ISLAMABAD: The four-hour Musharraf-Manmohan Singh talks held in New York on Sept 14 are described as having failed to make any headway which Pakistan sought on the intractable Kashmir dispute. All that was agreed was a joint statement expressing once again the hope of pursuing a possible negotiated settlement in a “sincere spirit and a purposeful manner”.

News reports and stray TV comments generally called the talks disappointing, and an Islamabad English-language daily said they had “dissolved into nothing”. A Gulf TV channel reported that the New York talks had put the two countries back at the Agra summitry stage. Some observers regard the ‘setback’ as even worse than the result of the Agra summit which lacked proper ground work.

The “composite dialogue” which has been underway since the middle of 2004 has resulted in manifestly improved bilateral ties, a number of confidence-building measures, a greater flow of travel between the two countries, a bus service across the Line of Control, and visits of APHC leaders and talks between Kashmiri and Pakistani political leaders. A trilateral gas/oil pipeline involving Iran, Pakistan and India is also being seriously pursued.

No such development had taken place prior to or following the Agra summit. But now all these developments are threatened. Pakistan’s official position is that all these arrangements and facilities will be nullified unless progress is made on several important political disputes, principally the Kashmir question. Any disruption in the current peace process would entail a substantially greater loss than the failure of the Agra talks.

The stakes at this juncture are indeed high, and the peace process needs to be saved. The joint statement issued after the New York talks is stated to have been finalized in a half-hour one-to-one meeting between President Musharraf and Prime Minister Singh at the end of the delegation talks. Though lacking in substance and in tangible and positive result, the statement should, nevertheless, be regarded as heartening.

According to an APP report, it expresses the two sides’ commitment to a peaceful settlement of all issues, including Jammu and Kashmir. The two sides reiterated their desire to continue exploring all possible options on long-standing issues and their earlier pledge that they will not allow terrorism to impede the peace process.

They also welcomed the progress made within the framework of the composite dialogue, including the promotion of trade and economic relations, people-to-people contact and confidence- building measures. They also welcomed the recent release of prisoners on both sides and agreed to continue the process on a humanitarian basis.

Dr Manmohan Singh said he was satisfied with the talks. President Musharraf rejected the assertion that the talks had ended in a deadlock or failure and recalled the numerous decisions and steps taken thus far to normalize relations between the two countries during the past year.

One can sensibly conclude that unlike Agra, the New York talks have not ended in failure, although they may not have yielded any notable new gains. The schedule of top-level contacts and meetings remains undisturbed. In the coming weeks and before the end of the year, Gen Musharraf and Dr Singh are expected to meet at the time of the Dhaka Saarc summit and later during the Malta Commonwealth summit in November. Pakistan’s invitation to Dr Singh stays on the cards and was in fact renewed in New York. Mr Singh has signified his acceptance, though the precise dates have yet to be decided. Meanwhile Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh is due to visit Islamabad on Oct 3 and 4 to hold meetings with Mr Khurshid Kasuri.

The Indians’ sudden outbursts, alleging that Pakistan was controlling the flow of terrorists into occupied Kashmir and other such allegations on the eve of the New York talks and at the UN, were, to say the least, inopportune and unfortunate. Pakistani efforts to turn bilateral issues international and rush time and again to the US State Department to seek its “facilitation” and assistance in the bilateral talks are equally questionable. It will be a good thing to bear in mind that valuable spadework has been done in the bilateral sphere in the past year and a half, and the utility of bilateralism should not, therefore, be downgraded.

Serious efforts to move the peace process forward with renewed vigour should begin soon. Dr Singh demands that “terrorist” infiltration into Kashmir from the Pakistani side be stopped before one can get down to the brass tacks, particularly with regard to Kashmir. President Musharraf also desires terror in all its forms and manifestations to be curbed. There are several other issues of deep and vital interest such as ensuring an equitable distribution of river waters by both sides. If the peace process today faces a roadblock, it should be removed. It may also be useful perhaps to examine whether it is desirable to schedule bilateral meetings and summit level talks alongside mega conferences such as the UN meetings or even Saarc summits.

It is quite possible that the bigger event will tend to distract attention from the bilateral meetings. Where Saarc is concerned, the opposite can also happen. This writer covered some Saarc summits and it was noticed that simultaneous bilateral talks between government leaders attracted too much media glare and the involvement of even non-concerned personalities that interfered with the business of Saarc.

Bilateral talks must concentrate on a strict agreed agenda for meaningful deliberations. The Indo-Pakistan bilateral schedule on the sidelines of Saarc summits sometimes appears to engage as much interest and attention as a Pakistan-India cricket fixture.

It is important to remember here that matters of concern to Saarc are of a regional interest. If two of its largest partners get engaged in sorting out their own agenda and squabbles, the five smaller member states, poorer and more backward and needing greater care, should feel left out and neglected, and this has resulted in slow and lethargic progress in Saarc affairs.

NEW DELHI: With BJP Chief L.K. Advani indicating his desire to step down by the end of the year, the race for the top slot in the saffron camp has begun. Leading the race at this juncture are Mr Rajnath Singh, Mr Bal Apte and Dr Murli Manohar Joshi.

Despite Mr Advani’s scathing attack on the Sangh Parivar for its repeated interference in the BJP, the RSS is expected to have a say in the selection of a new party chief. Meanwhile, as RSS spokesman Ram Madhav refused to comment on the situation, outfit mouthpiece Organiser, which was all praise for Rajasthan chief minister Vasundhara Raje, stated: “Her achievements are not yet adequately acknowledged at the national level.” The four-page editorial, in a special edition of Organiser, went on to describe Ms Raje as a “whiff of fresh air”, “a desert star”, “full of royal grace”, a “crowd-puller” and a “vote-catcher”.

The RSS has so far maintained stoic silence over Mr Advani’s criticism of the outfit and accusation of remote-controlling the BJP. A section of Sangh Parivar leaders were of the opinion that Mr Advani, who was virtually eased out of his post by the RSS, would now try to “bring in his own man at the top”.

While the RSS is reportedly “favourably inclined towards” Mr Rajnath Singh, Mr Bal Apte or Dr Joshi as party chief, the other side prefers to choose between Ms Sushma Swaraj, Mr Arun Jaitley, Mr Jaswant Singh or Mr M. Venkaiah Naidu.—By arrangement with The Asianage