Building trust between India and Pakistan

[dk33]

---

---

Excellent analysis as always by ZH:

Building trust between India and Pakistan

–Zafar Hilaly

We will know soon enough whether Mr Krishna is coming because he was pushed by the Americans or whether India is genuinely interested in forging a partnership against terror

The Indian foreign minister has been at the forefront of those rebuffing Pakistan’s efforts for resuming the peace process. But consider what he said the other day: “How long are we going to keep on fighting? I think we will have to talk to Pakistan and come to an understanding with them because that will be in our interest...Terrorists can strike any country anywhere and...at will...So I am sure Pakistan will be looking at terror perhaps in the same prism with which India views it.”

It amounts to a complete reversal of policy so stark and unexpected that one can justifiably ask whether the Indian foreign minister has become rational or a rational man has become the Indian foreign minister. But although what Mr Krishna said should be music to our ears, it is not, because there is little that remains in the relationship after the battering to which it was subjected after Mumbai, that is even remotely emollient.

Still ringing in our ears is the hysteria directed at Pakistan in the aftermath of 26/11; Manmohan Singh’s repudiation of the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement no sooner than it had been concluded; and a maverick Indian general’s discussing plans for waging war against Pakistan (and China) even as the Indian cabinet was debating its response to Mumbai. But what grated most was the withholding of Pakistan’s share of waters at precisely the time of the year that crops downstream would suffer the maximum damage. It was heartbreaking to see thousands of poor farmers have the fruits of their labour destroyed by a callous and illegal act motivated by mindless rage.

Mr Krishna’s earlier remark that India had considered all options — general war, limited war and a local war after the Mumbai massacre — and then decided against all three because it could have escalated into a nuclear conflict is no doubt true. But it is so couched as to suggest that India made every attempt to go to war but, to its considerable disappointment, finally had to concede that war was not an option. Perhaps Mr Krishna should have spared us the truth. It is said that in diplomacy a truth told too early is often as damaging for the outcome of negotiations as a lie told too late.

Of course, that is not to suggest that India had no cause for anger. The sight of burning buildings and innocent people murdered is tragic and can scarcely be forgotten or forgiven. But a moment’s pause before laying the blame at Pakistan’s door and reaching for the gun would have allowed Delhi time for reflection and, perhaps, to ponder why Pakistan should continue to patronise terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) variety who now form an integral part of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and blow up our police stations, schools and hospitals, kill soldiers and innocent civilians, only so that they may, now and then, visit similar mayhem on India. But then logic is so often the first casualty in India, especially when it comes to believing the worst about Pakistan.

And to be fair, India is not alone in instantly pointing the finger at Pakistan whenever a terror attack occurs. Hillary Clinton’s reaction following the Times Square incident was identical. It seems that leaders of large democracies react instinctively until, that is, better sense prevails. In Hillary’s case, the clarification came immediately, explaining that she had been quoted ‘out of context’. From India it took a year and a half and only after discovering that waging war on Pakistan — the preferred option — was not really a sensible idea.

If Mr Krishna does make it to Pakistan, he will find his Pakistani interlocutors a confused lot. Having bankrupted the economy, they have been compelled to importune the IMF for a bailout and, in return, to uncomplainingly accept a host of impossible assignments, one of which is to keep the mujahideen out of Occupied Kashmir, and the other, the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But when they succeed in preventing the jihadis from crossing over and the terrorists remain milling around in Pakistan, the regime is accused of harbouring the terrorists and, when it fails, of exporting terror.

This ‘heads I win tails you lose’ approach over a period of time has inured our mind to criticism. And, at a time when the military is making huge sacrifices in a long drawn out campaign, it is enormously counterproductive. Worse, it deflects attention from the root cause of both problems, namely, India’s failure to reconcile with the Kashmiris and the US’s woeful performance in Afghanistan.

If Mr Krishna were to understand this phenomenon and restructure India’s stance accordingly, hope would rekindle. And if, by some miracle, he can also grasp the elemental truth that it is in India’s interests to make it easier for Pakistan to tackle the extremism that it faces, that would be gilding the lily, but if he cannot or will not, platitudes about ‘building trust’ will not suffice.

