Are India and Pakistan back to square one as far as peace talks are concerned? Has the dialogue between South Asia's warring neighbours - which appeared to be limping back to some normalcy in the past six months - collapsed?

Their foreign ministers held sterile talks in Islamabad on July 15th, producing nothing more than a commitment to meet again.

It took just a few hours after a strained but polite press conference for the truth to out. The two foreign ministers had concluded their meeting by Thursday evening. On Friday Pakistan’s foreign minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, held a fresh press conference on his own, in which he lambasted his Indian counterpart, S.M. Krishna. Given that Mr Krishna was still in the country, this was a real slap in the diplomatic face.

INDIAN MISSILE - G.K. Pillai targets ISI

There was rough weather even before the actual meeting began. Speaking on the eve of the meeting India’s home secretary (the interior ministry’s top bureaucrat), G.K. Pillai, had ventured to blame Pakistan’s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), for the terrorist attack that befell Mumbai in November 2008. Mr Krishna chose to let that incendiary allegation lie.

DIRTY DIPLOMACY

Qureshi on Friday had accused India of “narrowing down the talks” by focusing exclusively on militancy rather than the whole range of issues between the countries, including the status of Kashmir and water access rights.

He said Pakistan wanted the discussions to lead to the creation of a “roadmap” for better relations. “But Indians felt they did not have the mandate to commit to it,” Qureshi said.

Qureshi maintains that Krishna told the Pakistanis that his negotiating mandate was limited to terrorism only and he was not prepared to discuss the Pakistani concerns. The Indian side maintains that Pakistan concerns were discussed and progress was made on many issues

More revealing of the Pakistani state of mind was the subsequent Press conference held by Qureshi on the morning of July 16 for the Pakistani media even as Krishna was yet to take off from Chaklala airport. He accused Krishna of not being fully prepared for the negotiations and making frequent telephone calls to Delhi for instructions, a charge totally denied by Krishna. This was a deliberate attempt at insulting Krishna.

INDIA SUSPECTS

India is not yet ready to resume talking about the full range of disputes between the countries. The stumbling block is terrorism—and the Mumbai attack in particular. New Delhi’s diplomats believe that Pakistan hasn’t done what it could to crack down on the anti-India extremist groups that operate from its territory. Their suspicion is worsened by new disclosures from one of the suspects, extracted by an American interrogation, to the effect that that ISI was minutely involved in planning the Mumbai attacks. 

For much of its history, Pakistan has been able to count on more international support than India — whether it has been the West, the Islamic world, East Asia or even the rest of the subcontinent. This has given Pakistan the leeway to break the diplomatic rulebook, something that has now become a habit.

"Foreign assistance allowed them to play a role greater than their actual capabilities," says G Parthasarathy, former high commissioner to Pakistan.

ARMY, ISI – KHAKHI RULES IN PAKISTAN

 Pakistan’s all-powerful army, which does not trust the government of the president, Asif Zardari, in effect controls security policy single-handedly. And it does not see India as a potential friend. 

India tried to isolate Pakistan after Mumbai. But the West needs Pakistan, and urgently, thanks to the mess in Afghanistan. Having given up on isolation, India’s next move is to apply pressure on Pakistan through engagement. The frustration here is that the newish civilian leadership in Islamabad cannot deliver the goods on terrorism: it is simply not in their hands.

When the prime ministers of India and Pakistan met in Thimpu in early May, Yousuf Raza Gilani indicated he had the full support of his military to resume the dialogue with India. When the foreign ministers of the two countries met in
mid-July, the men in khaki were opposed. Three developments, say sources in both countries, led them to change their minds.

The first development was the political resurgence of President Asif Ali Zardari. The Pakistan military has sought to marginalise him at the expense of Gilani and their favourite politician, ex-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. But
Zardari’s recent successes in working out long-standing disputes between centre and provinces over water and finance, and the holding of genuine elections in Gilgit-Baltistan, have resurrected his standing at the popular level.

Second was David Coleman Headley’s testimony. The transcript handed over by Home Minister P. Chidambaram in late June was damning in how much it showed the military’s Inter-Services Intelligence was directly involved in the Mumbai 26/11 attack. This infuriated the Pakistani military, not least because it potentially disadvantaged them in their own struggle with Zardari.

Third was the attack by the Punjabi Taliban against the Data Durbar shrine on July 1. Among the holiest Barelvi Muslim shrines in Pakistan, it handed the military a dilemma. The militant groups behind the blast were also political
allies of Sharif. But the outcry among the Barelvis has been so strong that it is reported in Pakistan that the military has ordered action to be taken against lower level Punjabi Taliban cadre.

