the first cricket match between India and Pakistan on Pakistani soil in 15 years. Our Cricketers are there. The Prime Minister Vajpayee told the team before it left not only to win matches but also to win hearts. Nothing to be more symbolic of the new relationship between our two countries and the fact that very two years ago we almost went to war. If cricket matches were the only point of conflict between the two countries, it will be a change that all of us would welcome, even if we were to lose. Tonight’s speaker President Musharraf shares the credit along with Prime Minister Vajpayee for taking the two neighbours to the brink of peace rather than war. Here the chief guest against overwhelming odds. I am not guilty of exaggeration when I say that he has possibly the world’s toughest job. At a time when terror is no longer local, as a President of a frontline state in the war against terror, history has given him a central role in the post 9-11 world. He has faced two assassination attempts in recent months and is the prime target of religious extremism, terrorist groups, the Taliban and political parties opposed to Pakistan’s close relationship with the US. He has displayed rare courage in taking on his opponents while mending fences with India. It is based on an unshaken belief that Pakistan’s future can only be ensured by economic development and peace in the subcontinent. It is perhaps his commando background that helped him in taking such good steps that helped him negotiate the minefield of politics and international affairs with amazing fearlessness. While we have a gift of communication without a dispute, and I am sure you will witness to that this evening. At the World Economic Forum in Davos recently, I personally saw how he handled with great candour and plump some of the most difficult questions including the one relating to selling of nuclear secrets by Pakistani scientists. He was widely acknowledged as a star of this year’s meet. He never shied away from tricky issues like a true army general who is willing to give as good as he gets. In recent times, General Musharraf has been blamed for plunging relations with India to an all time low. Memories of Kargil and the continuing terrorist strikes in India are not easily forgotten. But in recent months, there is suddenly a hope of a new dawn. President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee have embarked on a difficult process of wiping out more than half a century of hatred and hostility. They can not afford to be trapped in history. Here they have a chance to make history. That is why in India Today cover story after the SAARC summit, we described the two leaders on our cover simply as brave hearts. And I believe this is most apt as what they are doing, which requires enormous courage. And as we all know the world belongs to the brave.

President Pervez Musharraf:- Thank you again everyone. Thank you very much Mr. Arun Puri the Editor-in Chief of India Today. All the ladies and gentlemen, good evening and Aslamo Alaikum. It is indeed my very special privilege to be addressing India Today Conclave via satellite. I only wish I was sitting in front of you and seeing you in person. I thank all the organizers and the management of India Today for this invitation and for affording me to this very unique opportunity of speaking to all of you. First of all let me congratulate all of you, let me congratulate India for the first victory after fifteen years in the first one day international at Karachi. I am very glad indeed that the match was most interesting, most well contested and extremely exciting. I am also glad that the people of Pakistan in general and the people of Karachi in particular welcomed the Indian team with a very open and a warm heart. I only hope that series in the future, the other one day internationals and the test matches are played in the same good welcoming spirit that we saw today. So I again congratulate all of you for winning today a very exciting and thrilling match. Coming to the subject, ladies and gentlemen, the theme of this year’s Conclave is “India: Tomorrow, building a South Asia Century.” I have been tasked to speak on the Future of Pakistan-India relations, the opportunities, risks, benefits, my expectations from the Indian leadership, possible United States role and my own world vision. I commend the organizers first of all for selecting such an apt subject bearing immense relevance to the region, particularly at this time. I wish this conclave success in the deliberation and pray for a prosperous South Asia through bridging mutual differences.

Ladies and Gentlemen, quite clearly as the theme and its elaboration imply, realization of a South Asia Century requires collective will and application. India cannot go it alone. The hurdle in the application of this collective will indeed comes from continued Indo-Pakistan confrontation. Before getting involved in regional emancipation and bilateral conflict identification and resolution, I would like to share my overall global vision as I am required to do. Ladies and gentlemen, the 21st century is a century of globalization. The outlines of a global village are visible in all fields. It is a century of geo- economics and of inter-dependence. While on one hand we witness the start of integration of the world for the sake of human uplift on the other hand there is manifestation of enhanced destructive power of implements of confrontation. I am referring to weapons of mass destruction, or even the increased lethality of conventional weapons, rendering war an extremely dangerous and a very costly undertaking. Within these opposing realities, we also see the world fragmented, torn in conflict. Short of war low intensity conflict has seen the introduction of suicide bombing phenomenon, which provides a new and a very lethal weapon in the hands of a terrorist or a freedom fighter, whichever side of the divide you look for compensating for military and political weakness. Looking at each conflict in the last two decades unfortunately, they all involved Muslim countries. All of whom happen to be at the receiving end. Muslims today suffer from a sense of deprivation, a sense of hopelessness and a sense of powerlessness. Combined with poverty and illiteracy, this becomes an explosive mix vulnerable to adoption of an extremist or a militant path. Thus the world as a whole has become a dangerous place to live in. Improvement can only come through addressing Muslim concerns with justice. Within these outlined parameters we need to look at the power equation in our region. War or military confrontation does not constitute a viable solution any more. We must understand that the issue is not a game of numbers’ alone. The strategy of military coercion with numbers is inapplicable when an adversary, albeit weaker, is prepared to accept losses and inflict maximum retaliatory damage, which may be untenable to the other side. The question that arises is, how to deal with this conflict torn hatred infested world and meet our collective duty to bring peace to this world, our common heritage.

I have proposed a strategy of enlightened moderation. This is a two-pronged strategy. One prong is to be exercised by the Muslims through rejection of extremism and militancy and opting for socio-economic development using a restructured OIC as the driving force. The other prong of this strategy of enlightened moderation is to be implemented by the West; resolve all political disputes involving Muslims with justice. Success of this strategy, the overall strategy, indeed lies in the simultaneous success of both the prongs.

After this brief look at the world let us come closer home, to our region, South Asia. We see an upheaval, turmoil in Afghanistan and Kashmir. If we can resolve these two issues, we will strike at the root of extremism and militancy, I am very sure. Pakistan is actively fighting against Al- Qaida along our western borders in the tribal areas. We had the will and the capability to eradicate all foreigners from our country. We will not allow Al-Qaida to maintain sanctuaries in Pakistan and operate outside Pakistan. Ladies and gentlemen, the Kashmir issue lies at the heart of Indo-Pakistan confrontation and hence is also the source of disunity of South Asia as a whole. As a result SAARC has merely existed on the periphery of impotence. We saw a visible and a very pleasant change in the last SAARC summit held at Islamabad. This was momentous not only for the thaw in Indo-Pakistan relations but also for signing of SAPTA, which is a big leap towards free trade within our region. It is said the past belonged to Europe, the present to America and the future to Asia. Within Asia, we see North East Asia, East Asia, China and South East Asia cooperating fully for mutual economic progress. South Asia and Central Asia sadly remain out of this prosperity loop, may. I say Quite clearly, common wisdom dictates intra-regional cooperation within SAARC and also ECO, the Economic Cooperation Organization, first, followed by inter-regional integration with the rest of Asia for joint benefits to our region. Pakistan’s geography provides a critical linkage between the three regions of South Asia, Central Asia and West Asia. Indo-Pakistan rapprochement unleashes the entire economic, commercial, trade potential of this whole region. Undoubtedly the whole scenario provides a strong case for resolving disputes, ushering an era of peace by joining hands for socio-economic development of our people and of our region. India and Pakistan must bury the past and chart a new roadmap for peace. I believe people of both our countries desire peace and may I also add are fed up of confrontation. This is evident from the welcoming response to the CBMs of the past one or two months. Revival of sports ties with a tour of Indian cricket team, finally we say, it is better late than never and the forthcoming SAF games, indeed auger well for the promotion of people to people contacts and we are witnessing this good contact during the one day international today at Karachi.

Ladies and gentlemen, Pakistan and India have lost half a century in mutual squabbles. Let us face it. We have fought wars, tested nuclear weapons and have remained engaged in very hot confrontation throughout. Today South Asia is nuclearized. It is brimming with lethal weaponry, huge accusations of arsenal and sophisticated weapon technology make our region one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the world and it is of greatest concern to the world. South Asia also constitutes one of the most impoverished regions of the world. Social indices are appalling, millions live in dire poverty, misery and disease. At the centre of this dismal scenario is the spiraling vortex of Pakistan-India animosity. Kashmir, we say a paradise on earth, is the core issue that has bedeviled our relations throughout this half a century. Kashmir is the central issue that awaits a just and durable settlement. If Pakistan and India could settle Kashmir in accordance with aspirations of the Kashmiris, a new chapter in our troubled history will begin. This is very much possible if all parties are sincere in their quest for a just and durable peace through a solution acceptable to all of us not to one single country.

I have proposed a four-point process whereby talks commence, centrality of Kashmir dispute is accepted, all solutions not acceptable to either of the three parties are taken off the table and the remaining options the one deem most feasible and acceptable is chosen. I believe nothing could be fairer than this. A solution will emerge if all sides are mindful of the problem, if all parties, especially Kashmiris are given the opportunity to have their due say and are associated with a credible, sincere and serious quest for a final settlement between Pakistan and India. I do not want to speak about history. The political and legal history of Kashmir is well recorded and well documented in the archives and resolutions of the United Nations. All that I urge is let us be pragmatic. Let us learn to accept hard facts. The issue of Kashmir is at the centre stage, we cannot deny it. It must be resolved in an equitable and honourable manner acceptable to India, Pakistan and Kashmiris, and I repeat, to India, acceptable to India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris. We are not talking of a solution acceptable to Pakistan alone. I wish to assure you that we are determined to take two steps forward if India takes one step and chooses to embark on a realistic quest for a just and durable peace with Pakistan on the basis of sovereign equality. India will find Pakistan sincere and responsive if it desires genuine improvement in relations. We are mindful of the difficulties posed by very rigid mindsets in the past. We must know if there is no movement towards a solution, I am afraid, everything will slide back to square one.

Let us look at the very broad benefits from peace accruing to both our countries. May be this serves as a motivation towards normalisation. On trade, our market size will expand to 1.2 billion, equal to China. Opening vistas of trading opportunities within the region, the foreign direct investment which presently stagnates at three billion dollars could increase manifold. China attracts forty billion dollars. Access to alternate energy, natural gas from Iran and Central Asia can become available to the region, bringing down energy cost by at least fifty per cent and may I say India may be the maximum beneficiary.

Tourism can flourish. The region has vast treasures of tourist attractions, not only for the domestic but also for the international tourists. Combined regional tours could benefit us all.

Reduction in defense expenditure could take place. This will lead to availability of funds for social sectors and poverty reduction and lastly sports activities could be enhanced. Through mutual sports India and Pakistan could regain their lost glory at least in cricket and hockey.

We must be aware, however, ladies and gentlemen, there are extremists on both sides who try to derail the peace process. We must not be deterred from our path and be prepared to deal with them with an iron hand. In fact in our own supreme interest, we must negotiate peace boldly as if there are no detracting extremists. And we must also deal with all extremists boldly and firmly as if there is no peace initiative going on.

The joint statement, ladies and gentlemen, reached at Islamabad between me and Prime Minister Vajpayee provides a good framework for relationship of harmony and mutual respect. The CBMs already been initiated have generated tremendous goodwill. The Foreign Secretary level talks have furthered this dialogue process forward. The composite dialogue scheduled for May and June this year should augur well for our future relationship.

In this garden path that is very visible, I would be blemished if I did not strike some words of caution. Firstly, there is simultaneity, a linkage between CBMs, the confidence building measures, and the composite dialogue. CBMs cannot outstrip dialogue process on all substantive issues including Kashmir. Secondly, Kashmir dispute can never be sidelined or ignored. No leader in Pakistan can do that. We must move forward towards its resolution in tandem with the CBMs. And lastly while talking of Kashmir, sooner or later Kashmiris must join the peace process to make the solution practicable.

Ladies and gentlemen, progress on dialogue towards serious resolution of disputes should set us thinking on other more substantive confidence building measures. Why can’t our defense expenditure be cut down? It certainly can. Pakistan is not in an arms race. We maintain a quantified force level based on a perceived threat and a strategy of minimum deterrence. With the enhancement of firepower of weapons, which I spoke of earlier India, firepower of conventional weapons. We are already reducing our strength, the strength of our army by fifty thousand, may I tell you, may I inform you today. We have kept our defense budget frozen for the last four years knowing fully well that our deterrent strategy is in place. India has to review its own strategy because your defense force levels, may I say, are not based on threat, but on your own power projection. The latest multi-billion dollar acquisitions and your vastly enhanced budgetary allocations to defense take you in that direction of power projection. In any case Pakistan will remain amiable for mutual, proportional reduction of forces.

Ladies and gentlemen, I honestly feel that the present time is ideal for resolution of all disputes and ushering in an era of peace, harmony and prosperity. The people of our country want it. The influential business community is eagerly looking’ forward to it in both the countries. I have interacted with many business leaders of your country. Media also seems to favour it. Where lies the stumbling block then? I am afraid it lies in the leadership alone. Leaders on both sides have to be sincere, to develop confidence and trust in each other. They are to be flexible enough to reach mutually acceptable solutions to previously intractable disputes and bold enough, they are to be bold enough to bulldoze all opposition and risks en route to peace, we have to show enough maturity to be able to resolve disputes bilaterally, within reasonable time line.

It is only our failure, which then invites third party mediation or facilitation, or involvement or encouragement. You can choose the word yourself because I know there is some kind of an allergy to the words to the terms’ mediation probably in your country .The US being the sole super power in a unipolar world has a responsibility of bringing a just peace in the world of all disputes for our future generation. Their involvement to a resolution of thorny Kashmir dispute will be a value only if we get stuck our selves. If we make bilateral progress there is no need of outside interference or involvement. As Responsible nuclear weapon state we must demonstrate to the world that we have the courage and conviction to settle our problems in a civilized manner. We must demonstrate the courage and wisdom to write a new chapter of peaceful co-existence and mutually beneficial cooperation. I find distinct warm sentiments in Pakistan and India to engage constructively with each other. May I add that the people of both countries and the media certainly play a very important role in improving the environment, paving the way for a settlement of all disputes including the Kashmir dispute. Respect for basic principles of inter state conduct develop relations of sovereign equality and provide safe and sound foundations within which Pakistan India relations can thrive and prosper.

Ladies and Gentlemen we in Pakistan look forward to sustaining the present positive momentum in our relations with India. This is a moment of hope and movement of optimism, let us nurture it carefully and make the process of engagement irreversible. Let us draw balance between the vast opportunities that exist for mutual gain and the hazards of falling back to self generated hatred, despair and confrontation. Pakistan and India must lead South Asia to new horizons of economic development and the other South Asian countries certainly look forward to that. The roadmap delineated for the composite talks must be filled with other pointers and timelines for joint endeavours to resolve differences and disputes. It should not take long to fashion together a roadmap to progress and prosperity, reinforcing and utilizing the talent and the genius of our peoples using our resources optimally. I wish the India Today Conclave every success. I would indeed be very happy to answer or to take any questions from your side. I thank you all, ladies and gentlemen.

Arun Puri:- Thank you President Musharraf for a very incisive and, as you would expect from a General, down to the brass tacks speech. He dealt with every issue, but I am very happy to note you have talked about it is a time for hope and optimism. So as the moderator, I will take the prerogative by asking the first question. You have mentioned in your speech several times sir, quite repeatedly the fact that Kashmir was a central issue that it is an issue which had to be resolved with justice. My understanding was that one of the reasons why Agra summit failed was because India refused to recognise Kashmir as a core issue. Yet at the SAARC statement in January Kashmir was placed among a list of eight issues to be resolved bilaterally between India and Pakistan. So is there a difference now in terms of what was there in Agra and what is there now, that I would like to elaborate on that?

President Musharraf:- I would like to answer this question. There is not much difference between what happened at Agra and what happened now in the joint statement. At Agra we exactly accepted the centrality of Kashmir and the requirement of the resolution of the Kashmir dispute if we were to improve relations between India and Pakistan. Let me say that the joint declaration, the Agra declaration was prepared in draft. It was prepared by me, myself, Prime Minister Vajpayee, Foreign Minister Jashwant Singh and my Foreign Minister. We drafted each and every word of it and I have a copy of the draft here with me, at the Foreign Office not with me now at the moment. It was only after when I went back and I was to come back to a signing ceremony, the hall was ready and ready for the signing ceremony that after an hour or two I was told by Foreign Minister, no, we are not going to have the signing ceremony because they have rejected this declaration. And then we even went forward and drafted another, redid the draft resolution. It took us some hours doing that and it took a change in my schedule. And we again accepted a fresh declaration. And unfortunately an hour or two later that declaration was also rejected. And the reason given to me at that time was that the cabinet of India has rejected this. So that declaration, the draft of which is available in Pakistan, accepted the centrality of Kashmir. Now let us come to this new joint statement. There are three areas here, which were almost similar to the Agra declaration that the centrality of Kashmir is accepted, that dialogue process oil all issues including Kashmir has to be undertaken. But one very important element is also there. And that is that Pakistan has been accepted now as a party concerned with the dispute, as one of the parties in the dispute. This was never done before. So therefore, I see that there is certain progress on the resolution of all disputes.

Arun:- So what you have said that you have kept the same position but India has changed its position. Is that which happened?

President Musharraf:- Absolutely Agra was ...which I have otherwise said. The draft declaration which never came to be faired and if you want I can get this published any time. I can give the draft to you also. It is similar to what we did now in the joint statement. The very fact that Kashmir has been accepted as a dispute which needs to be resolved and that Pakistan is a party to this dispute as was never accepted in the past.

Arun:- I would like to now call on General Malik, former Chief of Staff, to ask a question.

