LAHORE, May 12: Indian high Commission Shiv Shankar Menon on Friday announced that Pakistan, Iran and India had now decided to hold tripartite talks on the gas pipeline issue probably in Tehran later this month.

Instead of the past bilateral talks they would now engage in tripartite talks to decide modalities of the supply of gas from Iran to Pakistan and India,” he said while replying to questions after speaking at a function of the English Speaking Union here on Friday evening.

In his speech earlier, the envoy dilated upon the progress made in the composite peace dialogue between Pakistan and India and said it was important to develop relations side by side by pursuing solution to the core issues like the Kashmir dispute.

About the gas pipeline, he said petroleum ministers of the three countries would decide issues involving the project. The issues were big and it was needed to decide the price of the gas and the structure of the pipeline.

“We will find solution to the all these issues because we need gas whether it is from Turkmenistan, Iran, Gulf, Iran or Burma,” he said, clarifying that India had never abandoned the idea of getting gas from Iran.

Replying to another question, Mr Menon said India was not increasing its defence capabilities for achieving large strategic goals.

The primary objective of the defence budget was to defend India and thereby improve the life of its people. Since 1947 India’s defence budget had never crossed 2.7 per cent of its GDP.

“Don’t just look at our military capability, look at our conduct and past. Let the armies (of the both countries) sit and talk. The armies have resolved many issues only after sitting together. The ceasefire agreement worked well because we had consultations,” he said.

Replying to a question on Siachin, the envoy said both the countries had agreed to find a way to reduce military presence there. The terms of their disengagement were being settled and the will was clear on both the sides.

He said the case of Baglihar Dam was with the World Bank for arbitration that was expected to give an independent verdict by the end of June.

Mr Menon rejected the idea that the India-US nuclear agreement would affect any country.

This agreement was for civil energy needs and for providing safeguards to India’s existing nuclear reactors. “We have never objected to your talks with other countries for civil nuclear energy,” he said.

Earlier, he said one major achievement of the peace process between the two countries had been the ceasefire. The other was the opening up of travel between them, restoring air, rail and road transport links. This had been done not just across the international boundary but also across the Line of Control (LoC).

Agreements to trade and travel more freely across the LoC, opening a new bus route between Poonch and Rawlakot, beginning truck traffic between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad, and for meeting points on the LoC would be implemented this summer. India was also ready to open the Kargil-Skardu bus route, he said.

Mr Menon said India and Pakistan had re-established trade links and were also trying to build an infrastructure for trade. In practical terms, their annual direct bilateral trade had more than been doubled since 2003-04 when it was only $344.68 million. In 2005-06, it exceeded $800 million and both the countries continued to maintain similar rate of growth.

However, informal and indirect trade through third countries, made necessary by Pakistan’s positive list approach, dwarfed their direct trade. This showed that they were far from realizing even a fraction of the potential of trade and economic cooperation between them, he said.

Mr Menon said both the countries were about to sign a revised shipping agreement that would permit the carriage of cargo between Mumbai and Karachi by sea by Indian, Pakistani and third country vessels.

“We also wish to liberalize the visa process for ordinary citizens and businessmen, the two governments were considering a revised visa agreement. Similarly, they hoped to increase civil aviation links, permitting private airlines to fly between the two countries and adding more frequencies and new destinations,” he said.

The envoy said as a result of the dialogue process, ordinary Indians and Pakistanis had successfully reached out to each other, outside the establishment, as had political parties and leaders, media, business community, academics, scholars and students.

He said both the countries had also agreed on some nuclear and conventional confidence building measures such as prior notification of ballistic missile tests, and were discussing steps to minimize the risks from nuclear accidents. Several military CBMs had been suggested and were under consideration.

Mr Menon said India was confident that meaningful agreement on issues like Sir Creek and Siachin could be reached. On the issue of Kashmir, India had demonstrated its willingness to find pragmatic, practical solutions.

The Indian prime minister had often said that border could not be redrawn but “that we can work towards making them irrelevant towards making them just lines on a map.” Mr Singh also envisaged a situation where the two parts of Jammu and Kashmir could, with the active encouragement of the governments of India and Pakistan, work out cooperative, consultative mechanisms so as to maximize the gains of cooperation in solving problems of social and economic development of the region.

“We should be able to do so for the people in the entire state of Jammu and Kashmir from Gilgit to Ladakh, from Baltistant to Jammu, Mr Menon said.

He said naturally this assumed that firm control was kept on terrorism as had been agreed between President Musharraf and Mr Manmohan Singh. Terrorism was enemy of civilized societies everywhere and this was increasingly recognized in both the countries.

Unfortunately, he said, more remained to be done to curb the menace of cross-border terrorism. Despite some variations in infiltration patterns, terrorist training, communications and support continued, waxing and waning with the seasons and the political climate.

M Menon said there was considerable popular happiness with the peace process in Pakistan and India. Among ordinary peoples in both countries such unhappiness was expressed with the pace and not the direction or content of the process.

“Official Pakistan, however, sometimes says that India must resolve the Kashmir issue if other steps were to continue or be taken,” he said.

He said this view wrongly assumed that Pakistan had no interest in a broader relationship with India, and ignored how confidence building could make it easier to resolve issues. It would be a mistake to bind steps to normalize their relations to finding a solution to Jammu and Kashmir. Doing so only made the benefits available to both the countries from normalization hostage to the most difficult issue that they faced.

“Instead, we should do both, seeking solutions and normalizing relations,” he said.

Mr Menon said it was time that both the countries recognized their common political interest. The most obvious ones lay in combating terrorism and extremism, and in working for a peaceful periphery and regional environment, such as in Afghanistan, which enabled the sub-continent to develop.

He said both the countries were embedded in an Asian economic resurgence, were next to the world’s largest energy resources and were located on one of the world’s major trading routes.

“I, therefore, find it hard to understand why even MFN trade, or just opening up bilateral trade with India to those goods that Pakistan imports from other countries, is not possible,” he said.

He said reciprocal transit too was an obvious way to utilize the opportunities that the location of both the countries gave them. Not to do so, in the hope of a solution to one issue or another was a policy that had failed for the last 60 years, not providing either a solution or even movement towards a solution. Mr Menon said the political, economic and international environment was supportive for peace. If both the countries were bold, they could break out the zero-sum mentality of a nationalism based on reflexive hostility, defining their security in more than purely military terms.

“Instead we can actually make a difference to the basics of our relationship and concentrate on the real battles of the future, fighting poverty and ignorance, rather than reviving the quarrels of the past,” he said.

Earlier, ESU President Gen Wajahat Husain (retired) presented the address of welcome.

Dr Mira Phailbus presented the vote of thanks. Mr Menon was also presented a momento on the occasion.