We will know soon enough whether Mr Krishna is coming because he was pushed by the Americans or whether India is genuinely interested in forging a partnership against terror. And that should be relatively easy to tell.

Scheduling quick follow up meetings on issues of vital concern to Pakistan such as water, Kashmir, and thinning out regular Indian army deployments on the borders and perhaps, if only for symbolic reasons, fishing out Pakistan’s two decade old proposal for a No War Pact, which is gathering dust in Indian archives for want of a response from Delhi, would signal a plausible commitment to peace. Just as meaningful steps by Pakistan to prevent further terrorist attacks on India would probably encourage Mr Krishna to be more receptive to our urgings.

However, if all Mr Krishna seeks is photo ops to please Washington and to deliver his tiresome sermon on terrorism and then depart with a fatuous ‘See ya’ wave of the hand, as the Indian Foreign Secretary did in Delhi earlier this year, while seeing off her Pakistani counterpart, Mr Krishna may as well stay at home.

The writer is a former ambassador. He can be reached at [email protected]

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

[SRK]

There is something called political compulsions and sometime leaders unwillingly gives hard statements under pressure of public opinion and it is mostly for domestic consumption, as we saw how good was meeting of Gilani G and Man Mohan Singh G in Thimpu,It broke Ice and now even our PM sent Mangoes to ur PM. Mr. Krishna and Most of the Cabinet members are not Hawks.

Lets give peace a chance once again and before thinking of Aman ki Asha ,Lets Speak Aman ki Bhasha.

[ajtr]

For friendship across the border

Do you think some of the recent initiatives are making a difference?

Definitely... Surgery for newborns with cardiac problems is not possible in Pakistan. Last year we sent about 100 children to Bangalore and Delhi for surgery.

Do they get Indian visas easily?

For medical cases there is no problem… the Indian High Commission is very generous about it… Besides cardiac problems, even our cancer detection facilities are not good and people have to come to India for screening. For liver transplants Pakistanis would like to come to India. The quality of healthcare is very good here. Next we are trying to send 200 children by a chartered aircraft to Kolkata for heart surgery; hospitals there have come forward to do the operations. If 200 children land together, it becomes a media event, otherwise the media are not interested.

[Spitfighter]

Excellent analysis as always by ZH:

Building trust between India and Pakistan

–Zafar Hilaly

We will know soon enough whether Mr Krishna is coming because he was pushed by the Americans or whether India is genuinely interested in forging a partnership against terror

The Indian foreign minister has been at the forefront of those rebuffing Pakistan’s efforts for resuming the peace process. But consider what he said the other day: “How long are we going to keep on fighting? I think we will have to talk to Pakistan and come to an understanding with them because that will be in our interest...Terrorists can strike any country anywhere and...at will...So I am sure Pakistan will be looking at terror perhaps in the same prism with which India views it.”

It amounts to a complete reversal of policy so stark and unexpected that one can justifiably ask whether the Indian foreign minister has become rational or a rational man has become the Indian foreign minister. But although what Mr Krishna said should be music to our ears, it is not, because there is little that remains in the relationship after the battering to which it was subjected after Mumbai, that is even remotely emollient.

Still ringing in our ears is the hysteria directed at Pakistan in the aftermath of 26/11; Manmohan Singh’s repudiation of the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement no sooner than it had been concluded; and a maverick Indian general’s discussing plans for waging war against Pakistan (and China) even as the Indian cabinet was debating its response to Mumbai. But what grated most was the withholding of Pakistan’s share of waters at precisely the time of the year that crops downstream would suffer the maximum damage. It was heartbreaking to see thousands of poor farmers have the fruits of their labour destroyed by a callous and illegal act motivated by mindless rage.