General Malik:- Thank you. Good evening General Musharraf. Firstly I must say I am delighted to speak to you over this satellite conference. I would like to extend my warm greetings to you and good wishes to you. I must also compliment you for the speech that you made. I think it was both soldierly as well as statesmanlike. I recall that some years ago when you took over as Army Chief in Pakistan I had sent a letter to you congratulating you and wishing you goodwill, wishing you well and you very kindly replied that some months later. Unfortunately we had Kargil war soon after that. I am not going into that part of history. And in fact I would like to once again compliment you for the agreement that you have signed with Prime Minister Vajpayee in Islamabad. And you both have raised the hopes of people on both sides. I do not know General, when Kashmir problem is going to be resolved, but I am very keen to find out your commitment to the Memorandum of Understanding that was signed in Lahore on Strategic Weapons CBMs. I was involved in that, so I know what agreement was signed. I would like to know how committed do you feel to that agreement which was signed in Lahore. If you, I am sure you would know that was substantive in nature and if we want to go ahead with that it will require working out more details between India and Pakistan. And if you remain committed to that obviously that part can only take place if you give your assent. May I request your response to that? Thank you General.

President Musharraf:- Thank you very much indeed. You have spoken about this Strategic Weapons CBMs. The only thing that I would like to answer is that first of all I do not know the details of that draft frankly at the moment. But when we see the future as I said we have to move in at tandem between the CBMs and this dialogue process. If we start moving forward on the dialogue process, all CBMs can be addressed. I would not like to move fast on CBMs, any part of the CBMs if the dialogue process is not moving forward. So therefore, the Strategic Weapons CBMs, the details of which I do not know frankly, would certainly be a part, can certainly form a part of the overall confidence building measures in the future when we start moving forward also on the dialogue process.

Mattu:- Good evening Mr. President, I am sure you will agree that we have to build a South Asian century, then we have to ensure that the bitterness of the past, the conflicts of the present and the enemy images that we have inherited had to end. And we have to ensure that the younger generation does not get poisoned by the bitterness of the past. Would you in these circumstances, Mr. President, agree to a collaboration between academics and educationists between India and Pakistan, design common courses, common curricula and common reading material to ensure that younger people of South Asia have a common positive peaceful vision of South Asia whether or not Mr. President we resolve the Kashmir issue, I hope you will agree that this needs to be done right away? Thank you.

President Musharraf:- Thank you very much, As far as interaction between academics and educationists is concerned, I would totally agree that there should be interaction. I am totally in favour of people to people contact and when I talk of people to people contact obviously academics and educationists form a very important part of that contact. But when we are talking of going for a common syllabus and a common curriculum, now that I never really gave thought to. I never thought of achieving a common curriculum and a common syllabus for both our countries or for that matter for the whole of South Asia. I do not know whether this is achievable or doable. However since you have come up with the suggestion we do not mind looking into this. I think it needs contact between academics and educationists to see viability of your proposals. I would encourage their contact first of all.

Arun:- That is a good thing. I would like to ask now Geeta Mehta, who is a well-known author, to ask a question.

Geeta:- Mr. President you have spoken most eloquently about the prosperity that peace would bring our region and indeed of the longing of the people of India and Pakistan for peace. Do you believe that a sustained peace is possible in the absence of civil liberties?

President Musharraf:- Indeed talking of civil liberties. Are you talking of civil liberties in my country or your own country or in both the countries. I really do not know. If you are talking of my country, I think there are civil liberties in place absolutely. Every country has its own environment and it works within that environment. And I do not think civil liberties have anything to do with peace process between India and Pakistan. They don’t come into the way at all. As I said we must believe in sovereign equality and the sovereignty of both the countries whatever are the internal issues of each country should not hinder what is to be done on a bilateral basis. I do not think it in any case, the issue of civil liberties whether in India or Pakistan stand in the way of a peace process and moving forward on peace.

Arun:- Thank you. Mr. M. K Singh, a member of Planning Commission, would you like to ask a question.

Singh:- Mr. President, no one of course knows the answer of a question whether economics drives politics or politics drives economics. But as Mr. Arun Puri referred that you made a very successful visit to Davos, speaking to the international community, speaking to the investor community as Pakistan’s economy under your distinguished leadership has begun to look up. Pakistan is seeking direct foreign investment from all parts of the world as is evident by your interaction in Davos. But the Indian business community, which is quite close to Pakistan, is looking at many gainful investment opportunities in Pakistan in the areas of pharmaceuticals, automobiles, oil and gas, telecommunications and whole range of things. Would you Mr. President in the spirit of what you said may be taking simultaneous action on many fronts to improve the quality of our relationship, take some steps which can improve the climate of confidence for the private investors community in India to look to these multiple investment opportunities in Pakistan?

President Musharraf:- Thank you very much. Well I think economics and politics both are important. Economics is important to every country. It lies at the core of any development. The country cannot progress unless its economy is made to move forward. But as far as politics is concerned, of course, politics is over-arching framework for any activity in a country. Therefore, they have an interrelationship. But in Pakistan we are trying to set the economic trends, although political situation is right in all its contexts. When you are talking of various areas of cooperation on the economic and commercial front between India and Pakistan. Yes indeed one does recognise and I do recognise that there is tremendous scope for mutual benefit in commercial or trade relationship. I am looking at even a gas pipeline which you need from may be Central Asia or from Iran or from Qatar. It is just our confrontation and our animosity, which is not allowing you to get this pipeline through. If we reach and go for rapprochement, I am sure this avenue will be opened and what the other areas which you have mentioned or all areas where we can mutually look into complementarities and go for mutual benefits in economic relations. I totally would be favourably inclined if at all we move forward towards as I said towards the resolution of disputes. Now if you are meaning the relationship of economics and politics, that we can go ahead on the economics side, without resolution of disputes, without bothering about the political aspects of our relationship, I am afraid that is not, that is not possible at all. I think there is a relationship. We have to resolve political disputes between ourselves. We have to remove this environment of suspicion from each other and then only can we go for investments in a big way and as I said complementarities of commerce and trade in a fruitful manner.

Arun:- Mr. President here I may add my two bits. How about allowing media to come into your country, magazines, and newspapers. I know there are a lot of agreements but that never really happened?

President Musharraf:- 1 wonder whether any newspapers or magazines of Pakistan are going to India. We need to see it as one of the confidence building measures. And as far as we are concerned I know that at least I have been telling everyone to allow maximum media personalities from India, whoever wants to come, be allowed to come to Pakistan: I do not think that is the case when our media people want to go to India. I think there is more openness in our accepting media people, personalities coming here. When you are talking of newspapers and magazines coming to Pakistan and of course Pakistanis going to India, one can examine this in the CBMs in the future. We can broaden the scope of the confidence building measures. But as I said again we have to go forward on the dialogue process. We cannot be cantering and going on a sprint on the CBMs, while the dialogue process is going at snail’s pace. That is not doable. So there is a complementarily, there is a simultaneity and a linkage between the CBMs and the dialogue process.

Naresh:- Mr. President with your permission I would first like to convey. I would first like to congratulate your cricket team. They put up a great show and if I am not mistaken chasing a high total they put up three hundred forty four runs, which is some kind of a world record. And I think Inzamam, Javed and their colleagues need our congratulations.

President Musharraf:- Thank you. They did well, I think both the teams did very well.

Naresh:- Looking forward to much more exciting cricket in the days to follow. We have all taken notes of the strong leadership that you have exercised in pushing forward the current initiative. What is bothering some of us is that how broad and deep is the consensus in support of this move and in times to come, will all sections in Pakistan support this move. And in this context 1 think the earlier question about allowing free flow of information in both countries is very important because our experience has been that the information which flows through the media might not be the best way to condition our people to be informed and to help in addressing the problems and issues that are under discussion. If you could throw some light on this, thank you?

President Musharraf:- Thank you very much. Thank you indeed for congratulating my team, Pakistan’s team, as I have said both have done well. And we also in Pakistan look forward to a very interesting series in the future. On the issue of free flow of information between the two countries, I think there ought to be a free flow of information between the two countries. One point that I would like to raise here is the issue of parts of the media stopping to bad mouth or creating negative perceptions between the two countries. One of my main concerns is when we know Indian cinema and many magazines also showing the negatives of Pakistan. I think the media on both sides need to be more mature, show more maturity in dealing or in talking with issues of each other because now that such confidence building measures and a peace process is in place I would say that media needs to show more and more maturity and I think deal with, may encourage more closer relationship, encourage better understanding between the two countries rather than highlighting the negatives and exploiting may be to a certain extent situation in respective countries. We should stop that and encourage better more harmonious media interaction.

Arun:- Thank you Mr. President. Perhaps letting them open out is the best way. You talked about Indian films. We have in fact here one of the leading Indian film stars Aishwarya Roy. She likes to ask you a question.

Aishwarya:- Good evening Mr. President, I am going to ask you a question of no relevance to fraternity I come from, not the film industry. I would like to ask you, if I may, as a lay person, as an ordinary individual, citizen of India. Mr. President if all it is truly positive the trends right now as we feel there is the first step towards ...between our two nations. But HAMARI JO TEHZEEB HAY, as we hug each other today. What I would like to ask you is, are you truly feeling the warm waves of love between us or are we still sceptical and looking over our shoulders? Thank you.

President Musharraf:- Thank you very much. First of all I am very glad to be asked a question from one of the most popular film stars of India also known in Pakistan. Your question is related in fact part to the last question, which I think I did not answer. How deep the process or the desire for peace between India and Pakistan is. Let me say I am very sure about Pakistan. It is extremely deep. I think all sections of society in Pakistan want peace, want interaction, want harmonious relationship between India and Pakistan. When we went for the joint statement between myself and Prime Minister Vajpayee, there was a surge in our stock exchange. There was a great optimism with the signs of hope that was emerging. I know this is the reality and all segments of society in all the provinces of Pakistan. There are some extremists now I know that. And such extremists are also in India and we know that also. We should not bother about that very small minority of extremists and we must go for peace in a bold manner, because we know and I know that vast majority of Pakistanis are for peace, for developing harmonious relations, for going for people to people contact, going for commerce and trade relationships. So I am very clear about what Pakistanis want.

Arun:- Mr. President I can safely say that most Indians want the same thing. May I request now President of CII, Confederation of Indian Industry, Anand Mahindra to ask the question.

Anand:- Mr. President I represent a company called Mahindra and Mahindra which was born in 1945 as Mahindra and Muhammad and the co-founder was Ghulam Muhammad who after partition left us to become, I believe, first finance Minister of Pakistan of course we could not afford to print new letter heads which said M&M hence the name of company Mahindra and Mahindra today but arguably because of that history we are amongst most of the vulnerable companies of India to collaborate with Pakistani companies but in my recent interactions with Pakistani businessmen, I found them very apprehensive about dismantling of trade barriers. They believe Indian companies with their weight or size will swamp them or I do admit. Indian businessmen had the same fears about China but today we have a trade surplus with China. Do you Mr. President share those kinds of concerns and if you don’t, what can you do to alley those fears of businessmen in Pakistan and how quickly can you move to dismantle barriers?

President Musharraf:- Let me tell you, I have been asking many businessmen in Pakistan if you were to collaborate and interact economically in commerce and trade, business interaction would be swamped, the point, that you made. Those good businessmen of Pakistan, the people who have a strong business ventures in Pakistan are very confident that they will not be swamped. Therefore, I am fairly confident and optimistic that it is not a case of protecting ourselves from this strength of the business community of India. We know that you are large but we have our capacity, we have our quality also. Many good businessmen of Pakistan think that they will gain advantage through access in your market. So I think we should go ahead optimistically and I am very sure that there are lot of mutual benefits that will come our way. Now the business executive or businessmen that you interacted with, I don’t know who you interacted with, as I told you I know many business executives here who feel very confident of gains when we interact with you.

Arun:- So that means Mr. President that opening up could be around the comer even if the Kashmir issue is not solved.

President Musharraf:- I am known in India, I think there is unifocal person who just can’t forget about Kashmir. I feel odd also, I really feel talking of Kashmir all the time. I do understand, but let me say again, I think I would be most unrealistic if I said anything other than what I have said. No leader in Pakistan can sideline the Kashmir issue. Now this is the reality and we cannot do it. If we think that we can go ahead on all confidence-building measures and forget about Kashmir, not doable by any leader in Pakistan. We must understand that and I am afraid if we don’t understand this basic issue, I don’t think we can move forward. Let me put it very bluntly. I don’t think we can move forward on the confidence building measures. I don’t think we can move forward on the economic interaction unless we move forward on resolution of all disputes including the Kashmir dispute.

Arun:- That is quite clear, Sir. May I ask Mr. Sunil Kirmani who is one of the speakers at the Conclave, to ask the question:

Sunil Kirmani:- Thank you. Mr. President, in a sense I am sticking up on a number of questions and views that have been expressed already. You might sense how we here in Delhi, and I am sure you are in Islamabad, deeply hopeful at the moment of historical reconciliation between our two peoples. My question is a very simple one. What do you see as being the largest obstacle to that either in terms of substance or process and what do you see us in India? What would you like us to do, to try and remove that obstacle?

President Musharraf:- Sorry, I didn’t get your question. Obstacle in the way of normalization of relations?

Sunil Kirmani:- Yes, in terms of achieving reconciliation between our two peoples, either in terms of substance or process.

President Musharraf:- I have said that entirely in my whole speech. It contained that. I think the main issue is to develop confidence in each other, a trust in each other and this can only be done through resolution of disputes, all disputes and when I say all disputes, again I have to say including the Kashmir dispute and that is a stumbling block. I have made it very clear. That is what is stopping us. That is what is impeding relationship between the two countries.

Arun:- Well, let us hear a view, or a question from a former Foreign Secretary, Mr. Kanwal Sibal, perhaps he can get around Kashmir.

Kanwal Sibal:- Mr. President I listened to your speech with great attention obviously. All of us are very hopeful about the new process that has begun between India and Pakistan and we were asking ourselves as to what is the message that you might give us this evening. I am not sure whether the message that you have given us enhances the sense of hope of optimism or reduces it. There has been a feeling that because of various factors there has been a change in mindset on your side. But if one really carefully analyzes what you have said, there are some legitimate doubts in our minds about what we may expect from the current process because what you have clearly said is that Kashmir remains central and unless there is a forward movement on Kashmir, nothing else effectively can move including economic cooperation and then you also suggest which is a big worrying that in case there was no serious effort to resolve outstanding disputes including Kashmir, the current CBM process may not forward and in fact may go back to square one as you said. Now as you know our major concern as against your concern about Kashmir has been the issue of terrorism. So I do hope that when it is suggested we may go to square one, would not mean that there might be a resurgence of terrorism. Now the question in fact I want to ask and the context in which I want to ask is that India and China are both nuclear weapon powers, nobody talks about nuclear tensions between India and China. India and China have an unresolved boundary question, which from our point of view is a huge problem in terms of the occupation of large parts of our territory by China and yet we are willing to put aside this very difficult issue and move forward with China in every possible way. Our trade with China in the last three- four years has in fact gone up to over seven billion dollars, double to our trade with Japan, and the prospects are wide open for the normalization of relationship between India and China and both the countries are able to profit from this and in fact contribute meaningfully to peace and stability in Asia as a whole. What is the difficulty that you might face, Mr. President, on your side in emulating the example of India and China?

President Musharraf:- I am a realist. I am a soldier and not a diplomat also. Therefore, I believe in talking straight. I don’t believe in saying things which I don’t really mean from my mind and heart. I don’t believe in bluffing my way through, saying something and then going back when we get on to the dialogue table. So therefore while my words may sound very sour or very harsh to you, but let me tell you that they come from my heart. If you don’t agree with them, that is a different issue altogether. When you talk of change in mindsets, if you mean that we ought to change our mindsets and forget about Kashmir, and you are comparing ourselves the relationship between India and Pakistan to your relationship with China. I am afraid there is lot of difference. Here we fought wars, we fought three wars and there is a Line of Control, an issue which is a United Nations Security Council recognized dispute existing since over fifty years. Every day when there was no ceasefire on the Line of Control, we were killing each other. I wonder whether you have been in Siachen, your soldiers are there. I have been to a very big height there. I know how life is. I know how they are killing each other there. I know all along the Line of Control, I have been to the frontline every year; now these are realities. If you can push this reality behind and forget about all this truth, about all this reality on ground and say there is nothing happening in Kashmir, just let put it, let’s forget about it and let’s remove all our soldiers and while you, while the Indian army carried on whatever is happening inside Kashmir. I am afraid it is not doable. And when you talk of the threat that I am giving that the terrorism may start etc., no not at all I am not giving that threat at all. We don’t think there is terrorism going on in Kashmir. We think there is a freedom struggle going on in Kashmir. So I am afraid we will get involved in all the discussions, which we must not do. We had made a new beginning in the form of the joint statement between Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee, your leader, and myself. The text of this joint statement is very clear. It states very clearly that Pakistan and India must resolve all disputes including Kashmir, that Kashmir is a dispute which must be resolved to improve relations and that Pakistan and India are party to this dispute. Now are we saying that we are going back on this joint statement? This is written in black and white, let us use it. If we are to go back on this, then who is sidelining what? Who is changing what mindsets, we are not changing any mindsets, we are not talking of the history of the past, we are moving forward and the basis of this forward movement is the joint statement between myself and Prime Minister Vajpayee. I will adhere to this joint statement in letter and in spirit. There will be no failing on Pakistan’s part or on my part to go back on any word of this joint statement. You be the judge. You read this joint statement and let us see what happens now onward in May-June and then in July-August when the Foreign Ministers meet. It is very clear that we have to move the dialogue process forward. The whole world knows about it. So I am afraid, let us not get involved in giving examples of China-India relationships and saying that we should just forget our disputes and start moving. You don’t have much over dispute with China and as it is may I say China is a very large country, may be a strategy of coercion would not apply to China between you and China, whereas it does apply to your relationship with Pakistan. And I think in the past the issue has been and the concerns of every Pakistani has been, the coercion that they have been suffering from your country. In our region, Sir, may I say that our region, in our region the size of India is disproportionately large as compared to the other nations. That demands certain magnanimity. Magnanimity from you, from India, being the largest partner of the region. That magnanimity has to come from your side. It cannot come from smaller partners. So therefore I think I would’ leave it at this. There is no change in mindsets really. I am talking of reality on ground. Let us not forget reality on ground. I think if we see each other with sovereign equality, our concerns must be addressed and Pakistan’s concern certainly is to solve all disputes including Kashmir. We cannot sideline it.