By the time Foreign Minister SM Krishna arrived in Islamabad, the military’s view about the dialogue with India had shifted from support to strong doubt. One reason, say sources in Pakistan, was the establishment’s view was that a
successful dialogue with India would only add another feather to Zardari’s cap.

India’s forceful play of the Headley card tipped the scales decisively against dialogue. The ISI link was bad enough, but India’s insistence on some sort of action against the Lashkar e Tayyeba over 26/11 was a red flag. At a time when
the military was moving to take action against the Punjabi Taliban, it was impossible for it to concede even rhetorical moves against Lashkar, the largest Punjabi militant group.

The Pakistani army and broader establishment is not interested in making headway with India at this point, say sources in Pakistan. The military’s view is that it would prefer to wait until Sharif rules in Islamabad before taking up India
again.

The Indian foreign ministry’s expectations had been based on Gilani’s Thimpu statements and his seeming consolidation of power following the passage of the 18th constitutional amendment. The impact of Zardari’s political resurrection
and the shrine attack may have been missed.

New Delhi now has a clearer understanding that the military remains directly and forcefully involved in running the show in Islamabad, admit officials, especially when it comes to relations with India. However, the military’s political games at home mean dialogue will not be high on its priority list and make the medium-term prospects for the Indo-Pakistan peace process between bleak and difficult.

 MEDIA CROSSFIRE

Indian newspapers on Saturday blamed Pakistan's foreign minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi for the “failure” of peace talks earlier in the week between the two countries.

“Qureshi kills peace talks,” read a headline on the front page of leading circulation daily The Times of India, a day after Indian foreign minister S.M. Krishna returned to New Delhi from Islamabad.

The strongly worded comments came after the discussions, meant to build trust between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, soured over what Islamabad charged was India's “selective” approach to outstanding issues.

Another top-selling daily The Economic Times accused Islamabad of pushing ties “off the diplomatic rails ... by sidelining New Delhi's main demand for action” against the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai Islamic militant attacks.

India's Hindustan Times accused Pakistan of “ambush diplomacy” by seeking to set a fixed timeframe to resolve key issues such as the row over disputed Muslim-majority Kashmir, the trigger of two of three wars between the nations.

This led to the “meeting's failure,” the newspaper said.

But then nobody expected any dramatic breakthroughs in the Islamabad talks. One bland headline simply said: "India, Pakistan decide to remain engaged." That is how low expectations are in India about ties with its estranged sibling these days.

But browsing the Pakistani media, I came away with the impression that the frustration was higher on the other side of the border. The News, a Pakistan daily, lamented that the talks had "collapsed, not for the sheer absence of the right momentum, but because of India's inflexibility."

 ‘No common ground found’ was the headline in Friday’s Dawn, which summed up the ambient disappointment. The summit had engendered high hopes for some kind of breakthrough. Those expectations curdled quickly.

BEHIND THE SCENES

The Indians were in for a nasty surprise on Wednesday evening itself, before Shah Mehmood Qureshi hosted the formal dinner for SM Krishna. The two had a 40-minute one-on-one where the Pakistani foreign minister virtually presented Krishna with a roadmap - complete with timelines -- for discussions, on not just CBMs, but also Sir Creek, Siachen and Kashmir. "How do we play football when they've prepared a cricket pitch", remarked a puzzled Indian diplomat. After all, in the preparatory round of talks between the foreign secretaries last month, the last three items had not figured. So was the pitch queered by Home Secretary Gopal Pillai or did the Pakistani government - driven by the army -- merely use Pillai as an excuse to hang New Delhi after executing a pre-planned ambush?

Wednesday's dinner was followed by brainstorming on Qureshi's paper by the Indian delegation. Discussions went on till early into Thursday morning. After grabbing barely a few hours of sleep, the delegates arrived for the formal talks at 11 am. Qureshi's antics during the talks captured the attention of the entire Indian delegation. In the words of one interlocutor, the Pakistani foreign minister was performing in a "soap opera". His popping eyes, quivering lips, wagging fingers were all worthy of theatre. It was almost as if the honourable foreign minister had switched from a diplomatic dialogue to mouthing dialogues. He held forth, repeatedly (to the point of being rude), pressed his points and only occasionally consulted with an Additional Secretary seated a few chairs away. The Indians noted Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir's isolation, his impassive features. Was the career diplomat aware that the entire exercise was going to be one of futility?