Mr Krishna’s earlier remark that India had considered all options — general war, limited war and a local war after the Mumbai massacre — and then decided against all three because it could have escalated into a nuclear conflict is no doubt true. But it is so couched as to suggest that India made every attempt to go to war but, to its considerable disappointment, finally had to concede that war was not an option. Perhaps Mr Krishna should have spared us the truth. It is said that in diplomacy a truth told too early is often as damaging for the outcome of negotiations as a lie told too late.

Of course, that is not to suggest that India had no cause for anger. The sight of burning buildings and innocent people murdered is tragic and can scarcely be forgotten or forgiven. But a moment’s pause before laying the blame at Pakistan’s door and reaching for the gun would have allowed Delhi time for reflection and, perhaps, to ponder why Pakistan should continue to patronise terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) variety who now form an integral part of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and blow up our police stations, schools and hospitals, kill soldiers and innocent civilians, only so that they may, now and then, visit similar mayhem on India. But then logic is so often the first casualty in India, especially when it comes to believing the worst about Pakistan.

And to be fair, India is not alone in instantly pointing the finger at Pakistan whenever a terror attack occurs. Hillary Clinton’s reaction following the Times Square incident was identical. It seems that leaders of large democracies react instinctively until, that is, better sense prevails. In Hillary’s case, the clarification came immediately, explaining that she had been quoted ‘out of context’. From India it took a year and a half and only after discovering that waging war on Pakistan — the preferred option — was not really a sensible idea.

If Mr Krishna does make it to Pakistan, he will find his Pakistani interlocutors a confused lot. Having bankrupted the economy, they have been compelled to importune the IMF for a bailout and, in return, to uncomplainingly accept a host of impossible assignments, one of which is to keep the mujahideen out of Occupied Kashmir, and the other, the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But when they succeed in preventing the jihadis from crossing over and the terrorists remain milling around in Pakistan, the regime is accused of harbouring the terrorists and, when it fails, of exporting terror.

This ‘heads I win tails you lose’ approach over a period of time has inured our mind to criticism. And, at a time when the military is making huge sacrifices in a long drawn out campaign, it is enormously counterproductive. Worse, it deflects attention from the root cause of both problems, namely, India’s failure to reconcile with the Kashmiris and the US’s woeful performance in Afghanistan.

If Mr Krishna were to understand this phenomenon and restructure India’s stance accordingly, hope would rekindle. And if, by some miracle, he can also grasp the elemental truth that it is in India’s interests to make it easier for Pakistan to tackle the extremism that it faces, that would be gilding the lily, but if he cannot or will not, platitudes about ‘building trust’ will not suffice.

We will know soon enough whether Mr Krishna is coming because he was pushed by the Americans or whether India is genuinely interested in forging a partnership against terror. And that should be relatively easy to tell.

Scheduling quick follow up meetings on issues of vital concern to Pakistan such as water, Kashmir, and thinning out regular Indian army deployments on the borders and perhaps, if only for symbolic reasons, fishing out Pakistan’s two decade old proposal for a No War Pact, which is gathering dust in Indian archives for want of a response from Delhi, would signal a plausible commitment to peace. Just as meaningful steps by Pakistan to prevent further terrorist attacks on India would probably encourage Mr Krishna to be more receptive to our urgings.

However, if all Mr Krishna seeks is photo ops to please Washington and to deliver his tiresome sermon on terrorism and then depart with a fatuous ‘See ya’ wave of the hand, as the Indian Foreign Secretary did in Delhi earlier this year, while seeing off her Pakistani counterpart, Mr Krishna may as well stay at home.

The writer is a former ambassador. He can be reached at [email protected]

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

What's the point of writing such a long article when all he's trying to say is 'solve Kashmir or else...'?

I for one disagree with his analysis. War is an option, our leaders simply lack the backbone for it. The one thing we don't have is a leader with strategic foresight. Pakistani non state actors can be hunted down if RAW's mandate is strengthened but should things come to blows with the PA then we might as well face it now rather than a decade from today when Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is larger.

All this talk of nuclear war is just fear mongering, its gives Pakistan an umbrella under which it can afford to adopt a passive (to say the least) approach to India specific terrorist orgs like the LeT. I believe Pakistan fears nuclear war just as much as we do, so the button won't be pressed as easily as Pakistanis would have us believe.