Arun:- Mr. President, I really appreciate your straight talk, so I hope you would not mind if I do some. One country’s freedom fighter is another country’s terrorist. So the people who attacked you, attempted assassination on you, if they reacted that they were freedom fighters, what will be your reaction?

President Musharraf:- Certainly my reaction will be very violent. I wish I knew. May be I would have dealt with them with my own hands. Obviously, I would have forced them. Certainly there is no doubt in my mind. Any body trying to undertake suicide bombings, killing innocent civilians I would be the last person to encourage that. But I do not know whether you are equating this with what is happening in Kashmir. That is where I wouldn’t agree with you.

Arun:- Yes Sir, let me call on Dr. Amit Mitra who is Secretary of City of Chambers of Commerce of India.

Dr. Amit Mitra:- Mr. President you would be happy to know that the Indian businesses today are afraid of being flooded by Pakistan. How come, an exhibition from the Federation of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry on made in Pakistan, visited Delhi and forty thousand visitors swarmed the exhibition, showing the kind of affection rather than commerce that we can do with each other. Only this week, however, Mr. President, I must humbly suggest that the most favoured nation treaty still eludes us from the end of Pakistan, though we have signed this SAFTA agreement. Our unofficial trade Mr. President is approximately one point seven billion US dollars. Which will all be official trade. No lorry can go from Amritsar to Lahore. There is not even a warehouse in the no-man’s land. In other words, the potential is there but we are dithering. Could you give us in few words what is your exact vision of opening up, what measures you wish to take towards the synergy between our two economies in specific terms, Mr. President, Thank you.

President Musharraf:- Thank you, certainly a lot of synergy and I am very glad that somebody in India thinks that Pakistan can swamp the Indian markets. Yes, we have some potential, some areas of strength, which can be of use, to benefit Pakistan, but I think opening up of trade and commercial relations will benefit both the countries. We will have a large market certainly because you are about one billion strength. But at the same time your products will find certainly a market in Pakistan. So it would be of mutual benefit of both. But as I have said when you talk of vision, I have given my vision and I do not want to repeat it. There is certainly a linkage between political relationship between the two countries and economic activity and commercial activity .You cannot isolate the two. I say when there is hatred between the two countries, we are killing each other as I said daily, we have fought wars, we do not like each other, we have just played a cricket match after fifteen years. How can you think it can be milk and honey in just few days and it can be milk and honey without resolving those disputes. I think we are not being realistic. This is what I am all the time saying. I know that all of you are sitting there may be getting disappointed because I am saying; I am talking all the same things on removing the confrontational aspects of the relationship. But I will repeat I am realist and I believe in a practical, practicable approach to problems. We have to resolve disputes and then go forward to build commercial, economic, trade relationship. This is my vision. I do not think that one can, we can sideline the political aspect of our relationship and go only on our economic and trade and commercial relationship. That is not practicable that is not doable. It is very unrealistic. That is my vision.

Arun:- Sir, it, seems to me that whenever Indians and Pakistanis meet, or visit each others country, there is lot of love, lot of affection, great amount of hospitality and sometimes it is seen that there are politicians getting in the way. Do you get that feeling?

President Musharraf:- I said that. I said that in my initial statement that the problem is with the leadership. Yes, the people want to have peace and harmony. But if you come here and say that you just forget about Kashmir, I can tell you that the answer that you will get will be different. If you come and say here that forget about all political disputes, let us have good economic relations, you are going to get a different answer. What the hope and the positive optimism that has developed now is because people here think, that we are going to resolve all our disputes. It is not only because we are going to develop economic and commercial ties between each other. The optimism is and I will repeat is mainly because people here have started thinking that our disputes are going to be resolved.

Arun:- I believe Indian films are very popular in Pakistan. We have here one of our leading film directors and producers Mr. Subhash Ghoy who would like to ask you a question, sir.

Subhash Ghoy:- To be very brief. We all know that we have been fighting in the past and facing political differences. But as a movie maker, as a writer, director, producer I always felt that our movies, music and our stories have been receiving a warm welcome by the people of Pakistan. Somewhere in my heart, we are the same by culture; we are very close to each other. And it will be really very very happy news for the film industry, for the artists, for technicians, and if we can really join hands and make movies together for each other. Thank you sir. What do you think the future of welcoming each other, if everything is settled down? Thank you.

President Musharraf:- There is scope. I think on the cultural interaction, there is lot of scope. And when you are talking of your films being popular in Pakistan, yes, they are popular in Pakistan. But let me also say that the war movies and the Kashmir movies that you produce are not repeat not held in good stead here at all because I think you make, I don’t want to be very blunt, I don’t think you are realistic at all. I think you try to portray or try to make, to try ridicule our forces, which is not at all held in good stead here and -you do it in many of your movies. I haven’t seen many. I did see one. I don’t want to name it because there was so much talk about it and I found it to be absolutely absurd. And I would request, Aishwarya Roy who is sitting there not to act in such movies. I know, I think they are quite ridiculous when you come to, because they are most unrealistic. They are absolutely unrealistic and I wouldn’t like an artist of your stature Aishwarya to be acting in such movies. I think there should be some balance in portrayal.

Arun:- Mr. President, does it mean you allow love stories to be distributed in Pakistan barring war films.

President Musharraf:- Things are absolutely alright as long as they are realistic. I mean they should not be absolutely totally unrealistic and one sided that you are dealing with pigmies on the other side and you are going around the other side. I think you should be a little realistic.

Arun:- May I ask a person from our journalistic community? Shekher Gupta to ask a question:

Gupta:- Let me try and shift the subject from something as contentious as Kashmir to something on which there should be greater unanimity namely democracy. This is an unusual year, 72 nations around the world are going for elections. The most rare in human history. Second point, no two democracies in our history have ever gone to war with each other, and third, of the countries going to elections this year is also India, so my question is in this great global march towards democratization, do not you feel your country is getting badly left behind. If so what is the plan to do to bring in more democracy in Pakistan may be that would even further the cause of peace because democracies do not go to war with each other. Do you have any anxieties about Indian election? Elections throw surprises. You can presume nothing. Will your propose one more easy CBM which does not have to wait for the solution of Kashmir problem and allow to be telecast in Pakistan. Why deprive your people of the entertainment that our politicians can provide very often. Sir, having said that if you permit me a little note of correction, you said that from Agra to Islamabad India moved a lot accepting the centrality of Kashmir. I am an independent observer. I also have access to some drafts as I am sure your senior journalists would also like to suggest that Pakistan moved a great deal in fact from Agra to Islamabad in position on cross boarder terrorism, on which it had never given-in in the past.

President:- Ok let me answer the last part first. I have always about hundred times in United Nations, every forum been saying that Pakistan will not at all in favor of any kind of export of terrorism from Pakistan into any other area. I have been saying that all along and I have also clearly been differentiating between what is happening in Kashmir. We in Pakistan do not call that cross border terrorism we call it a freedom struggle. So I do not think we have changed our stance, however I mean let’s not dispute or let’s not tear this very sacrosanct document apart. There is a joint statement, which has been initiated between Prime Minister Vajpayee and myself. I think it is a very good way forward. We must not try to undermine its value through extracting bugs in this document so I will leave it as that. I think the document is very good and it is a good way forward.

Now you started by talking about democracy. I take very strong exception to this. If you think that there is no democracy in Pakistan. I am afraid I do not agree with that at all. I do not even want to answer this question there is democracy in Pakistan, election have been held in Pakistan and every thing is being done in a very democratic manner. Democracy believes in human rights, I think the human rights here are may be in many ways better than human rights in your country. Freedom of speech, freedom of media, freedom of expression may be in many ways more than that in your country so that is also a part of democracy other than that if you are talking of other issues constitutional issues, parliamentary issues, I think every thing that your country is going through is happening here also. So I think I do not agree with you at all if you are meaning that there is no democracy in Pakistan and we need to move towards democracy. We have our own environment and also may I say we do not accept anybody from outside Pakistan to meddle in our internal affairs. We run our country the way we like it to be run and we do not expect any other country to interfere. If I was to tell you that you need to look after minorities in your country .You need to stop carnage going on in Kashmir and in Gujrat, how would you feel about it. You need to ensure more human rights by not attacking the Sikhs in Golden Temple, by not destroying Ayodhya Mosque. We do not want to interfere in your internal affairs. Why are you interfering in our internal affairs there should be democracy or no democracy. We deal with sovereign equality we deal in our country’s internal affairs as we want so please do not get involved what we are doing in our own country. Beyond this, the relationship between our two countries have to be developed, based on the joint statement arrived at between Prime Minister Vajpayee and myself. Pakistan will move forward on each and every aspect of that and we look forward to a very good start. Whether there is democracy in 72 countries and holding elections, we have already held our elections and next elections are due in 2007. We will do that on time. Our local bodies elections are due next year, we will hold them in time, so I do not really know what you are inferring when you say that elections are being held in so many countries, so how does it pertain to Pakistan, I do not know.

Arun:- I do not want to interfere in your internal affairs, but could I just for my information, know whether former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif could return to Pakistan?

President Musharraf:- Benazir has gone out on her own will, we did not send her out. She went out herself during the pervious governments term. There are certain charges against her and she has to face those charges. No body has told her not to come back. As far as Nawaz Sharif is concerned, he has gone back through the mediation of a friendly country and a friendly leader and he also went laughing all the way on his own will. The whole family went there and they are there on their own accord and own sweet will. And they can only come back when this agreement mediated by this friend comes to an end.

Arun:- I will like to call on former High Commissioner in Pakistan G. Partha Sarthi to ask question.

Partha Sarthi:- Good evening Mr. President. I have three separate questions to ask you very specially after the recent controversy which we have had about Pakistani scientists being involved in nuclear proliferation. The question is of greater transparency in Pakistan’s nuclear policies. Could you let us know when and if Pakistan will have a formal nuclear doctrine instead of continuously saying that Kashmir is a nuclear flash point, whatever that may be? My second question Mr. President is you spoke of fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and you are talking on the Al-Qaida on Pakistani Soil. The Americans and the Afghans also speak of Taliban presence on Pakistani soil. Do you intend to take them on as firmly as you intend to take on the Al-Qaida. And the lastly, 3^rd question Mr. President, I come from southern India where we have no relatives in Pakistan and the present visa policy is very restrictive only for friends and relatives. Do not you think if we want to get to know each other better, we should have normal tourism like any other two countries would have? Thank you.

President Musharraf:- Thank you very much on the nuclear doctrine, we very much have a nuclear doctrine, I don’t know how you think that Pakistan has not even got a nuclear doctrine. Let me tell you that our strategic assets, the command and control the custodial control that we have established may be better than yours and these are all documented. As far as nuclear doctrine itself, is very much there. So I think you are misinformed. We have a doctrine. And it has no relationship with the Kashmir disputes as such. As I said we have defensive strategy of minimum defensive deterrence and that is what we are following.

Talking of Al-Qaida and Taliban, Yes we are operating against Al-Qaida in our tribal region in the Frontier Province. When we talk of Taliban and whether we are going to act against them. This term Taliban is the most misunderstood term. When you say Taliban, who are you meaning really. I would like to ask you who are you meaning when you say Taliban. If you are meaning all the Talibs which are the product of the students studying in our-madrassas, they are Taliban. If you are meaning all of them, certainly we are not acting against them. If you are meaning all of Pakhtoons in Afghanistan, certainly we are not acting against them at all. So who are the Taliban really? So we identify Taliban as far as we are concerned very clearly. This is previous Mullah Omer Government, their abettors, their supporters, we will not encourage them to be here at all. We will not allow them in Pakistan and we will certainly arrest them and send them back or deport them to Afghanistan as we did in one on two cases where we did catch a few of their members and sent them back to the Afghan Government. We will act against them certainly. I said that we will act against any non-Pakistani in Pakistan, that includes anybody whether it is Al-Qaida or Taliban. But we need to be clear on what we mean by Taliban.

The last issue that you raised was the visa issue. All visa restrictions some how are the same. You lay down similar restrictions and we do the same. I think when we go for confidence building measures, we move forward on resolution of disputes, I am very clear that these issues of visa will be getting resolved more amicably in the future.

Arun: - At least that’s not tied up with the Kashmir. I would like to request Mr. Rajendar Paul. Who is an eminent businessman of India to ask you a question?

Rajendar Paul:- Mr. President before I talk about information technology which is the subject I am involved with I do want to make an observation. Right through these last 45 minutes, I experienced, periods of joy and periods of sadness. Whenever we are talking of cold logic and reasoning, I felt.very sad. Whenever we shared any moment, which is about emotions and feelings, I felt very good. I think that’s really the situation between these two countries, for a long time. So while we were rejoicing and enjoying the game of cricket, the moment we start discussing logic and reason, we just seem to be going backward. In some sense, the new dialogue which is opening many fronts has a lot to do with feeling and emotions and some to do with logic, I think the balance is valid but I tend to feel that if we can give feelings a little vent a logic will follow. There is an old saying which says that the way the east thinks and the way the west thinks is different in one respect. We say in the east we have faith and proofs follow and in the west we believe they have proofs and faith follows. My humble suggestion is that we get into this very important phase of breakthrough. I see that gives an opportunity of a breakthrough, lets not to try an over balance feelings, logic and emotions if we have to make a little bit of differences in these two. Let the feelings come forward because I think the warmth, which is getting generated and can get generated will dissolve the tricky problem we are trying to solve, that was just an observation on information technology. I think in the opportunities India is surging ahead. We are beginning to find tremendous opportunity for people in India as you look at the outsourcing business opportunities in the west. From India we are already beginning to look at building development centers from outside India and we are talking of Philippines, we are talking all the way of China as well. It is only natural for us to look at Pakistan as a partner in this, this is also [to] feel may be you do not need to make good and bodies connections can be established and work can be done virtually. I believe that this is an area that cooperation could be very rapid and very quick and yet it is not figuring among the important points for discussion. I would like to know your specific view on whether you think, the whole field of IT is something we should get a much more serious look of and how we could do collaboration. I would like to hear your views about this.

President Musharraf:- Thank you very much for your idea of logic and emotions I think both are important and they are interlinked. We cannot set logic aside and go only on the path of emotion because we will fail. However I take a point, I do take your points, coming to your issue of information technology. I do know that India is doing very well in information technology. Pakistan during the last three or four years when my Government was in place, we have developed an infrastructure, information technology infrastructure, and we trained our manpower also and I think we have tremendous potential in information technology in the development of information technology and I very much agree with you that this is one area where we can collaborate for our mutual benefits. Certainly when we move forward on economic or commercial interaction, information technology has a lot of complementarity to benefit both of us and we would like to move forward on this.

Arun:- Nice, positive. I would like to now call on Jay Panda, he is a young MP in our parliament Mr. President he would like to ask a question.

Jay Panda:- Mr. President we Indians have long had a secret and grudging admiration for you for your vigorous, energetic and nimble style of leadership which you have demonstrated but it is that very nimbleness with words and sometimes facts that has some of us wondering how serious you are about peace and then the other issue that Mr. Shekher Gupta raised about democracy. Even accepting that Pakistan today has democracy and going by your own statement there is further evolution expected. Perhaps you will cease to have two posts as chief of the armed forces as well as president. Now some people think that we should take advantage of this period while you do have both posts. Some people think that perhaps democracy ought to have, that further step of revolution which you, yourself have announced before we can, really have a chance for peace or so tell us Mr. President why are you the best person for us to deal with and deal with now to have peace.

President Musharraf:- Thank you very much first issue of how serious I am about peace and your doubt that I am not serious about peace. Well let me put it bluntly that we have very serious doubts that you are not serious about peace. So who is right and who is wrong I don’t know. So that is to say that there are suspicions on both sides we think that you are following a strategy which will do good to you and sideline issues, sidelines disputes, and you are not serious about these. This is the main suspicion of Pakistanis here, but similar is your suspicion; when you say that I am not serious about peace. Now I feel its very odd that you sometimes in India and even now in this forum. I feel a little bit over ridiculed. When one talks of Kashmir as if this is an unimportant issue which is being spoken about unnecessarily over, and over again. This increases one’s suspicion that what we have written in the joint press statement between myself and Prime Minister Vajpayee, may be you don’t mean it, may be the people of India don’t mean it. When we have written that Kashmir is a dispute which needs to be resolved, may be you don’t mean it because this is our suspicion exactly it has existed in the past and now when in this elite August forum if everyone thinks that it is a very minor irritant that I am raising unnecessarily and trying to emphasize it unnecessarily, it disappoints me, it disheartens me, it saddens me also that may be we don’t want to resolve it and we think that we can go forward on all issues. So let me say again with all my conviction. I am very serious about peace but if your version of peace is don’t resolve political disputes, that is not my version of peace, so there is a difference we need to sit down and clarify and really reach an understanding before we proceed further. I only hope that Prime Minister Vajpayee, the foreign secretary , the foreign ministers who are to interact are very clear in their minds on what we have decided in that joint statement and we move forward on that. What I have told you on the simultaneity, on the linkage between confidence building measures and the dialogue process is nothing new, let me tell you I had verbatim said this to PM Vajpayee also. I am not saying something new to you, which I have not said to anyone else. And this has exactly been said to your Foreign Secretary when he came here, and it will exactly be conveyed to your Foreign Minister when he meets my Foreign Minister. So really I mean let’s be very clear, if we think that we can just go on economic ties, cultural ties and relationship, media interaction, exchange of films, exchange of artists, and that is all, we are the most unrealistic people. We have not succeeded in the last 50 years, I don’t know whether we will take another 50 or 100 years to succeed again. I am not the man who can really sit here and be unrealistic and impractical and do not address issues and hide my feelings, be hypocritical when I come in front of anyone whether it is the negotiation or an August gathering like this. I am not that. I try to be realistic, but in my realism, if you think that I am being very stubborn very obstinate, not understanding your point of view, I am very much understanding your point of view. I very much understand realities on ground and I very much also do understand what is the way forward. I do not think the way forward is as you people are thinking, that disappoints me and the faster we understand and are prepared to be bold enough to face realities on ground that much the better. Otherwise when I say we would not be able to move forward, I am not trying to raise alarms. I am just trying to be realistic. It will not happen, not because I do not want it, because those are the realities, which have existed for 50 years and can not be sidelined and forgotten. So if you think they can, well ok, let’s try. But I am afraid we will fail again. I do not want to fail, but let leave it like this. And this is my feeling. I only hope with all my seriousness, with all my sincerity that we move forward on the path of peace.

