The joint statement issued on Tuesday at the end of the two-day meeting of the home secretaries of India and Pakistan in New Delhi gives little indication that the relationship between the two countries has been particularly fraught in the past few years following the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack. There are anodyne references in the document to both sides committing themselves to fight terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, but none to specifics such as cross-border terrorism or to punishing those who planned and executed the Mumbai attacks.
It is evident that the tone of the common note, and its substance, do not even tangentially seek to capture the principal demands India has been making of Pakistan in recent years. The Indian public could have been spared the espousal of generalities that are meant to signify responsible international behaviour but, if the past is any guide, do not mean much as far as Pakistan is concerned.
Judging by the contents of the joint statement, it appears it had been decided in advance to not aim for negotiations of any kind but to amble through the proceedings with generalities. Is it good diplomacy not to test your interlocutors even when deliberations are meant to be friendly? For Indians, this will be revealed as time goes on. In the light of the present, however, it is legitimate to wonder if the tone of the joint statement — even if it were considered expedient to have one — would have been this if the meeting of the Prime Ministers of the two countries were not in prospect as a result of the cricket diplomacy initiative taken by Dr Manmohan Singh on the eve of the Mohali semi-finals between India and Pakistan in the ongoing cricket World Cup series. Looking at the overall picture, there is every reason for Pakistan to be overjoyed with the outcome. Pakistan interior minister Rehman Malik has naturally been effusive about thanking “brother” P. Chidambaram for the smooth outcome. Similar had been the ecstatic exclamations by that country’s Prime Minister after the Sharm el-Sheikh summit in July 2009.
Improving the optics before a summit — even one inaugurated in the precincts of a cricket stadium — is a valid exercise provided the ground has been prepared beforehand to extract substantive gains for both sides. Alas, only an incorrigible optimist would say we are there. Such is the parlous state of our diplomacy — especially when guided by the political hand — that Pakistan has been permitted once again to get away with putting its concerns on India’s alleged meddling in Pakistan’s restive Balochistan province into the joint statement. This, of course, is an entirely artificial construct dreamed up by Pakistan to balance what India has said for years — with offers of proof — about Islamabad’s nurturing of jihadists against this country. Balochistan had first found mention in a joint statement after the Sharm el-Sheikh summit, much to the discomfiture of our Parliament, although Pakistan has offered not a shred of evidence to back its claim.
Not unexpectedly, there are placebos in the joint statement. In principle, Islamabad has agreed to receive an Indian delegation to pursue the 26/11 case. This is a gesture of goodwill — under the principle of “comity and reciprocity” — in return for India letting a Pakistan judicial commission to make inquiries about 26/11 in this country. Therefore, it can’t mean much. Pakistan would also offer voice samples of those we think planned and executed the Mumbai attacks provided the Lahore high court permits this by overruling a lower court decision. The home secretaries will now be on a hotline phone to transmit real-time intelligence on terrorism to one another. It’s all too good to be true. On the whole, we are looking at a pie in the sky.