Terrorism has consequences, peaceful dialogue definitely isn't one of them. If Pakistan wants to talk turkey on Kashmir it can start by taking concrete action against the LeT. Somehow Pakistan has no trouble hunting down the TTP but when it comes to LeT, they don't have 'evidence', this despite the fact that the organization was set up by the PA and ISI. Lets see an operation on the same scale as the one in Bajaur or Orakzai, or would Pakistan rather risk nuclear war?

I willing to bet my membership at this forum that nothing substantial will come of this meeting, we were probably just coaxed into it by the Americans. Hopefully we come to our senses the next time a major city goes up in flames.

[roach]

I willing to bet my membership at this forum that nothing substantial will come of this meeting, we were probably just coaxed into it by the Americans. Hopefully we come to our senses the next time a major city goes up in flames.

Quite the optimist, aren't you?
If there's one thing I've realized after being on this forum, it is that there is always a chance at peace.
Pakistanis are, like us, hostages to our history.
Time to plan an escape.

[Tiger Prowling]

No need waste of time, some things r in this world u can never trust e.g. India, Isreal and America.

Talk, negotiate and deal but never TRUST.

[Agni 5]

No more trust building please. Just send some more mangos. thats it.

[Spitfighter]

Quite the optimist, aren't you?

Anything but.

If there's one thing I've realized after being on this forum, it is that there is always a chance at peace..

That's cause you've only been around long enough to post 18 times. Stick around, you'll eventually see things for what they are.

Pakistanis are, like us, hostages to our history.
Time to plan an escape.

Put your money where your mouth is brother, bet your membership.

[ek_indian]

What's the point of writing such a long article when all he's trying to say is 'solve Kashmir or else...'?

I for one disagree with his analysis. War is an option, our leaders simply lack the backbone for it. The one thing we don't have is a leader with strategic foresight. Pakistani non state actors can be hunted down if RAW's mandate is strengthened but should things come to blows with the PA then we might as well face it now rather than a decade from today when Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is larger.

All this talk of nuclear war is just fear mongering, its gives Pakistan an umbrella under which it can afford to adopt a passive (to say the least) approach to India specific terrorist orgs like the LeT. I believe Pakistan fears nuclear war just as much as we do, so the button won't be pressed as easily as Pakistanis would have us believe.

Terrorism has consequences, peaceful dialogue definitely isn't one of them. If Pakistan wants to talk turkey on Kashmir it can start by taking concrete action against the LeT. Somehow Pakistan has no trouble hunting down the TTP but when it comes to LeT, they don't have 'evidence', this despite the fact that the organization was set up by the PA and ISI. Lets see an operation on the same scale as the one in Bajaur or Orakzai, or would Pakistan rather risk nuclear war?

I willing to bet my membership at this forum that nothing substantial will come of this meeting, we were probably just coaxed into it by the Americans. Hopefully we come to our senses the next time a major city goes up in flames.

I agree with your analysis. I would not have wasted so much time thinking on it but since a respected super mod said it was good so i took it upon...

(1) I am in favour that India simply can not just go ino war without taking all stakeholders (most importantly public) on board. We are a democracy which is for the benefits of mass. All this nuclear hulla wihout thinking about consequences is just childish.

(2) If just there was no N-bomb, destiny would be otherwise. However time and patience is running out. I am not war mongering but author should think about Indian POV as well just as he advocated for Pakistani POV.

(3) When some people make rallies and give statement openly that jihad is the only option against India. The govt can not be absolved of responsibility. It is clear case of omission if not commission.

(4) How many times Indian members have to tell that Indian general response was in defensive term which is pretty logical. We simply can not afford war with China.

(5) It was not that militants are not trying to cross over. Just that our armed forces are doing a good job. Every now and then we read stories of such fighting between them.

(6) Writer talked about somehting called "No war pact" but last time what we see is Kargil.

Lastly the source is known for its anti-India views.

[su-47]

What's the point of writing such a long article when all he's trying to say is 'solve Kashmir or else...'?