Arun:- I am afraid we are running out of time. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking President Musharraf for spending so much time with us for answering questions just so well in terms of being straight, analytical, no punches pulled, I think he is very clear. The fact that Kashmir is a central issue is not running away from it and I think that there is something the government of India well realizes. I think also the fact that he is referring to a document signed in Islamabad and is going to implement it by the later is also a great sign of optimism for us and hope. And he is serious about stopping cross border terrorism, I think, is another great hope for us. I think if the government of India and Pakistan talk the way president Musharraf has spoken to us and they talk straightforwardly openly and not play games with each other, I think there is going to be a hope that even intractable problems like Kashmir can be solved or at least if not solved, we can continue to talk about it how to solve it. But it requires straight talks, I think President Musharraf has set a great example for this to show how it can be done. 1 like to thank you sir, for spending this time. I only have one little request that do not tie up Kashmir with opening up films, media and those soft issues specially when beautiful Aishwarya Roy has requested you sir to please open it up. Please do think about it. I thank you again. Thank you President Musharraf. Please give him a standing ovation. Thank you

President Musharraf:- Thank you very much. If you are still hearing me, I would like to say that forums like this do play a very important role in developing understanding. All that I would request you to be very realistic. Let’s we very pragmatic, let we very bold to resolve disputes and go forward on the path that you yourselves want and Pakistanis want. You will not find me not being bold and not being sincere. I thank you ladies and gentlemen. Thank you.

Introductory Observations: The beginning of the year 2004, like commencement of all New Years, stirred great hope that India and Pakistan would be initiating a peace process. This arose from the Islamabad Accord arrived at during the Islamabad SAARC Summit in January 2004.

Carrying out a deep appraisal of the Islamabad Accord, this author in his paper: “India-Pakistan Peace Process and the Islamabad peace Accord: An Appraisal” (SAAG Paper No. 893 dated 13-01-2004) had made the following salient observations:

* The sudden climb down by India and Pakistan from stated positions was externally scripted and choreographed.

* United States pressure on India and Pakistan to initiate a peace process was determined by United States strategic stakes in Pakistan and not by peace dividends in South Asia.

* United States pressure in this direction would cease the day its current strategic stakes in Pakistan get diluted or ceased.

* General Pervez Musharraf is not in a position, militarily or politically, to deliver on the Islamabad Accord.

* The Islamabad Accord neither now nor in future offers any strategic or military advantages to India.

* The Islamabad Accord was a “Declaration of Intent not a Structure for Peace in South Asia.

* Peace and peace dividends in South Asia cannot emerge as a result of external impositions and pressures.

* Nor can peace in any region of the world be brought about by linkages to strategic stakes of external powers.

* Peace in South Asia and a durable peace at that can become a reality in South Asia by only a self-initiated and self urged bilateral accord.

After two months of the media hype conferred on this Accord and the intervening developments, the appraisal above seems to stand corroborated.

No “ Peace Process”, its only a “Resumption of Dialogue”: “Peace Process” is a wrong term to define the initiation of talks between India and Pakistan. Using the term “Peace Process” conjures memories of what was achieved between Israel and Egypt and invests a lot of optimism. In the case of India and Pakistan the confrontation is not on territorial issues.

Kashmir, so often repeated by USA as a nuclear flash point or an issue holding back India’s membership of the UN Security Council is not a territorial issue. Pakistan made it into an ideological and religious issue. And when this happens, such issues cannot be resolved by “Peace processes” or even dialogues. They get resolved by the compulsions of contemporary strategic, political and military pressures attendant at a given point of time.

At best, the on-going efforts for talks between India and Pakistan can best be termed as a “dialogue” on contentious issues.

Further in a dialogue of this nature there is no role for ‘mediators’; ‘facilitators’ or ‘patrons’.

United States Think Tanks and Scholars Not Optimistic on Outcome of India-Pakistan Dialogue: In marked contrast to the United States Administration, the American think-tanks and American Scholars specializing on South Asia are not optimistic on the outcome of the present India-Pakistan dialogue.

* Stimson Center, Washington, Brief entitled “Trading Militancy for Peace”: In this report the following points are made:

· Conventional wisdom holds that this will be another futile effort, because President Musharraf lacks the sincerity or the following to engineer a strategic shift to peace.

· Pakistan Army cannot wean itself from the need for an adversary and for Kashmir to remain on the boil.

· Express doubts, that General Musharraf and top Army brass would trade military for peace with India and stem Islamabad’s continuing support for Jihadi groups.

· Cohen said that he was not sure whether current Indian and Pakistani generations are ready to change mutually incompatible views.

· Cohen had earlier written that Mr Vajpayee (Indian PM) is working towards eventual transformation of Pakistan, but he cannot do it alone. His improbable partner General Musharraf lacks strategic vision.

* Robert Hathaway, Woodrow Wilson International School for Scholars: He has expressed that going by history, this dialogue should not raise unnecessary optimistic expectations. Further, that, under the best of circumstances, the India-Pak dialogue is going to be a long tough slog marked by setbacks, statements and acrimony.

These American scholars have made realistic assessments. It is time that India’s media analysts stop their unnecessary hype on this issue and lead Indian public opinion astray…

(The author is an International Relations and Strategic Affairs analyst. He is the Consultant, Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. Email drsubhashkapila @yahoo.com)

Interview of India’s External Affairs Minister to
Outlook (June 7,2004 Issue) [Extract]

Are there any aspects of the BJP's foreign policy that you found disturbing?
First of all, their ministers didn't know the difference between diplomacy and foreign policy. Foreign policy is what you do; diplomacy is how you do it. The handling of Pakistan was very erratic. In five years Mr Vajpayee made five U-turns. And the Congress Party had given the Vajpayee government broad support on policy towards Pakistan, security and defence.

Whenever they terminated the dialogue, we always said you must keep the diplomatic door open, don't cut it out. One day he goes to Lahore in the bus, we welcome it. His foreign minister comes and says in the Lok Sabha, on 27th Feb, 1999, that the Lahore meeting was a turning point in Indo-Pak relations. Well, after four months, you had Kargil. Some defining moment!

I can give you any number of examples. The fuss he made about going to Islamabad--no, I will not go; I will not meet Musharraf, I will only shake hands with him; it will not be a substantial meeting, nothing will come out of it. Who are you kidding! Look at the fiasco at Agra. These are professionals. No foreign minister in the world takes down little notes and tells the press that "I am coming back in five minutes" but doesn't return for five hours.

They went into Agra without an agenda. Musharraf came with a one-point agenda. No foreign minister in the world has escorted three hardcore terrorists in his own aeroplane to release them. It is unheard of….

Do you agree with the joint statement that was issued when Vajpayee met Musharraf in January?

Well, you see the thing is this. Vajpayee went to Kathmandu where he was like a sour individual. When Musharraf shook hands with him, Vajpayee did so reluctantly. We should have the bigness to say, fine, we are a bigger country. Then the flip-flops. On May 16, 2003, Atal Behari was in Gangtok. There he said that he would have no talks with Pakistan until cross-border terrorism ends. Forty-eight hours later, Vajpayee was in Srinagar and said, 'I want to extend the hand of friendship.' What has happened in 48 hours? No answers….

Do you think under the BJP government the Americans have managed to insinuate themselves into the matrix of Indo-Pak relations and the neighbourhood?
The Congress Party is committed not from today but from the time of Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi and Narasimha Rao to have very close relations with the United States for obvious reasons. In the last decades very talented, gifted Indians have settled down there, made a mark and they are playing a role in the American national scene. It's wonderful... in science, technology, defence, education, everything. There were certain hiccups, sanctions in 1998, dual technology. But I think they will be ironed out.

And the Americans have also realised that India is essentially a very strong country, and it is in their interest to have good relations with us. We welcome this, and we will carry this further. This idea that there may be a third-party interest in all that ... but there is no doubt that Americans have influenced Pakistan with regard to having a dialogue with India. They have used their good offices. It is not necessarily that they are a third-party. But they needed Pakistan for Afghanistan, and since Gen Musharraf turned 180 degrees, they persuaded him to be more realistic when dealing with India.

You know, we can sit it out. I don't think Pakistanis can sit it out indefinitely. It is in our mutual interest to have good relations with Pakistan. We have welcomed the improvement in the last few months. And we have always been emphasising on this. Now you see the Lahore declaration of 1999 produced Kargil in four months. The Shimla Agreement signed in 1972 ensured peace till 1999. The Shimla Agreement and subsequent agreements and declarations provide the framework in which we can discuss everything including Jammu and Kashmir and the nuclear question.

A new dimension has been added since 1998 when both countries became nuclear powers. And now it is absolutely essential that we have best of relations. And the Manmohan Singh government has already made it clear that we look forward to continuing the process, we will take it forward and it will be multi-faceted. And the differences we have will be ironed out through negotiations, friendly talks and cooperation.

How quickly will we restore the original staff strength of respective Indian and Pakistani High Commissions?

Do you have any new initiatives that you will put into the dynamics of Indo-Pak relations?

You see I have been in for only two days. I'll have to look at the papers. But we were never in favour of stopping cricket matches. We were not in favour of the train being stopped, bus service being stopped, airways... Why? Now they want to take credit on the cricket. This is no way to conduct foreign policy.

Aar-paar ki ladai: why is this kind of verbal overkill resorted to? You had Operation Parakaram; we were there at the border for eight months. Then we came back. Why did you send your troops? Why did you come back? Didn't you ever think about it? What did you achieve? What were these great people doing? Every pronouncement that came from the United States, even before anybody discussed it, we welcomed it….

Could you identify priority areas you will focus on immediately?
I already have. I have invited heads of High Commissions and Embassies in the SAARC countries. They are coming in four days. Our ambassador to Nepal is already here. I have invited our ambassadors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they will be here in three days. And ambassadors in ASEAN countries will also be here in a month. We have been out of office for eight years; the world has changed since then. So we want to hear their assessments and we want to put across our views as to how the Manmohan Singh government looks at the world as it exists today.

Take, for example, China. We can take some credit for the breakthrough in 1988 when Rajiv Gandhi went there. I was also there. Panditji had gone there in October 1954. When Rajiv Gandhi was there, the Chinese, master diplomats as they are, said, ok, we have this border problem, let us put it aside, let us go ahead in other areas. This has worked. Even on the border, we have had peace and tranquility for 15 years.

Let us remember that in 2000 years of our history, India and China had one conflict in 1962. An in-depth analysis of why this happened hasn't been done by either side. We will now celebrate 50 years of Panchsheel. I keep telling our Pakistani friends, you are very friendly with China, why don't you follow their example? They put the border aside, there's a mechanism for dealing with that issue of border. Why are you harping on Kashmir and blocking everything? Let us put Kashmir aside; it doesn't disappear, but let us get on with everything. Now the atmosphere is such that public opinion in Pakistan is ahead of their government. The public opinion of India was also ahead of the Vajpayee government.

Under the Vajpayee government the focus of talks with China shifted to the Prime Minister's office. Will there be a course correction there?
The MEA, if I am not mistaken, was bypassed to some extent--on major issues, it was bypassed.We didn't need a National Security Adviser till the May 10, 1998. On May 11, we became a nuclear power, so did Pakistan two weeks later. A whole new dimension appeared on the horizon of India's foreign, defence, security and strategic policies.It's so important a question that you need a fulltime person dealing with these aspects,. JN Dixit is just the right person for it--he is intellectual, he is experienced, he is cerebral. He understands this. So there will be no crossing of wires. He will be a great asset.

What will be the Natwar Singh stamp on India's foreign policy?
The stamp that Jawaharlal Nehru had put, stays. We are small people, standing on the shoulders of a giant.

As India's new foreign minister, what do you think are the main qualities that should guide you?

An accomplished diplomat thinks twice before saying nothing. It is the duty of every foreign minister and every ambassador to increase the number of friends and well-wishers of India, and reduce the number of critics. And that we shall try to do.

Senior diplomats from the two countries will hold talks in Delhi on 27 and 28 June, India's Foreign Minister Natwar Singh told a news conference.

The talks would discuss the main dispute of Kashmir and nuclear security, Mr Singh added.

Islamabad had accepted the dates proposed by India, a senior Pakistani foreign ministry official told the Associated Press news agency.

The announcement came a day after Delhi and Islamabad signalled sharp differences over how to tackle the Kashmir dispute - but said they remained committed to the peace process.

India's new Congress-led government has said it will carry forward the peace process with Pakistan.

"We certainly have welcomed the new government, and we are glad to see that it is, as it said it would, continuing that policy of peaceful dialogue," US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.

But ties between the nuclear-armed neighbours have thawed after last year's peace initiatives between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and former Indian prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.

A number of confidence-building measures have been introduced over the past year, including a resumption of rail, air and bus links and a strengthening of diplomatic ties.

The Indian cricket team also toured Pakistan earlier this year, despite security concerns.

Talks on confidence-building measures were originally set for last week, but India asked for them to be postponed while the new government allocated cabinet posts.

Foreign Minister Singh said experts from both countries would meet on 19 and 20 June to discuss nuclear confidence-building measures. Foreign secretaries would meet on 27 and 28 June.

"We cannot forget the past, but neither should we be prisoners of the past," he told the news conference. "The relationship should be based on trust and not mistrust.

"I want to assure our friends in Pakistan... that we are committed to a deep involvement on every possible issue with them. We will discuss every possible issue with them."

Mr Singh said India had supported Pakistan's recent re-admission to the Commonwealth.

He added that India's new national security adviser, JN Dixit, would attend talks with China on settling a boundary dispute, over which the two countries fought briefly in 1962.

The Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan met in New Delhi on 27-28 June 2004 to resume the Composite Dialogue. They discussed ‘Peace and Security including CBMs’ and ‘Jammu and Kashmir’. The talks were held in a cordial and constructive atmosphere, and with the objective of taking the process forward.

2. They reiterated their commitment to the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, and their determination to implement the Simla Agreement in letter and spirit.

3. Both sides expressed satisfaction over the ongoing process of dialogue and confidence building between the two countries. They approved the measures recommended by the Expert level meeting on Nuclear CBMs in New Delhi on 19-20 June 2004. They agreed to conclude an Agreement on pre-notification of flight testing of missiles, and entrusted the Experts to work towards finalizing the draft Agreement. Both sides reaffirmed the elements in the Joint Statement of 20th June on the need to promote a stable environment of peace and security, recognizing the nuclear capabilities of each other constituting a factor for stability, working towards strategic stability, and the call for regular working level meetings to be held among all the nuclear powers to discuss issues of common concern. The two sides proposed a comprehensive framework for conventional CBMs aimed at initiating and enhancing communication, coordination and interaction. These would be discussed further.
4. Recalling the reassurance contained in the Joint Press Statement of January 6, 2004, they exchanged views on carrying the process forward in an atmosphere free from terrorism and violence.

5. The Foreign Secretaries reiterated the hope that the dialogue will lead to peaceful settlement of all bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, to the satisfaction of both sides. They held detailed exchange of views on Jammu & Kashmir and agreed to continue the sustained and serious dialogue to find a peaceful negotiated final settlement.

6. It was agreed that the strengths of the respective High Commissions would be restored immediately to the original level of 110; it was also agreed in principle to re-establish India’s Consulate General in Karachi and Pakistan’s Consulate General in Mumbai. Modalities would be worked out by the two Governments. All apprehended fishermen in each other’s custody would be immediately released and a mechanism put in place for the return of unintentionally transgressing fishermen and their boats from the high seas without apprehending them. Steps would be initiated for early release of civilian prisoners.
7. The Foreign Secretaries also agreed that the meetings of the remaining six subjects of the Composite Dialogue on Siachen, Wullar Barrage/ Tulbul Navigation Project, Sir Creek, Terrorism and Drug Trafficking, Economic and Commercial Cooperation, and Promotion of Friendly Exchanges in Various Fields, would take place between the third week of July and the first half of August 2004.

8. The Foreign Secretary of Pakistan conveyed invitations from the President of Pakistan to the President and Prime Minister of India, and to Smt. Sonia Gandhi.

9. The Foreign Secretaries will meet again in the third week of August to review progress achieved in the Composite Dialogue and prepare for the meeting of the Foreign Ministers, which will immediately follow.

India and Pakistan have some basic agreements over the nuclear issue for over a decade. Since 1991 they have a unique agreement whereby they agreed not to attack each other’s nuclear facilities. On the first day of each calendar year, both countries exchange updated lists of each other’s nuclear facilities. The two countries also have an advance notification system for missile tests. However, the latest talks on nuclear CBMs emanate from a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by the two countries in February 1999 during then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's historic visit to Lahore by a bus. The MoU committed the two sides to discussing reduction of the risk of accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons. At that time the issue got derailed because of Kargil and the terrorist attack on Indian parliament.

However, a fresh beginning to improve the bilateral Indo-Pak relations was made at the fag end of Vajpayee regime. This effort achieved some startling success and promised hope. But, an environment of uncertainly was created by the ouster of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government. Moreover, the Congress led coalition government was facing initial teething problems resulting into some off the cuff remarks of India’s Foreign Minister, Natwar Singh. Fortunately mistake was realized before it was too late. Now the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government too appears in favour of maintaining the fundamental continuity in India's foreign and security policy orientation followed under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Dialogue process came back on its course after the External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh stated that all the outstanding issues between India and Pakistan would be resolved in the light of Shimla Agreement, all subsequent accords and January 6, joint statement. India’s new Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also stated that India seeks most friendly relations with Pakistan and is keen to resolve all outstanding issues between the two countries in a peaceful manner. Thus the new dispensation in New Delhi is now equally keen to improve ties with Pakistan. In fact this eagerness created another controversy when Natwar Singh talked of common nuclear doctrine for India, Pakistan and China. Naturally his enthusiasm was not shared by Pakistan and China who were more cautious, and wanted to examine the details of the common nuclear doctrine which in any case appears to be at the conceptual level.

