The solution lies in Pakistan’s govt and military agreeing to a thaw writers Kuldip Nayar.

It did not augur well for Pakistan-India relations that the two countries were unable to agree on the venue for the meeting of the two countries’ foreign secretaries.

The meeting is now expected to take place on the sidelines of the NAM summit to be held later this month in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt. It is difficult to imagine anything tangible coming out of the talks.

India’s stand is that the meetings of foreign secretaries should be devoted only to terrorism, particularly the Mumbai carnage. New Delhi does not want the meeting to be taken as the resumption of the composite dialogue which broke down following the carnage. On the other hand, Pakistan would like the foreign secretaries to discuss 'all issues', including the composite dialogue. Islamabad is said to be keen on taking up the Kashmir issue which is part of the dialogue.

No doubt, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Asif Zardari must have discussed at Yekaterinburg, Russia, their respective stands and many other things in their one-to-one talks. They are the ones who instructed the two foreign secretaries to meet before the summit in Egypt. Their talks would be of little use because one should have time to work on the points raised by the other. The opportunity given to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan Prime Minister Gilani at the summit would be wasted if they have nothing but the deadlock to discuss.

Unfortunately, Gilani may pick up the thread from where Zardari left off. He has said the core issue is Kashmir. One does not see how the point of the terrorists’ attack on Mumbai can be stretched to a solution for Kashmir, however important the latter is. But then the Pakistani prime minister also raised the Kashmir issue when Jamaatud Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed was set free by the Lahore High Court.

It is like a BJP leader saying on the day of the Babri Masjid’s destruction that Kashmir was an integral part of India.

That the Kashmir issue should be resolved needs no repetition. This has beleaguered the two nations for decades and has led to wars. New Delhi realises more than Islamabad that normalcy is not even thinkable without having Kashmir out of the way.

But that requires a proper atmosphere in India and it cannot be created without bringing the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack to justice. Pakistan has to create confidence in India that it is willing to take into account the thinking in New Delhi which feels that it has been wronged again and again.

Coming to Kashmir, the main objection of India is to its division on the basis of religion. Another difficulty New Delhi faces is that the boundaries of Kashmir cannot be redrawn. The Indian parliament will not agree to a constitutional amendment that the alteration will entail. What can come in handy is Gen Pervez Musharraf’s formula which made borders redundant and divided the state territorially. Retired officials from India and Pakistan, who constitute the back channel, have gone on record to say that they had covered 80 per cent of the trek to Kashmir’s solution.

If true (I know both sides were optimistic at one time) there is every chance of the formula being retrieved and pursued. At some stage, the people of Jammu and Kashmir can be associated with it, because there can be no solution without their concurrence. Yet it is a pity that some leaders in the valley are bent on stoking parochial fires, trying to give an Islamic edge to Kashmiriat, a pluralistic concept.

In fact, India is worried over the brutalisation of society. Happenings in Kashmir have contributed towards it the most. The nation is opposed to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act which drastically changes procedures for trying those accused of terrorism. The common man has suffered from the untrammelled powers of the police. The Armed Forces (Special Power) Act has given extraordinary powers to the security forces in the northeast and Kashmir. Democracy loses its content if the laws of an authoritarian state become part of governance.

Yet when cross-border terrorism becomes a menace, fear takes over society. It pawns its liberty to those who assure it of security or some semblance of it. Kashmir has dulled the sensitivity of even the liberals.

The support to Pakistan by India against the Taliban is natural. India Defence Minister A.K. Anthony has said that his country too faces the danger of the Taliban. This makes the elimination of the Taliban the topmost priority. At present, the Pakistan Army and America plan, control and pursue the operation. Were India to send its forces, as is the reported request by the US, it would be a development which the Pakistan Army might not like.

The solution lies in both the civilian and military wings in Pakistan agreeing to a détente with India. But the army has given no evidence that it wants to bury the hatchet. Its proximity to America and the military aid it is getting from it has made Islamabad stiffer than before.

The Manmohan Singh-Gilani meeting in Egypt or the meeting of foreign secretaries can be successful only to the extent that Gen Kayani is willing to go. Can

he look at Pakistan’s relations with India without bringing in the past? Normalcy between the two countries depends on that. Washington can play an important role.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.