The cynics, who did not expect much - what to talk of a breakthrough on any of the contentions between Pakistan and India - from the Indian foreign minister S M Krishna's visit here over the weekend, have proved themselves to be right.
According to a joint statement issued at the end of extensive parleys with his Pakistani counterpart, Hina Rabbani Khar, the two sides did 'exchange views' on Siachen, Sir Creek and Wuller Barrage/Tulbul Navigation project and 'agreed that there is the need to effectively discuss these issues by finding mutually acceptable solutions and reiterated their commitment to do so'. As if the front door and back-door diplomacy was never a serious effort and whatever little progress was made, supposedly including Siachen agreement that we had believed was a done thing and only formalisation was required. As if all the so-called 'doables' have been consigned to the dust bin. No wonder then those who bartered away the Composite Dialogue framework for the Joint Commission have effectively put aside the core issues on the backburner. What is it that is forcing Islamabad to accept one-sided outcomes from the bilateral negotiations with New Delhi, there is no apparent reason - except perhaps for the "power differential" between the two that some thinkers in the West tend to put forward.
Of the three 'high points' the Krishna visit is supposed to have produced the only significant and of public interest is the agreement on a visa regime, which is expected to improve trade and tourism. Given the hardships caused by existing system the development is welcomed. But we have to see how this arrangement plays out and who its net beneficiary is. The MoU on cultural co-operation or the adoption of new confidence-building measures on cross-LOC trade and travel are no big deal to alleviate the heavy clouds of mistrust and suspicion that so thickly cover the sky over Pakistan and India. The Pakistan government was eagerly waiting India's 'yes' response to the enduring invitation to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Foreign Minister Krishna's diplomacy-laden statement that he would give his 'assessment' to his boss, but left no one in doubt for that to happen that Pakistan will have to create "right atmosphere". During his sojourn in Lahore he was a bit more open as he asked Shahbaz Sharif how is it Hafiz Saeed goes around freely. One won't believe that the Indian foreign minister is unaware of the fact that Hafiz Saeed has been let free by the court after due process. Pakistanis largely agree with what former prime minister Gilani said obliquely and Interior Minister Rehman Malik openly about India, is its deep involvement in Balochistan - a public perception in Pakistan that rubs off some of the shine from Krishna's wish to see Pakistan a stable and prosperous neighbour.
Perhaps the visiting Indian foreign minister could not go beyond his diplomatic formulations. With Indian prime minister increasingly getting swamped under the debris of the coalmines' scandal and our government's single-focus on impending general election there was not much for the two sides to clinch as breakthroughs. But that said the fact cannot be denied that the visiting dignitary carried himself with elegance and grace - unlike his predecessor whose visit here last year was hijacked by his home secretary. By visiting the Minar-i-Pakistan he did convey the message that India is changing, but if Atal Behari Vajpaee's presence in 1999 at the same place is anything to go by such calls appear to be only optics and nothing more. That the two countries 'should not remain hostage to the past' he is right but only partly because the issues that New Delhi would like us to put on the backburner are Pakistan's principled positions and cannot be bartered away in return for sweet words and pious hopes. For genuine and lasting peace to be obtained in this part of the world India has to climb down from its high pedestal of arrogance and denial on Kashmir, Siachen, Sir Creek and river flows. Of course terrorism is a problem, in fact more for Pakistan than India, but that should not be allowed to veto progress on other issues.