Both sides knew very well that if the talks on nuclear confidence building measures got bogged down over the issue of Kashmir then no progress would be made. Hence, in an effort to delink Kashmir issue with nuclear CBMs a secret meeting was organized between Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf's key adviser Tariq Aziz and India's National Security Advisor J.N. Dixit in Amirtsar. The meeting succeeded in its aim and both sides agreed to keep the issue of nuclear CBMs and Kashmir separate. They also agreed that the aim of the talks on Nuclear Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) was to ensure that in any future crisis, the nuclear dimension does not become threat to regional peace, security and stability. For this it was necessary to have a bilateral relationship where rules of the nuclear game are established.

After the successful completion of talks, the two sides issued a joint statement, which unveiled seven agreements. They included some measures for restraint and risk reduction. It was announced that India and Pakistan would establish a new hotline to reduce the risk of nuclear war and reaffirmed their moratorium on conducting nuclear tests. The hotline will link the top civil servants in their foreign ministries. Both sides also agreed to work on formalising arrangements to notify each other before missile tests and upgrade and secure the existing dedicated hotline between senior military officials, used often in de-escalating a sudden spurt in border tension. The joint statement also said that India and Pakistan would work towards concluding an agreement with "technical parameters on pre-notification of flight testing of missiles, a draft of which was handed over by the Indian side." It added both countries would continue bilateral talks toward implementation of the 1999 Lahore agreement. The neighbours also agreed to implement measures to prevent accidental or unauthorized launch of nuclear weapons.

However, the talks could not resolve more complex security concepts and nuclear doctrines. The 1999 MoU says, “two sides shall engage in bilateral consultations on security concepts and nuclear doctrines, with a view to developing measures for confidence building in the nuclear and conventional fields, aimed at avoidance of conflict." However, during the talks wide divergence on security concepts and doctrinal issues emerged.

During the discussion, India once again reiterated its pledge never to be the first to use nuclear weapons during a conflict. Pakistan, on the other hand, said it was ready to negotiate an agreement on the non-use of military force. It also turned up new doctrines like ‘strategic restraint regime’. However, Indian side believed that India cannot agree to any nuclear restraint regime because unlike Pakistan's nuclear programme, which is India-centric, Indian programme is not Pakistan-centric. Pakistani side acknowledged that there was an element of "ambiguity" – even deliberate ambiguity - surrounding Pakistan's nuclear doctrine. However, they attributed this ambiguity to the evolving nature of nuclear doctrines in south Asia. These broad areas of divergence were noted but both sides decided to focus on the positive. Moreover, they felt that there was no need for technical talks on nuclear CBMs to get bogged down on conceptual differences. Thus, the views were exchanged on their respective nuclear doctrines and security concepts, both sides decided not to make any direct reference to this in the joint statement. Both countries also called for regular working level meetings to be held among all the nuclear powers to discuss issues of common concern.

The more trickier and controversial issues were not touched to keep the environment of talks friendly. Both sides agreed that as there has been no discussion on nuclear CBMs since the 1999 Lahore MoU, the idea really was to pick up the threads from there, to move ahead incrementally. Difficult questions such as the deployment, mating, targeting and de-alerting of nuclear weapons were deliberately not taken up. However, they showed a will to continue talks on more substantial issues, such as exchanging nuclear doctrines that govern their respective arsenals, and details of "command and control" structures in subsequent meetings.

The progress made during these talks was also reviewed by the Foreign Ministers of the two countries when they met in Qingdao on the sidelines of Asia Cooperation Dialogue (ACD). Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri said that he was "encouraged" after his first meeting with his Indian counterpart and wanted to resolve Kashmir issue for durable peace in south Asia. Thus a desire for enduring peace can be seen at every level in the subcontinent. Even the joint statement, issued at the end of talks on nuclear confidence-building measures had stated that both sides were “conscious of their obligation to their peoples and the international community” and wanted to work towards “strategic stability”. This is a new spirit which was missing in earlier Indo-Pak dialogues.

Though the talks on Nuclear CBMs have achieved marginal success they have paved way for future talks on substantial issues and given impetus to the momentum of peace process notwithstanding change of guard in New Delhi. The Pakistani delegation acknowledged this when they said, "We are on track and we are on schedule.” For the first time both sides showed a desire to go beyond rhetoric and do something substantive and concrete. As nuclear weapons are a fait accompli in south Asia with rollback of the programme not in sight, the region is now developing its policy to reduce risk associated with these deadly weapons. An effort is also being made to see nuclear weapons as a means of creating ‘strategic stability’ rather than as weapons of mass destruction in the event of a war between India and Pakistan over the Kashmir issue. After the embarrassing exposures, which linked the father of Pakistani nuclear bomb to proliferation to countries like Libya, Iran and North Korea, Pakistan is now showing a more responsible behaviour. The agreements reached during the India Pakistan talks on nuclear confidence building are largely symbolic and aimed at reassuring the world that the present peace effort is based on a firmer foundation. But how firm this foundation is would be tested when the issue of Kashmir is taken up for serious discussion. Though a basket approach has been adopted by India, both sides are well aware that everything depends on how progress is made on the all-important Kashmir issue. A progress on Kashmir issue will make progress on difficult nuclear and doctrinal issues far easy to agree upon. But a conflagration on Kashmir will once again throw everything haywire.

The recent statements and measures taken by the leaders of both Pakistan and India are indicative of a desire to usher in an era of peace and amity between the two countries. Since the experience of the last over half a century has seen several ups and down, Pakistanis are keeping their fingers crossed on the question of the future of peace prospects.

Whether the process initiated on January 6, 2004 at Islamabad jointly by both India and Pakistan under the leadership of Mr Vajpayee and Gen Musharraf will continue to progress? Whether sustained dialogue, as visualized by Vajpayee on the issue of Kashmir will be held? Whether the new government would be in a position to take bold decisions side-tracking their stated position? Will they be sincere in the solution of Kashmir or will they allow it to linger on, as has been the case in the past?

Apparently it looks that the dialogue will continue since a suitable climate has been created. The mindset of the establishment as well as the civil society and general public is for peace.

Sonia Gandhi the president of the Congress was for negotiations when she was in opposition and continues to be consistent when she has won the elections. But the difference is of personalities heading the government in India.

Vajpayee, a very senior leader with unquestioned popularity and stature as an Indian nationalist, was in a position to take a bold decision and could traverse unchartered path.

Recently he is on record having said that his lifetime mission is to have good relations with neighbours. Such remarks by the leader of the opposition will provide substantial strength to those in power if they chose to pursue the path of peace and reconciliation.

Has Manmohan Singh a similar lifetime mission? Can he be bold enough to deviate from the beaten tracks? Can he, being from a minority community in India, be able to assert his views on the majority community as forcefully as Vajpayee perhaps was able to do?

The elections in India have demonstrated that the common people there were not disillusioned by the slogan "shining India" but are more concerned about poverty and unemployment. So are the people in Pakistan. Will this mindset make the leaders move in the positive direction of sustainable peace?

Perhaps, yes on almost all bilateral issues. But the stumbling block remains the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. It has been complicated over the past 57 years. It is not easy to resolve.

All political parties in India want a solution of Kashmir within the framework of the Constitution of India. During their rule lasting for almost half a century successive Congress governments did not effectively tackle this problem.

Can we hope that the changed ground realities will make them change their stance? The Communist Party of India, which is supporting the present government, is for solution of Kashmir but within the four corners of the Indian Constitution.

On the other hand Pakistan, in the light of the UN resolutions, dose not recognize the legitimacy of Indian occupation of Kashmir and could not fail to support the wishes of the people of Kashmir, who have sacrificed so much since partition, especially during the last fourteen years, as to whether they wish to accede to India or Pakistan.

Can there be a way forward on Kashmir? Yes, if all the parties to the dispute show flexibility, i.e., Pakistan, India and the people of Kashmir. President Musharraf's four-step mechanism may be considered.

First step is to keep alive sustained dialogue between the leaders of two countries. Step two is the acceptance of Kashmir as the issue that must be resolved. Step three would be to look at all possible solutions to the Kashmir problem and agree on which ones could be mutually discarded as unworkable.

The fourth step would be to go on to further discussion in involving the people of Kashmir from both sides of the Line of Control with a view to arriving at some reasonable solution acceptable to all parties concerned.

The Chinese approach is also being suggested. They are patiently waiting for the resolution of Taiwan at an appropriate time. Their experience is that Taiwan would come to them under one China policy, as has been the case with Hong Kong earlier.

They have adopted a similar attitude about their border dispute with India. But it should be realized that it is the dispute over the demarcation of Himalayan border between New Delhi and Beijing. It should not be equated with the Kashmir dispute where the future of millions of human beings is involved.

It must be realized that the option for use of force by both India and Pakistan has not resolved the issue and it should be discarded permanently. It should also be known that Kashmir couldn't be presented to the other side on a platter. Nor the line of control is acceptable to Pakistan or perhaps to the people of Kashmir.

A sane approach and the only course open is the sustained dialogue between the leaders of the two friendly neighbours, giving due weight to the views of the people of Kashmir.

It seems that the process will persist, since there is the pressure of the people and intelligentsia in both countries as well as of the international community. The Track-2 diplomacy is also active and seems to enjoy the patronage of the respective governments.

It will be worthwhile, in the meantime, to allow the people of both countries to move across the Line of Control as well as the international border so as to develop further understanding and friendship with a view to effectively exercising positive influence on their respective governments.

Accordingly, both governments should, with all sincerity and seriousness, show progress on all bilateral issues raised by either side including the hitherto intractable problem of Kashmir.

Like its predecessor, the new Indian government has expressed its willingness to continue the talks. India's UPA government has recently issued "six basic principles of governance" which it would adhere clearly state: "dialogue with Pakistan on all issues will be pursued systematically and on a sustained basis." About Kashmir the document states:

"The UPA government is pledged to respecting the letter and spirit of Article 370 of the Constitution that accords a special status to J&K. Dialogue with all groups and with different shades of opinion in J&K will be pursued on a sustained basis, in consultation with the democratically-elected state government...." Congress policy as spelt in party manifesto and document on "security, defence and foreign policy, indicates that the Congress agenda" visualizes "a stable, working, cooperative relationship with Pakistan under the framework of Shimla Agreement and subsequent agreements and confidence-building measures initiated by later Congress Governments up to 1996."

At the same time J.N. Dixit, a former Indian foreign secretary and an ambassador to Pakistan, who will exercise great influence on Indian policy making, views its ties with Pakistan differently.

In his recent book "India and Regional Developments - Through the Prism of Indo-Pak Relations" thinks that a solution to the Kashmir problem "could be sought with some adjustment in the delineation of the Line of Control" and "the bottom line is: no territorial alienation of Jammu and Kashmir, which is a part of India, to any country."

At another place he even advocates limited "pre-emptive strikes" against Pakistan. He also mentions that at "some point Musharraf's bluff would have to be called." This thinking read in conjunction with the recent statement of Musharraf that the line of control is not acceptable presents an unpredictable scenario.

While it is obvious that the dialogue will continue, the approach of the two sides is likely to be different. It has been said that whatever progress was made at Lahore, Agra and Islamabad should be set aside and the process should restart from Shimla Agreement of 1972 and other CBMs undertaken by the earlier Congress governments.

Experience tells us that no Congress government has made any progress on Kashmir issue after the signing of the Simla Agreement. If we have to retrace our steps Pakistan may also go back to the UN resolutions of 1949.

Fortunately, the President of India has stated that the new government will honour international agreements of the previous BJP-led government, which also includes Islamabad declaration of January 6.

It should not be lost sight of that the world is fast becoming a 'global village', promoting the emergence of regional blocs for survival in ever increasing competitive world. We have the European Union, Asean, etc. etc. South Asia is a cohesive geographical bloc and requires unity of effort.

The practical approach should be forward looking instead of traversing the beaten path, should display a spirit of flexibility instead of stubbornness, and accommodation instead of rigidity, if problems are to be resolved, the Saarc is to be strengthened and a bright future for one-fifth of humanity is to be ensured.

I have an announcement to begin with. We have now an agreed schedule of meetings between India and Pakistan on the remaining six subjects of the composite dialogue. As you know the meetings on two of the subjects were held in New Delhi a fortnight ago. The first set of dates is:

- July 28th – 29th Wullar Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project, to be held at – Islamabad

- August 3rd – 4th On Promotion of friendly exchanges, to be held at New Delhi

- August 10th – 11th On Terrorism and Drug Trafficking, to be held at Islamabad

- August 11th – 12th On Economic and Commercial Cooperation, to be held at Islamabad. …

Question: Any schedule for the meetings of Foreign Secretaries and Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan?

India's FM arrived in Pakistan on Monday to push forward a fledgling peace process between the South Asian rivals by building trust in the flashpoint region of Kashmir.

Natwar Singh, former ambassador to Pakistan, was in Islamabad for the first time in nearly 16 years to attend a regional economic forum, but attention will focus on his talks with his Pakistani counterpart Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri.

"I have come with a message of goodwill from the government and the people of India," he told reporters on arrival.

"I shall do my best to use this opportunity to contribute further to creating an even better climate for taking forward our composite dialogue process."

Singh is due to meet President, Pervez Musharraf, who along with former Indian Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, is the main architect of a peace process aimed at ending decades of enmity over the disputed region of Kashmir.

Earlier in the day, top diplomats from India and Pakistan discussed proposals on how to take the peace process forward, including a slew of measures relating to Kashmir.

"We looked at proposals on Jammu and Kashmir, how they can be taken forward and implemented," Indian Foreign Secretary, Shashank, told a news conference.

But Indian officials have said that the two sides were looking to launch a bus service that connects Indian and Pakistani Kashmir and boost ties between the divided population. Talks have been delayed by differences over passenger documentation.

"We had good talks. The spirit was good, the discussions were good," Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Riaz Khokhar, said.

Political analysts say they do not expect a major breakthrough this week and view the talks as another opportunity to build trust between the traditional foes.

The two countries came to the brink of war in 2002. But the restoration of transport links and diplomatic missions, along with symbolic steps including an Indian cricket tour of Pakistan and resumption of formal dialogue have raised hopes of a lasting settlement.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir, which both countries claim.

Analysts say the reticence of officials to detail ideas being put forward reflects the sensitivity of the Kashmir dispute and the decades of mistrust that have soured ties since independence.

Pakistan insists Kashmir be the center of negotiations, raising concern among many diplomats that tackling the issue of sovereignty could halt talks before they really begin.

"The solution to Kashmir is very much the process," said a Western diplomat in Islamabad. "This requires a suspension (for now) of the consideration of sovereignty."

The shock victory by Singh's Congress party in Indian elections in May has brought new players to the table, this coupled with a fresh wave of violence in Indian Kashmir, could limit New Delhi's ability to compromise.

Asked if increased violence in Kashmir could hurt the peace process, Khokhar said: "Let's not get into that at this stage."

19 July 2004
<http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi- bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?
service_id=2785>

Prioritising the resolution of the Kashmir issue would indeed be viewed as a welcome development. In fact a vast majority of the Indians and the Pakistanis earnestly desire for the early advent of its resolution. The incumbent cordial atmosphere tends to generate positive vibes on both sides of the border. Therefore it is imperative that the most complex of Indo-Pak disputes be addressed during this phase primarily because both sides appear to be inclined and have repeatedly expressed their commitments to seek out an acceptable solution amicably.

Acknowledging the right direction of the ongoing Indo-Pak peace process the spokesman of Pakistan Foreign Office stressed the need for the constraints of a clearly devised timeframe. He said that Pakistan and India could not go on for ever as the two countries had been discussing the Kashmir dispute for the last over 50 years. Indeed such an emphasis is in order given the checkered history of Indo-Pak dialogues.

Much has been made out of recent remarks by the President of Pakistan General Musharraf who merely stressed the need to resolve the Kashmir dispute within reasonable ‘timeframe’. Given the known fate of past dialogues regarding the ongoing Kashmir dispute, skepticism is bound to overwhelm the eager, desirous people. The cool Indian response that ‘such matter cannot be rushed’ reflects the unwillingness to recognise the urgency of the matter and generates the impression that the Indians have not fully comprehended the likely adverse significance of the undesired delay. Already 57 years have passed without securing any positive and tangible step that could raise hopes that solution is not too far away. To interpret that attempts to make parties realise the urgency of the matter as something that can retard the process is indeed somewhat unrealistic.

Undoubtedly the Kashmir dispute is a complex one which would require inputs from all concerned parties in order to secure an acceptable solution and this may require time. No body is expecting that the solution is round the corner. Everybody recognises that its complex nature would require the best efforts and deep commitments of all the involved parties. But on the other hand the statement in question (‘such matter cannot be rushed’) also tends to generate the impression that no accelerated efforts are required and it should be treated at par with other issues and disputes. This is precisely what is needed to be avoided.

While it seems that the both the international community and the non-Indian South Asians have taken full cognizance of Kashmir dispute’s adverse potentials, the Indians apparently appear to continue to demonstrate their averse attitude towards its resolution and refuse to recognise the realities of the situation. Efforts should be directed to capitalise on every development that can help in securing the much-desired resolution of the dispute. There has never been a time in the history of Kashmir dispute that so many important members of international community are ready to facilitate the Pak-India peace process. The time for point scoring is over and what is now required is concentrated and focus efforts to remove this major impediment on peace path.

Judged by any yardstick, the Kashmir dispute has damaged not just peace of South Asia but has also been viewed as something endangering the global peace and harmony. The phrases like that road to first nuclear exchanges lies through Srinagar clearly reveal the concerns of the international community. Therefore it is imperative to recognise that talks cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely. The employment of phrase like ‘reasonable timeframe’ merely reflects both the recognition of the complex nature of the dispute and urgency attached to its early solution simultaneously.