After more than 9 hours of private consultations and bilateral talks, the Indians were willing to commit to "discussions on all outstanding issues at an appropriate time". The language was agreed upon by Salman Bashir and Nirupama Rao late Thursday evening. The Indians were prepared for a joint press conference where the two foreign ministers would sing the same tune from their individual statements. At the last minute, Qureshi over ruled the text okayed by Bashir! He then led Krishna into the disastrous press conference and the next morning accused him of being selective with the agenda - wanting to talk only on terrorism. In reality, the Indian delegation had not only agreed to holding talks on Sir Creek but also on Siachen and Kashmir, with the time and modalities to be decided later. It's clear now that it was Qureshi who was being selective with facts.

Let's talk but on our terms - seemed to be Islamabad's line. New Delhi would have none of that. The PM's insistence on improving ties with Pakistan was balanced with the imperative of protecting India's national interest. But full marks to Qureshi for trying, anyway. At one point, Qureshi even acknowledged that progress on Kashmir was made with India under General Musharraf from 2004-2008 and "that achievements of the back channel needed to be preserved and built upon". New Delhi had so far failed to get the PPP government to even acknowledge the back channel's existence, leave alone promise to build on it. Qureshi's statement was almost too good to be true - and it was. Because then came the rider: Kashmir must figure simultaneously - both in the back channel and front channel!

The talks had broken down. The trust deficit had widened. But at least 1 senior Indian diplomat had seen this coming. Ten days before Krishna left for Islamabad, the said diplomat advised the foreign minister who had sought to consult him that the extent of progress would depend on the Pakistani army. In other words - Rawalpindi was the puppeteer and Islamabad the puppet. One reason why Krishna conducted himself with immense dignity throughout (apart from him being a mild-mannered sort) was also that he was mentally prepared for the less-than-positive outcome.

Once back home, Krishna apologized to the PM for letting him down. The PM complimented him on his dignified conduct. Krishna also shared with the PM his disappointment about the Home Secretary's remarks which he felt negatively affected the outcome of the visit. The PM, according to South Block buzz, was in complete agreement. Even getting a top PMO staffer to pull up Pillai for speaking out of turn and denting Manmohan Singh's Pak initiative. All Secretaries of the government, we hear, are likely to be instructed, from hereon, to exercise the utmost restraint when speaking on Indo-Pak ties.

Meanwhile, Washington too has been left fuming at Pillai's Headley revelations. At least once before, when the NIA team was in Chicago questioning Headley, Washington had been upset by the leaks and had asked New Delhi to keep a lid on them because the revelations could affect Headley's plea bargain agreement with the US and therefore the outcome of the judicial process underway.

INDO-PAK FUTURE TENSE

The stakes, however, are so high that New Delhi cannot afford to be deflected by atmospherics. To break off dialogue, as the BJP urges, is a cop-out. India cannot choose its neighbours, it has no alternative but to continue to press its concerns with Pakistan. Islamabad, on its part, underestimates the extent of the consensus against terror in India. Given the impact of the worst ever terrorist attack on Indian soil - in terms of scale and perception if not casualties - no administration in New Delhi can win a mandate for engaging Islamabad across the entire spectrum of outstanding issues with a fixed time frame for resolution, until it is able to show that the latter is acting in good faith. Some action on the wealth of evidence that New Delhi has advanced, on the perpetrators of 26/11 currently on Pakistani soil, is essential for that.

Implied in Pakistani formulation is the perception that India is not a friendly, cooperative and good neighbourly country, and Islamabad is initiating steps to bring about such a development. Given these different perceptions, for Pakistan the relations with India is a zero sum game, but it is not so for India. While India considers the Pakistani strategy of using terrorism as a state policy a self-destructive one, it does not have any animosity towards that country. It is obvious from the results of the Islamabad talks that Pakistan, as of now, is not prepared to give up terrorism as a state policy. Viewed in this background, the Islamabad talks were a tactical setback for India but a disastrous image-projection for Pakistan.

In any case the idea of a fixed timeframe is fatuous, as it doesn't address what would happen if no resolution of outstanding issues can be arrived at within the time frame. A make-or-break attitude is bad for the peace process, and in retrospect it's evident that a fixation on press conferences and joint statements, when the gap between the two sides has yet to be narrowed, can be deeply counterproductive. Quiet diplomacy is more the need of the hour as both sides explore deliverables.

And it may be necessary on New Delhi's part to extend its diplomacy by engaging the Pakistani army directly. That's an entity that continues to be deeply hostile to India, and given its power within the Pakistani establishment little can be done unless this hostility changes. In any case both sides appear to be cooling off after the heat of the Krishna-Qureshi exchanges, a good opportunity to introspect and bring in the changes necessary to restart the peace process.

Despite the chilly atmosphere, both Qureshi and Krishna have agreed to meet again in New Delhi to pursue improved relations that were derailed by the Mumbai carnage in which 166 people died.