I for one disagree with his analysis. War is an option, our leaders simply lack the backbone for it. The one thing we don't have is a leader with strategic foresight. Pakistani non state actors can be hunted down if RAW's mandate is strengthened but should things come to blows with the PA then we might as well face it now rather than a decade from today when Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is larger.

All this talk of nuclear war is just fear mongering, its gives Pakistan an umbrella under which it can afford to adopt a passive (to say the least) approach to India specific terrorist orgs like the LeT. I believe Pakistan fears nuclear war just as much as we do, so the button won't be pressed as easily as Pakistanis would have us believe.

yes i agree. An image has been built up in india that pakistan is trigger-happy and just waiting for an excuse to nuke us. but thats not true. i read a very good analysis by a pakistani about how the nukes will only actually only be used when the very existence of pakistan is threatened. that means if the indian army captures some major cities and cuts the pakistani army in half. and even then, the nukes would first be used on the IA itself than on indian cities. but ofcourse once even single nuke is fired, its goodbye for Pak and Indian cities.

Terrorism has consequences, peaceful dialogue definitely isn't one of them. If Pakistan wants to talk turkey on Kashmir it can start by taking concrete action against the LeT. Somehow Pakistan has no trouble hunting down the TTP but when it comes to LeT, they don't have 'evidence', this despite the fact that the organization was set up by the PA and ISI. Lets see an operation on the same scale as the one in Bajaur or Orakzai, or would Pakistan rather risk nuclear war?

I willing to bet my membership at this forum that nothing substantial will come of this meeting, we were probably just coaxed into it by the Americans. Hopefully we come to our senses the next time a major city goes up in flames.

What really ticks off India is that Pakistan is still harbouring and supporting terrorists wanting to hurt india. its near impossible to talk to a person willing to go to any lengths to hurt you, and thats what pakistan is doing. we all saw what happened in mumbi. as the relations were getting warmer, the terrorists attacked. how in the world are we supposed to have peace if everyime we get close, someone tries to rip us apart?

pak has to clamp down on LeT and other anti-india groups in pakistan. otherwise these same groups will damage any peace process.

[harish]

I respectfully feel that the whole issue is that of a dog going round in circles chasing his own tail. Who is India going to talk peace with? The Pakistani civilian government. But we all know what that actually counts for at ground level both in Pakistan as well as internationally. Even if we are able to convince the civilian government to make peace. Even if over time there is dawning of realisation amongst the lay Pakistani public that India is not their enemy. Even if tomorrow new peace and financial cooperation initiatives, even if initially plain symbolics, are realised. There will be strong opposition of this bonhomie amongst the usual powerful 'unofficial,' or to use a currently popular term, 'non-state' quarters of Pakistan who give two hoots to the civilian leadership and for whom India will always be a mortal enemy. And from such quarters will come the next attack on India. And all will be back to square one again. Its called balance, and anything that upsets it is bad.

[ambidex]

Building trust between India and Pakistan

–Zafar Hilaly

We will know soon enough whether Mr Krishna is coming because he was pushed by the Americans or whether India is genuinely interested in forging a partnership against terror

This is the only message Mr. Hilaly is trying to deliver?

This what Pakistan media and Pakistan Politics typically speaks and writes.
1. Indian is doing under pressure of USA.
2. India is surrendering to Pakistani stand.

I can recall somewhat when i was a teenage boy watching PTV where media was seeking Koranic explanations; How to deal with a surrendering Kafir as India was offering some dialogue etc. at that time. Its funny to read the same today that India is under pressure when India has nothing to bargain with USA.

The Indian foreign minister has been at the forefront of those rebuffing Pakistan’s efforts for resuming the peace process. But consider what he said the other day: “How long are we going to keep on fighting? I think we will have to talk to Pakistan and come to an understanding with them because that will be in our interest...Terrorists can strike any country anywhere and...at will...So I am sure Pakistan will be looking at terror perhaps in the same prism with which India views it.”
It amounts to a complete reversal of policy so stark and unexpected that one can justifiably ask whether the Indian foreign minister has become rational or a rational man has become the Indian foreign minister. But although what Mr Krishna said should be music to our ears, it is not, because there is little that remains in the relationship after the battering to which it was subjected after Mumbai, that is even remotely emollient.