It is somewhat inevitable that with the passage of time new elements are either deliberately added or they creep into it inadvertently. The result is that you then concentrate on removing the new elements and the original issue is receded into the background. This is precisely what has happened to the Kashmir dispute. Originally it was a simple matter of holding plebiscite in accordance with the UN resolutions. As a matter of fact it should not have even gone to the UN. The two Governor Generals should have resolved it. The Indians should have first approached the Pakistani Governor General before even considering taking the dispute to UN. However, it needs to be stressed here that nations undertake a certain course of action because they deem it as most appropriate in terms of securing their national interest.

While one does not want to go into the details of history, it cannot be denied that sometimes one has to dabble into the historical facts in order to make a convincing point. The second element that effectively delayed the resettlement was the difference in interpretations of demilitarisation of the state as provided in the UN resolutions. From then onwards many elements including crises, border clashes, wars, difference in approaches etc further made the dispute complex and in consequence the resolution was delayed.

Both the Pakistanis and the Indians have made many sincere and meaningful efforts but the dispute so far has successfully managed to skirt all such efforts. Already the issues like Wullar Lake, Siachin and Bghiliar have managed to swell to the extent that separate meetings are going to be held in order to settle them. All of these areas are part of Kashmir territory and no such issue surfaced during the earlier decades of the dispute but with the passage of time each one of them acquired added significance.

Two things need to be fully understood. On one hand it needs to be realised the India has a new government that may well be confronted with problems of stabilising itself and in consequence gain sufficient confidence in order to deal with complex disputes like the ongoing Kashmir dispute. Equally important is the realisation by the Indians to avoid all such acts and statements that can generate the impression of foot-dragging. Already many Pakistanis are beginning to entertain notions that Congress regime may not be as forthcoming as one could expect from BJP. Admittedly the current Congress leadership has expressed their determination to resolve the dispute in no uncertain terms. But how does it remove firmly rooted skepticism in minds of many South Asians including the Kashmiris themselves.

Perhaps the most attractive way out to dispel the increasing impression that nothing is going to come out of Kashmir talks and India will find one excuse after another to postpone its desired resolution other than one on Indian terms is to initiate the Kashmir track with a bang. Bang stresses that the first three rounds of Kashmir talks should clearly follow a spelled out timetable.

In the first meeting both India and Pakistan should focus on an agreed framework and the principles that may be applied. In fact various officials of incumbent Indian government have repeatedly stated that they are willing to discuss the ongoing Kashmir dispute within the framework of Simla initially and later also added the Lahore declaration and the Joint Statement of January 2004. Bilateral dialogue has begun though no meeting on the Kashmir dispute is so far held. The alternative approach is to employ the UN framework. Cognizant of well-known Indian allergy to UN framework, it can be safely assumed that bilateral approach would be employed.

The second bilateral meeting could focus on third step of President Musharraf’s four-point Kashmir formula. In short the third step of this formula is to shed what is unacceptable to the other side. Both sides could only know formally what is unacceptable to the other side once concrete proposals in this regard are tabled. It is obvious that both sides are likely to opt for the maximalist approach. Once both sides familiarise themselves with each other’s tabled proposals, they can then start working on how to secure common grounds on which a solution can be built.

As the situation exists today, it is quite likely that both sides may confront difficulties, which may not prove easy to overcome. In the meantime both the Pakistanis and the Indians should keep a close contact with the Kashmiris. This would enable both the Indians and the Pakistanis to keep themselves abreast with Kashmiris views. Perhaps in the third meeting the representatives of the Kashmiris should be invited to participate in the dialogue on the Kashmir dispute.

Two aspects of the above mentioned roadmap must be kept in mind. First the principles of flexibility and reciprocity should be made the cornerstone of the negotiation process. Second all the three meetings must take place within three month. After each meeting the time and date of the next Kashmir track meeting should be announced. Indeed it would be much appreciated by all the peace lovers if this timeframe is even shortened. In the meantime the media on both sides should play its role in highlighting the significance and need for eventual resolution that may turn out to be less than their expectations.

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, The News, 1 August 2004
<http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2004-daily/01-08-2004/oped/o2.htm>

Scenario One: The Status Quo

Kashmir has been a flashpoint between India and Pakistan for more than 50 years. Currently a boundary - the Line of Control - divides the region in two, with one part administered by India and one by Pakistan. India would like to formalise this status quo and make it the accepted international boundary. But Pakistan and Kashmiri activists reject this plan because they both want greater control over the region.

In 1947-8 India and Pakistan fought their first war over Jammu and Kashmir. Under United Nations' supervision, they agreed to a ceasefire along a line which left one-third of the state - comprising what Pakistan calls Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and the Northern Areas administered by Pakistan and two-thirds, Jammu, Ladakh and the Kashmir Valley, administered by India.

In 1972, under the terms of the Simla agreement, the ceasefire line was renamed the Line of Control.

Although India claims that the entire state is part of India, it has been prepared to accept the Line of Control as the international border, with some possible modifications. Both the US and the UK have also favoured turning the Line of Control into an internationally recognised frontier.

But Pakistan has consistently refused to accept the Line of Control as the border since the predominantly Muslim Kashmir Valley would remain as part of India. Formalising the status quo also does not take account of the aspirations of those Kashmiris who have been fighting since 1989 for independence for the whole or part of the state.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/south_asia/03/kashmir_future/html/default.stm>

Scenario Two: Kashmir Joins Pakistan

Pakistan has consistently favoured this as the best solution to the dispute. In view of the state's majority Muslim population, it believes that it would vote to become part of Pakistan. However a single plebiscite held in a region which comprises peoples that are culturally, religiously and ethnically diverse, would create disaffected minorities. The Hindus of Jammu, and the Buddhists of Ladakh have never shown any desire to join Pakistan and would protest at the outcome.

In 1947 India and Pakistan agreed that the allegiance of the state of Jammu and Kashmir would be decided by a plebiscite. Had the majority voted in favour of Pakistan, the whole state would have become part of Pakistan. This no longer seems to be an option.

A plebiscite offering the choice of union with Pakistan or India also does not take into account the movement for independence which has been supported by political and militant activists since 1989. India has long since rejected the idea of a plebiscite as a means of settling the Kashmir issue.

Instead the government argues that the people have exercised their right of self-determination by participating in elections within the state.

However the demand for a plebiscite to be held, as recommended by the Governor-General of India, Lord Mountbatten in 1947, and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, is still considered by some as a way of letting Kashmiris exercise their right of self-determination.

Scenario Three: Kashmir Joins India

Such a solution would be unlikely to bring stability to the region as the Muslim inhabitants of Pakistani-administered Jammu and Kashmir, including the Northern Areas, have never shown any desire to become part of India.

In 1947, the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir agreed to the state becoming part of India. India and Pakistan then agreed to hold a plebiscite to confirm which country Kashmir's citizens wanted to join. The Indian Government believed that the majority population, under the charismatic leadership of Sheikh Abdullah, would vote to join India, with its secular constitution, rather than Muslim Pakistan.

If the plebiscite had been held and the majority had voted in favour of India, Pakistan would have had to relinquish control of the Northern Areas and the narrow strip of Jammu and Kashmir which it occupied militarily in 1947-8.

India has long since rejected the idea of holding a single plebiscite as a means of determining the fate of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. It believes that the people made their choice by participating in elections within the state.

Without including a third option of independence from both India and Pakistan, the plebiscite also fails to satisfy the demands of those Kashmiris wanting full independence.

Scenario Four: Independent Kashmir

The difficulty of adopting this as a potential solution is that it requires India and Pakistan to give up territory, which they are not willing to do. Any plebiscite or referendum likely to result in a majority vote for independence would therefore probably be opposed by both India and Pakistan. It would also be rejected by the inhabitants of the state who are content with their status as part of the countries to which they already owe allegiance.

An independent Jammu and Kashmir might also set in motion the demand for independence by other states in both India and Pakistan and lead to a "Balkanisation" of the region.

In the 1960s, following discussions between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir, a group of Kashmiris demanded that the entire state should become independent as it was prior to the Maharajah's accession to India in 1947.

The movement for independence of the entire state is mainly supported by Kashmiris who inhabit the more populous Kashmir Valley and who would like both India and Pakistan to vacate the areas they are occupying. They base their claim on the fact that the state was formerly an independent princely state, is geographically larger than at least 68 countries of the United Nations, and more populous than 90.

This movement is not supported by India or Pakistan, both of which would lose territory. And in view of the likely regional instability, an independent Kashmir is not supported by the international community either.

Scenario Five: A Smaller Independent Kashmir

An independent Kashmir could be created from the Kashmir Valley - currently under Indian administration - and the narrow strip of land which Pakistan calls Azad Jammu and Kashmir. This would leave the strategically important regions of the Northern Areas and Ladakh, bordering China, under the control of Pakistan and India respectively. However both India and Pakistan would be unlikely to enter into discussions which would have this scenario as a possible outcome.

If, as the result of a regional plebiscite, which offered the option of independence, the majority of the inhabitants of the Kashmir Valley chose independence and the majority of the inhabitants of Pakistani-administered Jammu and Kashmir, (excluding the Northern Areas) also chose independence, a smaller, independent Kashmir could be created by administratively joining these two areas together.

This would leave the predominantly Muslim Northern Areas as part of Pakistan and Buddhist Ladakh and majority Hindu Jammu as part of India, with the possibility that some Muslim districts of Jammu might also opt to join the independent state.

Although Pakistan has demanded a change in the status of the Kashmir Valley, it depends on water from the Mangla Reservoir in Pakistani-administered Jammu and Kashmir and would be unlikely to permit loss of control of the region.

India is still committed to retaining the Kashmir Valley as part of the Indian Union and has refused to consider holding a plebiscite in any part of the state.

Regardless of the aspirations of the inhabitants, to date neither country has contemplated a situation where the end result would adversely affect their own interests.

Scenario Six: Independent Kashmir Valley

An independent Kashmir Valley has been considered by some as the best solution because it would address the grievances of those who have been fighting against the Indian Government since the insurgency began in 1989. But critics say that, without external assistance, the region would not be economically viable.

The movement for independence in the Kashmir Valley gained momentum in the late 1980s when Kashmiris protested against their continuing allegiance to the Indian Union. In the present day, if a regional plebiscite offered independence as an option, it is possible that the majority of Kashmiris would vote in favour of independence.

With an approximate land mass of 1,800 square miles (80 miles long, 20 to 25 miles wide) it is much larger than Monaco and Liechtenstein – but only one-tenth of the size of Bhutan. Whether or not the rest of the state retained its current political affiliations, many Kashmiris therefore believe that the valley could be viable in its own right.

In terms of livelihood, the valley could sustain itself through tourism, handicrafts and agriculture.

But an independent Kashmir Valley would also need to retain good relations with its neighbours in order to survive economically. Not only is the region landlocked, but it is snowbound during winter.

An independent Kashmir Valley would have the advantage of giving neither Pakistan nor India a victory out of their longstanding dispute. But although Pakistan might favour the creation of an independent Kashmir Valley, India would be unlikely to agree to the loss of territory involved.

Autonomy of the same region under the Indian Union is also an option; Pakistan is more likely to request a 'joint protectorate' in order to share in safeguarding the Kashmir valley's political integrity and economic development.

Joint Press Statement on India - Pakistan discussions
on Promotion of Friendly Exchanges in Various Fields

Talks between India and Pakistan on “Promotion of Friendly Exchanges in Various Fields” were held in New Delhi on August 3-4, 2004 within the framework of the Composite Dialogue. The Indian delegation was led by Mrs. Neena Ranjan, Secretary (Culture) and the Pakistan delegation was led by Mr. Jalil Abbas, Secretary, Minorities, Tourism, Culture and Youth Affairs.

2. The Pakistan delegation called on Shri Jaipal Reddy, Hon’ble Minister for Culture and Information & Broadcasting. A meeting was also held with Smt. Meenaxi Anand Chaudhry, Secretary (Youth Affairs & Sports).
3. The discussions were held in a very cordial and constructive atmosphere. Both sides made wide ranging proposals for promoting friendly exchanges and cooperation in the fields of art, culture, archaeology, education, science and technology, youth affairs and sports, media and tourism. Implementation of the programmes would be undertaken through mutual coordination.

4. Views were also exchanged on liberalizing the visa regime and expanding the scope of the 1974 bilateral Protocol on Visits to Religious Shrines by increasing the number of pilgrims and shrines on both sides. Both sides agreed to address the humanitarian issues concerning civilian prisoners and fishermen in each other’s custody.

The two day Defence Secretary – level talks between India and Pakistan on Siachen, in the framework of the Composite Dialogue, were held in New Delhi on 5-6 August 2004. The Indian delegation was led by Defence Secretary, Shri Ajai Vikram Singh. The Pakistan delegation was led by Defence Secretary Lt.Gen. (Retd.) Hamid Nawaz Khan.

2.          The Defence Secretary of Pakistan called on Raksha Mantri, Shri Pranab Mukherjee, and National Security Advisor, Shri J.N. Dixit.
3.          Frank and candid discussions were held in a cordial and constructive atmosphere aimed at taking the process forward. Both sides assessed positively the ceasefire that has been in effect since 25 November 2003.
4.          The military experts of the two sides also met to discuss modalities for disengagement and redeployment of troops, and agreed to have further discussions.

5. The two Defence Secretaries agreed to continue their discussions with a view to resolving the Siachen issue in a peaceful manner.

Within the framework of the Composite Dialogue process between Pakistan and India, resumed pursuant to the January 6 Joint Press Statement, talks on Terrorism and Drug Trafficking were held in Islamabad on August 10-11, 2004. The Pakistani delegation was led by Mr. Tariq Mahmud, Secretary, Ministry of Interior while the Indian delegation was led by Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Home Secretary.

Frank and candid discussions were held in a constructive and cordial atmosphere aimed at taking the process forward. Both sides reaffirmed their determination to combat terrorism and emphasized the need for complete elimination of this menace.

They assessed as positive the increasing cooperation and information sharing between Narcotics Control Authorities of the two countries and agreed to work towards an MOU to institutionalize cooperation in this area, and to designate nodal officials in their respective High Commissions to liaise on drug control issues.

The Indian Home Secretary called on the Minister of Interior, Makdoom Syed Faisal Saleh Hayat.

Joint Press Statement on India-Pakistan Talks on
Economic and Commercial Cooperation

As part of the Composite Dialogue process between Pakistan and India, discussions were held on Economic and Commercial Cooperation in Islamabad on 11-12 August 2004. The Pakistani delegation was led by Commerce Secretary, Mr. Tasneem Noorani while the Indian delegation at these discussions was led by Commerce Secretary, Mr. Dipak Chatterji.
2. Mr. Chatterji called on Commerce Minister, Mr. Humayun Akhter Khan.

4. Wide ranging proposals were made on various aspects of Economic and Commercial Cooperation. These would be considered further.

India has expressed satisfaction at the progress of the composite dialogue launched about two months ago, and aimed at bringing to an end the decades-old tensions in the subcontinent.

In an address to the nation on August 14, the eve of his country's independence anniversary, Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh said that the talks so far "augur well" and called for further deepening of the dialogue.

Pakistan, in somewhat less effusive language, has also acknowledged that the ground covered so far in the bilateral talks indicates that the two sides have been able to pave the way for "further movement" towards the goal of peace and security.

Apparently, there is a reason to believe - as a report in this paper said the other day - that the leadership in India and Pakistan has "courageously decided" to confront the challenge: "The brave act of the leaders has created change in the prolonged tense atmosphere."

Several unanticipated aspects of India-Pakistan relations surfaced during the talks but that only encouraged the interlocutors of the two countries to enlarge the scope of the talks.

However, it would be unrealistic to suggest that the talks were pursued without any element of contention. Since a significant section of policymakers in India continue to maintain that the whole Kashmir state as it was constituted at the time of independence should form part of India, there appears to be no consensus there on the future of Kashmir.

There are also elements in Pakistan who strongly believe that Kashmir is not negotiable at all as the principle on which the subcontinent was partitioned meant the state with its 95 per cent Muslim population and no road link with India should form part of Pakistan.

It is reassuring that Pakistan's prime minister-designate, Shaukat Aziz, has endorsed the way out of the imbroglio as suggested by President Pervez Musharraf - a solution based on the wishes of the Kashmiri people.

It is unfortunate that bureaucracy sometimes creates insurmountable hurdles in the way of a congenial basis to resolve festering issues such as the future of Kashmir. The apparent denial of a visa to a Srinagar-born Kashmiri girl living in Pakistan to visit her ailing parents in her ancestral home in Srinagar is a most regrettable human tragedy.

The authorities in both parts of the troubled state should take a humane view of the difficult situation in which the Kashmiris sometimes find themselves, specially when they need to travel from one part of the state to the other.

Travel between the two parts of Kashmir is on the agenda of the composite talks, but for the present, both governments could perhaps develop an interim basis for the grant of visas specially to people placed in circumstances and deserving compassionate treatment.

In a press statement the amir, Jamaat-i-Islami, of Azad Kashmir has taken a position on several issues that can only create difficulties in the way of arriving at a settlement.

He has expressed the view that the "core" issue has been intentionally sidelined in the composite dialogue whereas the agenda for the dialogue specifically provides for a resolution of the problem.

Moreover, Kashmir is scheduled to be taken up at a higher level, possibly at the level of General Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when they meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

The prime minister-designate Shaukat Aziz has also made it clear that Pakistan would continue to support a solution of the problem on the basis of the wishes of the Kashmiri people. While talking to Lord Nazir, member of Britain's House of Lords, he pointed out that he had a personal association with Kashmir as his mother belonged to the state.

It is reasonable to presume that the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, had among other issues the Kashmir dispute in his mind when he declared, in his Indian Independence Day address from the ramparts of Delhi's Red Fort, that India had always favoured the process of a "purposive dialogue" with Pakistan to resolve all outstanding issues. He also said specifically that "the assurance of peace and prosperity in our neighbourhood is an important priority for us."

