Efforts have begun in haste to settle the MEA-MHA turf war. Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao, who met home secretary G.K. Pillai on Thursday, is believed to have clarified the MEA’s stand on the failed dialogue between foreign minister S.M. Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart S.M. Qureshi.
Government sources said that the “formal” dialogue between Mr Krishna and Mr Qureshi makes no mention of the home secretary’s statement on ISI links to 26/11 made on the basis of disclosures made by Pakistani-American LeT operative David Headley. It was only during the “informal” discussion ahead of the foreign ministers’ talks that Mr Qureshi mentioned Mr Pillai’s statement and expressed displeasure.
Therefore sources said, talks did not fail because of what Mr Pillai said. Instead, it was intervention by the Pakistani Army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani which derailed the talks.
The government is aware that the Opposition BP, which first came to Mr Pill’s defence, may seize the opportunity and make allegations of divisions within the government on this issue during the Monsoon Session of Parliament beginning Monday. Fingers may be pointed at Mr Krishna for making avoidable references to the home secretary a week after the talks had ended.
“India cannot accept Pakistan’s stand that it is a victim of terror as much as India. India has always maintained that it is Pakistan which is fomenting terror activities against India,” an official said.
Ironically, a section of the Pakistani media has pitched for the Indian home secretary questioning Mr Krishna’s move of trying to make a “scapegoat” of Mr Pillai. “... It would be too much to find a scapegoat in Mr Pillai and hold him responsible for the fiasco at Islamabad. All said and done, Mr Pillai is a bureaucrat, and that defines his role. For that reason, Mr Krishna should have ignored his audacity,” said an editorial in the Dawn newspaper of Pakistan on Friday.
Sources disclosed that the PMO and concerned ministeries are analysing what prompted Pakistan to scuttle the dialogue mid-way. There is increasing belief in government circles that the Pakistani Army chief prevailed upon the civilian government to break the peace dialogue mid-way with India.