There is no contradiction in that if Mr. Krishna is changing its stand. If we weigh the benefits of this meeting for future trust building then both has nothing to loose. Furthermore Pakistan should welcome if he has changed its stand at times when his prior stand has got overwhelming support world over.

Still ringing in our ears is the hysteria directed at Pakistan in the aftermath of 26/11;

Hysteria by whom, Indian media or GoI? Only war mongering was done by Pakistan when Air force started flying over sub urban Lahore and people started shouting deafening Islamic slogans on streets and our Defence Minister snubbed on the record.

Manmohan Singh’s repudiation of the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement no sooner than it had been concluded;

What would you expect from Indian PM to do when unexpectedly Pakistan ambushed India diplomatically and expectantly went to media claiming scores as usual before Sharm el-Seikh could be concluded.

Furthermore Pakistanis official claim was a matter of disgrace for Pakistan being not able to prove that any dossier was handed over as claimed. Which Manmohan Singh further rejected in Indian Parliament. Repudiation as Author described was not our PM's hypocrisy but duty of care for his nation in that sudden Pakistani false claim.

and a maverick Indian general’s discussing plans for waging war against Pakistan (and China)

Here Mr.Zafar Hilaly has lost his credibility cause Indian general was quoting ''only in case if both will attack India''.

But what grated most was the withholding of Pakistan’s share of waters at precisely the time of the year that crops downstream would suffer the maximum damage. It was heartbreaking to see thousands of poor farmers have the fruits of their labour destroyed by a callous and illegal act motivated by mindless rage.

Again without reference, without proof and already debunked in this very fora.

Mr Krishna’s earlier remark that India had considered all options — general war, limited war and a local war after the Mumbai massacre — and then decided against all three because it could have escalated into a nuclear conflict is no doubt true. But it is so couched as to suggest that India made every attempt to go to war but, to its considerable disappointment, finally had to concede that war was not an option. Perhaps Mr Krishna should have spared us the truth. It is said that in diplomacy a truth told too early is often as damaging for the outcome of negotiations as a lie told too late.

There is no harm to be honest, upfront and rational at the end of the day. We can afford to risk our credibility (concerning author) with Pakistan. What damage our open debates about considering options has done to Pakistan is beyond my understanding but assuring to mention that Mr. Zafar Hilaly is confused and doing unnecessarily chest thumping.

Of course, that is not to suggest that India had no cause for anger.

Thanks for the Kind words but we have all the causes to be angry cause we can dare to name Hindu terrorists, Muslim terrorist and any state sponsored terrorist.

The sight of burning buildings and innocent people murdered is tragic and can scarcely be forgotten or forgiven. But a moment’s pause before laying the blame at Pakistan’s door and reaching for the gun would have allowed Delhi time for reflection and, perhaps, to ponder why Pakistan should continue to patronise terrorists of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) variety who now form an integral part of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and blow up our police stations, schools and hospitals, kill soldiers and innocent civilians, only so that they may, now and then, visit similar mayhem on India. But then logic is so often the first casualty in India, especially when it comes to believing the worst about Pakistan.

How convenient it has become for Pakistan media to disclose the truth very late when the damage has been done. Whereas prior foreseeability demanding rational analysis was always there to predict what is happening today.
This what India was saying officially regarding JeM et al joining TTP. Why the Author is surprise on preemptive Indian media and official inputs proving to be corrected today is a question of the day. Why he is afraid to quote Kasab now convicted by Indian courts.

And to be fair, India is not alone in instantly pointing the finger at Pakistan whenever a terror attack occurs. Hillary Clinton’s reaction following the Times Square incident was identical. It seems that leaders of large democracies react instinctively until, that is, better sense prevails. In Hillary’s case, the clarification came immediately, explaining that she had been quoted ‘out of context’.
From India it took a year and a half and only after discovering that waging war on Pakistan — the preferred option — was not really a sensible idea.