The continuing tensions between the Kashmiri leaders (in occupied Kashmir) and New Delhi are potentially a major hurdle in the way of India and Pakistan jointly attempting to resolve the Kashmir dispute.

As evident from the statement of the Kashmiri leader, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, it is the lack of trust. Mr Geelani has gone on to make the prophecy that when the composite dialogue reaches the stage of Jammu and Kashmir, India would "show its thumb to Pakistan".

In the course of the composite dialogue so far, although not yet in the context of Kashmir specifically, Pakistan has had no such experience. Mr Geelani also believes that India will go no farther than a "solution around the Line of Control (LoC)".

Pakistan has every hope that in accordance with the spirit in which the dialogue has been conducted so far, India will negotiate with Pakistan with an open mind. If the objective is to work towards the goal of a durable peace, Kashmir will have to be resolved on a sustainable basis.

Anything short of that would not ensure lasting peace. Both India and Pakistan will be required to shift substantially from their respective committed positions. Pakistan has given a clear enough indication that it is ready to do that. For the sake of the success of the composite dialogue, New Delhi can be expected to do the same.

Even at the risk of repetition, it may be recalled that the day India sent its forces into Kashmir (October 26-27, 1947) Pandit Nehru made the solemn declaration: "Our view which we have repeatedly made public is that the question of accession in any disputed territory or state must be decided in accordance with the wishes of the people and we adhere to this view..."

Less than a month later, he said for the umpteenth time in a letter addressed to Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan: "Regarding Kashmir, the question of accession should be decided by plebiscite or referendum under international auspices such as those of the United Nations..."

After a period of brief reprieve, the Indian government has reverted to its old mantra of accusing and lambasting Pakistan for so-called cross-border interference in Indian held Kashmir. A foreign office spokesman, while denouncing these charges that Pakistan was carrying out cross-border interference in occupied Kashmir, has said that the Indian allegations were not at all in conformity with the positive approach under which the process of composite Pak-Indian dialogue is being carried out. ISPR Chief Major General Shaukat Sultan has categorically declared that there is no cross-border interference and that the irresponsible statements issued by New Delhi were utterly regrettable.

Ever since the Congress came to power in India, there has been a rise in accusations by some of its high profile members against Pakistan of carrying out cross-border interference in held Kashmir. It seems that despite the criticism of the BJP government by Congress leaders that it had failed to foster cordial relations with Pakistan, the Congress government and its high ups themselves have failed to make any headway in bettering relation with Pakistan — even to the level achieved by the Vajpayee government.

This is evident in the uncompromising attitude adopted by New Delhi during the secretary level talks over the Sir Creek and Kashmir disputes that led to the failure of these talks. This shows that despite Indian claims of settling all contentious issues between India and Pakistan through peaceful means, it would be nothing but sheer over-optimism to expect a more meaningful response from India on this front.

What is extremely baffling is the fact that only a few months back not only leaders of the Indian government but military officials were openly admitting that no cross-border interference was talking place. This latest total change of tone by the Indians should be viewed with caution by Islamabad. The situation demands that the people and government of Pakistan should be extremely alert on all fronts. There is a possibility that the Indian government in order to camouflage the barbaric tactics employed by its security forces to repress the Kashmiri people, might use the cross-border accusations against Pakistan to plan an offensive against it.

Editorial, The News, 21 August 2004
<http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2004-daily/21-08-2004/oped/editorial.htm>

ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on Monday said Pakistan attached great importance to the ongoing composite dialogue process with India and was committed to making the process more substantive and purposeful.

He was responding to a message of felicitations by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh over Shaukat’s assuming the office of prime minister. Shaukat said he was looking forward to working with his Indian counterpart closely to build friendly and cooperative relations between the two countries.

Premier Shaukat, in his message, said: "Excellency, I wish to thank you for your letter of felicitations on my assuming the office of prime minister of Pakistan. I reciprocate your kind sentiments and look forward to working with you closely to build friendly and cooperative relations between our two countries. In this context, we attach great importance to the ongoing composite dialogue process for the resolution of all outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir. We are sincerely committed to making this process more substantive and purposeful. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration”.

WASHINGTON: The Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a major US think tank, has said that while India and Pakistan have retreated from the brink of war, “the two countries need stronger political will to make a confidence-building system work.”

‘South Asia Monitor,’ a monthly newsletter published by the Centre, says in its August issue that the hotline established by the two neighbours was an “ambitious attempt to ensure weekly communication between proud military and bureaucratic cultures that were traditionally reluctant to make the first move toward conciliation.” And although they did increase communications and help avoid some misunderstandings, these positive effects were only temporary as the lines fell into disuse in times of deteriorating bilateral relations. The absence of communication became a cause for suspicion. If communication did occur, both countries often accused each other of spreading misinformation through the link. This lose-lose situation was exacerbated by the measure’s neglect of crisis and post-crisis communications—no stipulation was made requiring communication during disputes.

Similarly, the Prohibition of Attack against Nuclear Installations and Facilities agreement, while constructive in theory, failed to build confidence because of an existing mistrust. Immediately after the two sides exchanged lists of nuclear facilities etc., suspicion grew over whether the lists were complete. Neither India nor Pakistan had the means to ascertain the accuracy of the lists. Each accused the other of concealing certain nuclear facilities. The absence of verifiability might have been overlooked if the two countries already had a record of trust-building measures, but without such a record, India and Pakistan remained mired in mistrust.

The CSIS report points out that the Lahore Summit in February 1999 was the “high point of bilateral relations” in recent years, and also the high point of recent efforts to institutionalise bilateral risk reduction measures. “Unfortunately, the Pakistani decision to send troops into Indian-held Kashmir at Kargil a few months later, and the fighting that followed, undid whatever confidence-building potential the Lahore document held.”

Today, notes the Centre, both nations continue to flirt with the idea of a “limited war” without having defined the parameters of an unlimited, or nuclear, conflict. This conceptual haziness has enabled both sides to indulge in increasingly risky behavior, causing flare-ups of tension. It is precisely these minor incidents that put the region in chronic crisis and pose the greatest risk of war. The easing of the current crisis provides an opportunity for India and Pakistan to examine whether and how Confidence-building Measures (CBMs) can help stabilise their relations. They could start with a revival of some of the most important existing CBMs, and if this is successful, move on to a more extensive and ambitious set of measures.

CSIS thinks that the first step would be to restart Indo-Pakistani communication with the revival of the hotlines between military officials a key part of this process. Once the hotline issue is settled and implementation has begun, India and Pakistan could begin to implement other existing CBMs, such as the agreements on notification of military exercises and on avoiding airspace violations. These early steps do not require capital or technology but rather demand renewed political will.

Next, the two countries should work on improving those CBMs to more effectively address problems of troop mobilisation, military exercises, and aerial operations. A specific concern should be movement of unauthorised personnel and unauthorised flights—manned and unmanned—over borders, contentious issues that have disrupted prior periods of calm. CSIS maintains that India and Pakistan can start thinking about new CBMs, particularly a cooperative aerial monitoring effort, which might, if both countries wished, be buttressed by technological support from third parties. An agreement when signed could monitor the Line of Control and general military movements along the border. Alternately, if the two countries agree to third-party assistance in monitoring. There could also be agreement on ground-based sensors.

The CSIS report maintains that India and Pakistan have a poor record of actual implementation of the agreements they have reached. Every CBM between the two states has lacked a stipulation for dispute resolution. When implementing new CBMs, India and Pakistan could consider incorporating dispute-resolution mechanisms that establish a specific physical location—one in each country—for future meetings and discussions of CBM violations, and a communications link to supplement the hotline.

The Centre believes that recent events in South Asia suggest that the United States needs to move beyond its traditional policy of short-run crisis management to a long-term relationship of cooperation and engagement with India and Pakistan. The United States has a chance to play an important role and build a lasting relationship with both countries, thereby keeping tensions low and gaining strategic advantages in the region, including in the War on Terror. Instead of directly engaging in monitoring or mediating, the United States could provide technological support as necessary, offering advice on maintaining CBMs and overseeing the long-term reduction of militancy and the advancement of economic development.

The report was written by Teresita C Schaffer, the head of the CSIS South Asia Programme and Swati Pandey, an assistant.

Khalid Hasan, Daily Times, 31 August 2004
<http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_3-8-2002_pg1_5>

Joint Press Statement on the Meeting between Foreign
Secretaries of India and Pakistan

The Foreign Secretaries of India and Pakistan, H.E. Mr. Shyam Saran and H.E. Mr. Riaz H. Khokhar, met on September 4, 2004 in New Delhi to review the progress in the Composite Dialogue.

They assessed positively the discussions held on the eight subjects in the Composite Dialogue i.e. Peace and Security including CBMs, Jammu and Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek, Wullar Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project, Terrorism and Drug Trafficking, Economic and Commercial Cooperation and Promotion of Friendly Exchanges in Various Fields. The Foreign Secretaries agreed that the discussions had been productive and had taken place in a cordial and constructive atmosphere. Several useful ideas and suggestions were made by both sides.

In their meeting today, the Foreign Secretaries discussed the ways of taking the process forward. They would be reporting to the Foreign Ministers with the recommendation that the Composite Dialogue should be continued with a view to further deepening and broadening the engagement between the two sides.

NEW DELHI (India): Following is the text of the Joint Statement issued Wednesday at the conclusion of two-day talks held at Foreign Ministers level between India and Pakistan on September 5 and 6, 2004 here.

The External Affairs Minister of India Shri K.Natwar Singh and Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Khurshid M Kasuri, met in New Delhi on September 5 and 6, to review status of the Composite Dialogue. Their meeting was preceded by a meeting between the Foreign Secretary of India Shri Shyam Saran and Foreign Secretary of Pakistan Riaz H. Khokhar on September 4. The talks were held in a cordial and constructive atmosphere.

They reiterated their commitment to the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, and their determination to implement the Simla Agreement in letter and spirit.

The Foreign Ministers expressed satisfaction at the progress made so far, and positively assessed the development in bilateral relations over the past year.

Recalling the reassurance contained in the Joint Press Statement of January 6, 2004, they exchanged views on carrying the process forward in an atmosphere free from terrorism and violence.

The Ministers held detailed and substantive discussions and reiterated the confidence that the Composite Dialogue will lead to peaceful settlement of all bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, to the satisfaction of both sides. They agreed to continue with the serious and sustained dialogue to find a peaceful negotiated final settlement. They expressed their determination to take the process forward.

The wide ranging proposals on confidence building, promotion of friendly exchanges and enhancing trade and economic cooperation, made by both the sides were examined and it was agreed that these would be discussed further.

a. Expert level meetings on conventional and Nuclear CBMs, inter alia, to discuss the draft agreement on advance notification of missile tests;

c. Biannual meeting between Indian Border Security Force (BSF) and Pakistan Rangers in October 2004.

d. Meeting between Narcotics Control Authorities, including for finalization of an MOU in October/November 2004.

e. Meeting between the India Coast Guards and the Pakistani Maritime Security Agency in November 2004 to, inter alia, discuss the Memorandum of Understanding for establishing communication link between them.

g. On Siachen, the outcome of the August 2004 meeting of Defence Secretaries would be implemented.

h. Joint Survey of the boundary pillars in the horizontal segment (blue dotted line) of the International Boundary in the Sir Creek area.

i. Meeting on all issues related to commencement of a bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad.

j. Add a new category of Tourism Visa in the visa regime between the two countries, and promote group tourism.

k. Set up a mechanism to deal with the issue of civilian prisoners and fishermen, effectively and speedily.

l. Further measures for facilitation of visits to religious shrines and upkeep of historical sites.

m. Enhanced interaction and exchanges among the respective Foreign Offices, including study tours of young diplomats /probationers to each other's country.

They recognized the importance of availability and access to energy resources in the region around South Asia. The Ministers of Petroleum/Gas could meet to discuss the issue in its multifarious dimensions.

The Foreign Minister of Pakistan met the National Security Advisor, J N Dixit, and also called on Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, during his stay in India.

The two sides agreed to the continuation of high level meetings and visits, including:

a. A meeting between President Musharraf and Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh in New York on the margins of UNGA later this month.

c. Meeting between Prime Minister of India and Prime Minister
Shaukat Aziz in Dhaka, in January next, on the margins of Saarc Summit.

It was also agreed that the two Foreign Secretaries would meet in December this year to discuss overall progress, as well as subjects of Peace and Security including CBMs, and Jammu and Kashmir, in the Composite Dialogue. They would also work out the schedule of meetings on the other six subjects i.e Siachen, Wullar Barrage/Tulbul Navigation Project, Sir Creek, Terrorism and Drug Trafficking, Economic and Commercial Cooperation and Promotion of Friendly Exchanges in various fields under the Composite Dialogue.

The Foreign Minister of Pakistan invited India's the External Affairs Minister to visit Pakistan. The invitation was accepted and the dates would be worked through diplomatic channels”.

Pakistan Times, 5-6 September 2004
<http://www.pakistantimes.net/2004/09/09/top11.htm>

Joint Press Conference by External Affairs Minister of India, Mr. K.Natwar Singh, and the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Khurshid Mohammed Kasuri at 1300 hours in Hyderabad House, New Delhi

[Indian] Official Spokesperson: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to this Joint Press Interaction with the Excellencies, Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan. May I first request the External Affairs Minister of India, Shri Natwar Singh, to kindly make his opening remarks.

External Affairs Minister Of India (Shri K. Natwar Singh): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

The Foreign Minister of Pakistan and I met yesterday and this morning to review the overall progress in bilateral relations and the status of the Composite Dialogue. Our meeting was preceded by a meeting between the two Foreign Secretaries on September 4, 2004. While we both are sincerely committed to carry forward the Composite Dialogue, we should not lose sight of the wise dictum ‘diplomacy provides hope, not salvation’. Even modest progress is worthy of respect. We have made progress in the past two days. My friend, Foreign Minister Kasuri, and I have established rapport and mutual trust.

India is committed to deepen and widen its engagement with Pakistan in order to resolve all issues and to build a durable structure of peace and stability in South Asia free from an atmosphere of terrorism and violence. In his press conference the other day the Prime Minister referred to this matter and I shall do so here too. I would like to recall the Joint Press Statement on January 6 this year, and the reassurance by President Musharraf that he would not permit any territory under Pakistan’s control to be used to support terrorism in any manner. Cross-border infiltration remains a serious concern and I have reiterated our concerns to Mr. Kasuri.

Significantly, the ceasefire has held since November 25, 2003, and both sides are committed to continuing it. The first round of the Composite Dialogue has been concluded successfully. The schedule of meetings agreed to in February 2004 was maintained and the outcome of the dialogue process is positive. We have arrived at several agreements that would take the process forward. For example, technical-level meeting would be held in October-November on the Munabao-Khokhrapar railway link. The Indian Coast Guards and the Pakistan Maritime Security Agency will hold talks to discuss a memorandum of understanding for establishing communication links between them. A biannual meeting between the Indian Border Security Force and Pakistan Rangers is also scheduled in October. There would be meetings to discuss conventional and nuclear CBMs. Joint Survey of the boundary pillars in the horizontal segment of the International Boundary in the Sir Creek area. A special day-bus service on special occasions between Amritsar and religious places in Lahore such as Nankana Saheb. Enhanced interaction and exchanges between the two foreign offices including study groups of young diplomats to each other’s country.

The Foreign Minister of Pakistan has invited me to visit Pakistan and I have accepted his invitation to visit Pakistan.
Thank you.

[Indian] Official Spokesperson: May I now request His Excellency, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan to kindly make his opening statement.
Foreign Minister Of Pakistan (Mr. Khurshid Mohammed Kasuri): Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to express my thanks and gratitude for the hospitality shown to me and to my Delegation by the Government of India and by the Foreign Minister of India himself personally.

As he told you, we have reviewed progress in all the eight agenda items which were listed under the Composite Dialogue. Of course, he mentioned his concerns and I had to mention mine. I spoke of the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir. I suggested to him, as I would like to suggest to the entire international community, that regardless of the words that we use and the gloss that we put, we are all aware of what has been the cause of perpetual tension between our two countries and what has caused three wars between us and a near-war in 2002. That was the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. So, I emphasized to His Excellency the Foreign Minister the centrality of the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. I told him that we were not unifocal that it is not that Pakistan is only interested in just discussing Jammu and Kashmir. No. We know that we live in an age when - we call this a post-industrial, post-modern age – there are areas where we can cooperate. There are areas where other countries in the world are cooperating and they are doing so more successfully when the efforts are joint. I am sure there are areas where Pakistan and India can cooperate. The fruits of cooperation will be greater, if we were to go along the lines that we agreed upon and that is that whereas there are differences between Pakistan and India, we should be mature enough to recognize those because that is the only guarantee that we will be able to solve those problems. …(Inaudible)… the very concept of the Composite Dialogue envisages that there should be progress on all items. Hopefully there will be progress on all the eight items mentioned under the Composite Dialogue.

I am glad to note, as the External Affairs Minister has pointed out here, he has read you a long list of agreements between the two Foreign Ministers and I do not have to repeat those. A greater list will be published when on the 8th of this month, a Joint Statement will be issued by the two Foreign Ministers. I do not think I need to repeat some of those items. Suffice it to say that among the major issues we have agreed that on nuclear and conventional CBMs we need to have meetings where experts and groups can meet together, discuss each other’s suggestions. As you know, the Government of India had made certain suggestions on conventional CBMs: we have made ours. We thought the most mature way of handling that would be to have expert group meetings who would be studying the proposals submitted by both the Governments. I think that is a way forward and I also think we can regard that as one of the successes of the meeting between His Excellency Mr. Natwar Singh, the Foreign Minister of India and myself.

External Affairs Minister Of India: I just wanted to mention one thing. In our discussion we recognized the importance of availability and access to energy resources in the region around South Asia. We have agreed that the Ministers of Petroleum and Natural Gas could meet to discuss the issue in its multifarious dimensions.

[Indian] Official Spokesperson: Please introduce yourselves and indicate to whom the question is addressed.

Obviously, there are differences in perception on issues like cross-border terrorism and Kashmir. You all have been pointing out that progress has been made on some issues. However, I would like to take you back to the June agreement between the Foreign Secretaries on the issues of the Karachi and Mumbai Consulates. How come, despite the announcement that was made two months ago, absolutely no progress had been made till now? And, is it time that even when India and Pakistan have agreed on something in advance, it is time to set up a Joint Implementation Group to actually implement the decisions that have already been taken?

Foreign Minister Of Pakistan: When His Excellency the Foreign Minister visited Islamabad, we had agreed, this is absolutely correct, to have Consulates in Karachi and Bombay. And yes, we support that. There is no flagging in our intention or desire. The thing is, it is not hidden, that we had asked for Jinnah House. There was some problem as far as the Government of India was concerned and they offered alternate properties which would be suitable for our purposes. Once that property, or those properties are shown to our High Commission here, I am sure an appropriate decision will be taken. That property has not so far been shown.

External Affairs Minister Of India: I have spoken to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. We have requested our friends from Pakistan to visit Mumbai and to have a look at various properties because we would like to start this process of reopening our Consulate General in Karachi and Mumbai as early as possible so that it will be more convenient for the citizens of both countries to be able to get their visas either in Mumbai instead of coming to Delhi, or in Karachi instead of going to Islamabad. So both sides are committed to it and the officials are already working.

[Indian] Official Spokesperson: Since there is no question from the Pakistani side, we will take visual media.

Question (Mr. Mrutyunjay Kumar Jha, Aaj Tak Tv): My question is addressed to both the Foreign Ministers.

Now, when you are saying that the differences on Kashmir issue remain, will the second round of Composite Dialogue begin? If so, when will it start what will be its structure?
External Affairs Minister Of India: Foreign Secretaries of both the countries will meet again in the month of December. Before that, the Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singhji and the President of Pakistan, General Musharaf Sahab, will meet in New York and there will be discussion on all issues. There is difference of opinion on some issues because they are critical issues and old issues. But, this Composite Dialogue and the progress made on these many issues will continue.

Foreign Minister Of Pakistan: I would like to add that I regard certain issues, for example you have mentioned the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir, well, yes, these are complex problems. But they are not intractable. I do not believe that they are intractable. Given the political will they can be resolved and they should be resolved. And that is our major guarantee for durable peace in South Asia.

Question (App): There seems to be a restoration of the position which existed before December 2001 so far as this entire process. So, what are, Mr. Natwar Singh, your expectations about the concrete outcome of this process particularly on the resolution of eight issues with focus on Kashmir dispute?
External Affairs Minister Of India: As has been said by Pakistan too, we have to make progress on all areas – economic, political, communication, nuclear, visas, student exchanges, reopening of our houses in Karachi and in Bombay, also the pipeline, also the bus service from Srinagar to Muzaffarabad. On all these areas we have made progress. We realize the fact that there is the Jammu and Kashmir issue and within the framework of the Shimla Agreement, paragraph 6, which says that the Jammu Kashmir question will be discussed and settled peacefully to the satisfaction of both sides; the Lahore talks; the Composite Dialogue decision taken on the 6th of January 2004, so in many many areas progress has been made. We want to emphasise that in Jammu and Kashmir we have had elections and there is an elected Government in Jammu and Kashmir. There is a Chief Minister there and there are Members of Parliament elected, Members of Assembly elected. Nevertheless, we are discussing Jammu and Kashmir issue frankly and in candour. We are expecting each other’s views on this. This will not hold up progress in all other areas as the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, my friend, His Excellency Kasuri Sahab has said so, that this process will continue. As I told you, the Foreign Secretaries are meeting, Heads of Government are meeting and I am also hoping to visit to Pakistan and carry on this dialogue.

Foreign Minister Of Pakistan: I would like to add something to that because it is a very key question that you have asked. I agree with what His Excellency the Foreign Minister has said. We are not imposing preconditions. But it is a matter of pure common sense, it is a mater of historical experience that if we want to push, or if we wish to put, our relations on an even keel, we will have to tackle with the issue of Jammu and Kashmir because, you know, sky is the limit once these two countries start cooperating. In the past we have seen that there have been areas where we have reached pretty good level of relationship. And then, we have seen things when they have deteriorated to the extent of wars. So, it is a matter of common sense, pure logic, that in order to ensure that there will be durable peace in South Asia, this issue would also be resolved hopefully sooner rather than later.

[Indian] Official Spokesperson: That is all we have time for today. I thank the two Foreign Ministers. Thank you, Sir.

Hopes are riding high on the first formal round of talks in over three decades between the foreign ministers of Pakistan and India in New Delhi. The talks are due to conclude today, and there will probably be some kind of a joint statement.

Many confidence-building measures are on the table, but there are also more contentious issues that are likely to take time to be sorted out. The Gordian knot of Kashmir will prove even more difficult to approach when and if the two sides finally decide to tackle the task in earnest.

Future progress depends on whether or not the two countries have made up their minds to live in peace and as states with normal relations. If this basic requirement is fudged, what we are likely to see is halting progress on the peripherial matters and the usual exchange of cutting remarks from the foreign offices in Islamabad and New Delhi.

The former is not unimportant and carries with it the promise of creating a generally more condusive atmosphere. But the latter course will make sure that the people of both India and Pakistan are denied the opportunity to work together to change the face of this wretchedly poor, underdeveloped and overpopulated region of the world.

A fundamental change in thinking is required on both sides. It was the accepted gospel 30, 40 years ago that once the older generation, with its experiences of partition and separation, faded out, the new generations would find it easier to make up.

This has not happened because we have made sure in the interim to indoctrinate the minds of younger people with mutual hate, distrust and ignorance of one another. In fact, one may perhaps find a greater residue of sentimentality over vanished ties now among the older people.

A determined effort has to be made to adopt a more accommodative and understanding attitude. We have to realize each other's difficulties in trying to break away from the shackles of the past and, by our words and actions, help each other to do so.

For instance, if Pakistan has a problem in trying to prepare itself for a compromise on Kashmir, India should be willing to see the problem and consider how Pakistani leaders can be helped.

What has actually happened is that most of what India has said and done over the past five decades has undercut the peace lobby in Pakistan and both further strengthened the entrenched hawks in the establishment and negatively influenced the public mind.

Similarly, Ziaul Haq's crusade to lend a religious justification to Pakistan's role in Afghanistan could only have confirmed the image of the country among the Indians as an interventionist power in the region. This is besides the war hysteria generated on both sides of the border by the 1965 and 1971 conflicts and recently by Kargil.

At some point we have to realize that both of us are strong, independent nations capable of looking after our interests without necessarily being at loggerheads. India needs vision, to see that it has to make concessions to accommodate Pakistani concerns.

Even token gestures like a scaling down of its military presence in Kashmir and respecting the human rights and civil liberties of the people of Kashmir will help. Pakistan needs to be confident of its own identity and realize that it no longer requires an external threat to justify its existence.

We don't have to be in a state of perpetual conflict at home and abroad to establish that we are somehow more righteous than other people. It is a whole change in outlook that has to be encouraged in both countries to give substance to what Mr Khurshid Kasuri and Mr Natwar Singh are discussing.

ISLAMABAD: A joint declaration of the foreign ministry level talks between Pakistan and India has been issued from Islamabad and New Delhi today.

The declaration states that a ‘composite dialogue’ will pave the way for the resolution of all bilateral issues especially for the peaceful solution of the Kashmir issue.

Both countries have agreed for the serious continuation of the talks. In the joint declaration both countries have vowed to adhere to the UN charter and the Simla agreement.

The News, 8 September 2004
<http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2004-daily/08-09-2004/main/update.shtml#20>

NEWDEHLI: Foreign minister Khurshid Kasuri has said that Kashmir is a vital issue for Pakistan and it cannot be ignored.

While giving an interview to an Indian TV channel on Wednesday he said that the wars which were fought between Pakistan and India gives us the lesson that neither the Kashmir issue can be left one-sided nor can it be ignored. In response to a question he said that a breakthrough on the diplomatic level couldn’t be achieved, it has to take place on the political level.

“The Kashmir issue demands political will, fortunately Pakistan holds the determination and the political will to resolve the issue. Pakistan and India both understand each others problems. Both countries also know that there are people on both sides who want that the dialogue process should continue.” He said.

In response to a question he said that it is not possible that the Kashmir issue will be resolved in one or two meetings. To another question he said that all eight issues in the composite dialogue process are vital for long lasting peace in South Asia.

The News, 8 September 2004
<http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/sep2004-daily/08-09-2004/main/update.shtml#27>

Fresh Initiatives on Many Fronts: Determination in Joint
Communique to Settle Kashmir Issue [Extract]

NEW DELHI, Sept 8: Pakistan and India announced their determination on Wednesday to resolve the Kashmir issue according to the letter and spirit of the Shimla Agreement, and invoked the purposes and principles of the UN Charter to settle all bilateral matters, some of them new and promising, others old and complex.

A joint statement issued shortly before Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri flew home, also recalled Pakistan's commitment of Jan 6, to thwart cross-border terrorism. While both sides held their ground, an important achievement appeared to be the body language and chemistry between Mr Kasuri and Indian Foreign Minister Kunwar Natwar Singh, which essentially helped shepherd their two days of first formal talks to a positive pitch, with both sides agreeing to work relentlessly to become good friends, nothing less.

Leaving the Kashmir issue aside, the statement indicated a fresh political initiative on several fronts. The Siachen dispute has been given the nod for resolution, leaving it to the defence secretaries to recommend its disposal instead of letting them spar when they meet again possibly in December.

A new category of visas has been agreed for tourists, provided they travel in groups. A biannual meeting of the Pakistan Rangers and India's Border Security Forces (BSF) will be reinstitutionalized so that innocent farmers, children and stray cattle who lose their way on the deceptive borders, are not subjected to the avoidable rigours of police stations.

There will be a closer watch on smugglers and drug traffickers who violate the borders, with real time devices to report transgressions. This implies a joint action to end the transit trade of drugs in India and Pakistan through each other's territory.

Possibly, the most important outcome for Pakistan from the talks was the agreement between the foreign ministers to accept expert-level dialogues on CBMs related to conventional military arsenal, seen as a break through which will have a salutary effect on their bloated defence budgets. Nuclear CBMs are being further fine-tuned.

Political meetings will continue with Indian and Pakistani leaders meeting in New York later this month. Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz will pay his first visit to New Delhi, possibly in October, and then meet the Indian prime minister again on the margins of the Dhaka Saarc summit, scheduled to be held in January.

The foreign secretaries will review the progress in the composite dialogue in December, followed by a meeting of the foreign ministers in Islamabad soon afterwards. …

The India-Pakistan joint statement issued at the conclusion of their foreign ministers' meeting in New Delhi is reassuring. True there has been no breakthrough on any issue.

But one was not expected either. On the other hand, the statement confirms that the composite dialogue is being sustained and agreement on some issues can be hoped for in the coming months.

Sensibly, the thrust is towards promoting contacts between the two sides at every level in order to improve the political climate in the region. The emphasis is also on giving priority to addressing the less intractable disputes which can be resolved with a little effort and goodwill.

The cordial atmosphere thus created will facilitate agreements between the two governments on the more complex issues. A positive outcome of the New Delhi meeting is the willingness of the two sides to pursue further their interest in facilitating people-to-people contacts.

Meetings to work out details of setting up the Munabao-Khokhrapar rail link and the Muzaffarabad-Srinagar bus service are to be held soon. It has also been agreed to add another category of tourism visas in the visa regime to promote tourism between India and Pakistan and to facilitate visits to religious shrines.

When implemented, these measures should help the exchange of visitors, which, as experience has shown, is important to create goodwill at the popular level. The significance of public opinion in the shaping of foreign policy should not be underestimated.

Another significant point of the agreement relates to confidence-building measures, which have been proposed and will be examined. Thus, an accord on the advance notification of missile tests has already been drawn up and, hopefully, will be signed soon.

Given the success of the agreement on the exchange of lists of nuclear sites at the start of the new year, an accord on missile tests should not be difficult to arrive at. In fact, the two governments would do well to concentrate on arms limitation measures, which should help halt the arms race in the subcontinent.

As they gain confidence, they can work towards a disarmament regime which is important if South Asia is to have peace and stability as well as economic prosperity.

There are cynics in Pakistan who regard a solution of the Kashmir dispute as the yardstick to measure the success of bilateral negotiations between New Delhi and Islamabad. This is not a wise approach. To link the entire gamut of India-Pakistan relations to their dispute on Kashmir as has been done in the past several years leads only to frustration and deadlock.

Patience, perseverance and flexibility should be the keynotes to any dialogue on Kashmir. The first step has already been taken. India has agreed to discuss the issue, which indicates a major shift from its previous stance.

Now the two sides have agreed to work out an arrangement on the "disengagement and redeployment" of their troops in Siachen. If this happens, it could set the pattern for the approach to be taken on Kashmir.

With many more meetings in the offing - including the one between President Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly - one can hope that the dialogue will move on. The two sides should try not to upset the apple cart by resorting to nit picking and polemic on the contentious issues.

That there is not much headway on Kashmir in series of talks between India and Pakistan or between New Delhi and separatists is already a known fact. But when politicians use this occasion to open a battlefield of allegations and counter allegations for the sake of petty political gains it further drifts away the probability of fruitful negotiations and peace. It is amusing to hear National Conference president Omar Abdullah choosing to criticise the negotiations on the grounds of non-inclusiveness of Kashmir or Kashmiris. If one can forgive him for his short sightedness, being a backdoor novice in politics, one cannot forget his short memory that tends to overlook his own history of shifting stands on Kashmir dispute. Not only did his predecessor and father, Farooq Abdullah engage in war mongering during his tenure as leader of National Conference and as chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir. Omar himself as a minister in the union government, though not as vocal as his loquacious father, is on record to have opposed any kind of dialogue with separatists. During his not very brief stint in the external affairs ministry as a junior minister one has not heard of him ever taking up the Kashmir cause and questioning the belligerent rhetoric that became a part of New Delhi's official stand when he held the important portfolio. It was at the time that he headed the department that the hostility between India and Pakistan was at its worst and all forms of diplomatic channels including Track II severed. Not much has changed in Kashmir politics or Kashmir situation since he left that post and since National Conference was ousted out of power in the state. If his party could not manage to change the New Delhi line, having a stake in both centres of power in Kashmir as well as in New Delhi, how does he expect the PDP led coalition government to perform the magic trick which also functions against the odds of being a loose alliance of several parties and individuals. At the same time the People's Democratic Party leading the present coalition government in Jammu and Kashmir leaves no stone unturned in vitiating the atmosphere by joining in the avoidable battle of mud-slinging. The casualty is but obviously the peace process with reactionary rhetoric from Kashmir contributing to the hawkish stands from New Delhi and Islamabad. If National Conference, forgetting its own past, resorts to the blame game, the PDP takes to the self righteous task of not only taking all the credit for peace moves but also by raising the expectations beyond any logic. This is what leads to greater disappointment, than there should be, over the Kashmir solution and allow Kashmir issue to be politicized for petty gains. Besides, comparisons are odious and the PDP cannot legitimise or justify its own complacency regarding the Kashmir issue on this ground. And, neither can National Conference turn the tide by purging all ideologies and identities it associated itself with till yesterday. The least, the party leaders can do is admit their own guilt before taking on the mantle of bashing the other side.

Agreed, eight months of a hyped friendship have not yielded much dividends on Kashmir. But peace is a long drawn battle. Besides, Kashmir is not just a complicated issue it has been the most politicized issue in New Delhi or Islamabad for more than five decades. One cannot expect hardened attitudes to vanish in thin air with the press of a magic button. It needs to be realized that while war or hatred may take a few days to break out, peace and friendship comes with consistent efforts of many years and decades. History bears testimony to this. Though no doubt, not sufficient effort has been made to break the ice on the Kashmir issue by India or Pakistan, the consolation is that each time the heads of the two countries meet, they do end on the promising note of roping in Kashmir discussions in future agenda. The progress is slower than it should be and much more can be done. It is further retarded by hawkish posturing in India and Pakistan by fanatics both in power and out of it. If similar voices emanate from Jammu and Kashmir, it is likely to distance peace and negotiations on Kashmir even more. Both PDP, by raising the expectations of the people every time India and Pakistan talk beyond the necessary limit, and the National Conference, by resorting to provocation, are doing the greatest disservice to the cause of peace. Both claim to be champions of dialogue and it would be better for them to stop politicking on this serious issue and settle their petty differences at least on the question of Kashmir dispute. No harm would be done if they analyse the ongoing peace initiative objectively and take on the mantle of acting as watch dogs to the moves from New Delhi and Islamabad rather than seizing the opportunity of negotiations for their usual bout of mud slinging. The peace process is already too slow and politicians in Jammu and Kashmir on both sides of the divide, both from the mainstream as well as separatists may actually help by refraining from provocation.

Editorial, The Kashmir Times, 10 September 2004
< http://www.kashmirtimes.com/>

Jammu & Kashmir

Srinagar-Muzaffarabad bus route

Jammu-Sialkot bus route

Cross-LoC trade

People-to-people interaction across LoC

Shrine visits

Cultural interaction

Tourism

Environment management

CBMs

Agreement on peace and tranquillity on LoC

Hotline between DGMOs & foreign secretaries

Links among navy, corps commanders

MoU between Indian Coast Guard and Pakistan Maritime Security Agency

Restoration of strengths of high commissions to original level of 110

Reopen consulates in Karachi and Mumbai

Release fishermen in each other's custody

Friendly Exchanges

Exchange of artists, poets, musicians

Liberal visa regime for artistes and film personalities

Pakistani artists invited by Lalit Kala Akademi

Pakistani theatre groups invited to NSD festival

Media

Pakistan to remove ban on Indian TV channels, newspapers and periodicals

Film festivals

Joint working group on piracy of Indian films and music in Pakistan

Tourism

DTC and PTDC for group tours to specific places

14-day visa for tourists to be introduced