Apple and oranges.
How Americans are dealing with Pakistan has nothing to do with how India should react to Pakistan. Clinton's clarifications make not difference cause how Americans are compromising Pakistan's sovereignty since WOT started is clearly evident.
However how India has been reacting to is very natural per our diplomatic wisdom post 26/11 and today.

If Mr Krishna does make it to Pakistan, he will find his Pakistani interlocutors a confused lot.
Having bankrupted the economy, they have been compelled to importune the IMF for a bailout and, in return, to uncomplainingly accept a host of impossible assignments, one of which is to keep the mujahideen out of Occupied Kashmir, and the other, the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But when they succeed in preventing the jihadis from crossing over and the terrorists remain milling around in Pakistan, the regime is accused of harbouring the terrorists and, when it fails, of exporting terror.

I don't think his Pakistani counterpart will be confused. India should expect more factitious dossiers from Pakistan nothing else.

However what Author is suggesting to be India's assignments are the same what Pakistan vows to do today due to misery of its internal security. Pakistan can opt to be stubborn but the fact is that Indian initiative are breather for suffocating Pakistan's global image and moreover a gesture of India to place Pakistan off the hook for alleged 26/11 involvement.

This ‘heads I win tails you lose’ approach over a period of time has inured our mind to criticism. And, at a time when the military is making huge sacrifices in a long drawn out campaign, it is enormously counterproductive. Worse, it deflects attention from the root cause of both problems, namely, India’s failure to reconcile with the Kashmiris and the US’s woeful performance in Afghanistan.

If Mr Krishna were to understand this phenomenon and restructure India’s stance accordingly, hope would rekindle. And if, by some miracle, he can also grasp the elemental truth that it is in India’s interests to make it easier for Pakistan to tackle the extremism that it faces, that would be gilding the lily, but if he cannot or will not, platitudes about ‘building trust’ will not suffice.

We will know soon enough whether Mr Krishna is coming because he was pushed by the Americans or whether India is genuinely interested in forging a partnership against terror. And that should be relatively easy to tell.

Scheduling quick follow up meetings on issues of vital concern to Pakistan such as water, Kashmir, and thinning out regular Indian army deployments on the borders and perhaps, if only for symbolic reasons, fishing out Pakistan’s two decade old proposal for a No War Pact, which is gathering dust in Indian archives for want of a response from Delhi, would signal a plausible commitment to peace. Just as meaningful steps by Pakistan to prevent further terrorist attacks on India would probably encourage Mr Krishna to be more receptive to our urgings.

However, if all Mr Krishna seeks is photo ops to please Washington and to deliver his tiresome sermon on terrorism and then depart with a fatuous ‘See ya’ wave of the hand, as the Indian Foreign Secretary did in Delhi earlier this year, while seeing off her Pakistani counterpart, Mr Krishna may as well stay at home.

Precisely, the time will tell not what india has offered to Pakistan but what both are offering to each other. Diplomacy is not one way lane and for how long Pakistan will run from its responsibilities to curb terrorism of all forms (the only Indian concern period).

Rather nitpicking (to be on moral high grounds) how India has changed its stands by the course of time and ignoring the fact that the timing of each Indian disappointment corresponds with terrorist attack on us, should be considered as well by Pakistan.

[Jade]

Mr. Krishna better stay at home. Nothing is going to come out of this meeting. It is simply a waste of time and tax payers money

[Johny lever]

No need waste of time, some things r in this world u can never trust e.g. India, Isreal and America.

buddy !! I 100 % agree to you because you think just the way we think....never trust Pakistan...rest of them will learn by their mistakes

Talk, negotiate and deal but never TRUST.

exactly thats what we are doing.

[Jackdaws]

---

---

All this talk of trust is absolute rubbish. Whether we like it or not, the problem is not one of trust, it is one of ideology - and the problem is Kashmir. India can't give up Kashmir and Pakistan can't settle for anything less irrespective of Musharraf's "out of box" ideas.