After four years of deadlock the mere fact that the two sides have agreed to talk is a plus. — Photo by Reuters

The media in India and Pakistan has failed to rise above its mindset to welcome the outcome of the meetings between prime ministers Manmohan Singh and Yousuf Raza Gilani.

After four years of deadlock if the two sides have agreed to talk it amounts to a plus — not victory or defeat.

In fact the credit goes to Manmohan Singh who has broken the logjam by saying in a joint statement that India is ready to discuss all differences with Pakistan including outstanding issues. He has also explained that Pakistan should deliver on the Mumbai attack before taking up other things, euphemistically called a “composite dialogue”.

Where has he gone wrong? In moving towards the negotiating table or in emphasising that the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage be brought to justice? Is it the stand of hawks in both countries that India and Pakistan should continue to live in enmity and insecurity?

In fact Manmohan Singh has gone the extra mile to reach out to Pakistan so that he can take pride in his efforts. This is to push the two countries from hate to understanding despite the diatribe of opposition leader L.K. Advani and the anti-Pakistan lobby. I wish Gilani had done the same. The Pakistani prime minister when asked whether India was a threat to Pakistan indicated that it was too early to say. This is the line of Pakistan’s army chief Gen Kayani. Gilani should have endorsed President Zardari’s stand that Pakistan is threatened by the Taliban, not India.

Gilani created more embarrassment for Manmohan Singh by announcing that India was fomenting trouble in Balochistan. When Manmohan Singh asked him during the talks to give proof was it necessary for Gilani to issue a statement within 48 hours of the meeting? Understandably, politicians have to play to the gallery. This is what they have been doing on both sides for decades. Isn’t it time for them to turn to the plight of millions on both sides who go without food and are sick of war?

It’s a welcome development that Islamabad has officially admitted that the Mumbai terrorists were from Pakistan. The charge-sheet filed against them, unfortunately many months later, should also assure New Delhi that Pakistan is trying to deliver.

To connect this development with the visit of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to India may be churlish. However, she has correctly underlined Pakistan’s responsibility to “make progress against a syndicate of terrorism”. This demands immediate dismantling of training camps, something India has been consistently calling for. It will be counterproductive on the part of Islamabad to argue that it has no training camps on its territory when New Delhi has provided it with the required information about them.

What is amusing is that practically every newspaper and TV channel in Pakistan brought in Kashmir, even though it was not specifically mentioned in the joint statement. When Manmohan Singh agreed to discuss all outstanding issues, Kashmir was also included. But this has been done before.

New Delhi’s stand is that it will not accept religion as the basis for any political solution. India realises that its secular polity, however old, is still rickety and weak. If it accepts religion as the basis, how does it defend the principles of pluralism and one nation? True, India was divided on the basis of religion, but how can we perpetuate it when every village of ours has Hindus and Muslims living together? I have no doubt that Pakistan will also be one day a secular country, a concept which Quaid-i-Azam propounded, when he said on the eve of partition that religion had nothing to do with the business of the state.

Another point to be emphasised on Kashmir is that borders can be made irrelevant but not altered. This is what Manmohan Singh said and former Pakistani president Gen Musharraf, however wanting in other respects, tried to implement. There must have been some formula which Musharraf has left behind which can be discussed so that Kashmiris on both sides have as much autonomy as possible with soft borders.

I wish the Hurriyat had worked on something like this, but it is lost in the maze of many formulae, ranging from forging an Islamic entity to an independent country. And its greatest weakness has been that it has not been able to take along either the Hindu-majority Jammu or the Buddhist-majority Ladakh. Still the Hurriyat claims to represent Jammu and Kashmir.

Pakistan should be assured that India wants to settle the Kashmir problem bilaterally without any external involvement. Hillary Clinton’s statement that the two countries should resolve their problems bilaterally, should silence those in Pakistan and Kashmir wanting to draw Washington into the imbroglio.

Many in India and Pakistan are still prisoners of the past carrying the baggage of partition. They have to shed their biases for today’s generation which wants economic growth and opportunities. Is it realistic to believe that a 21-year-old Indian or Pakistani cares passionately about property that their ancestors left behind or the hazardous journey that they undertook from one country to another? In India when a young Muslim is taunted about Pakistan, the response is: “Dig up my grandfather from his grave and ventilate all your anger against him.”

Today’s youth want to travel and trade across the border. Like their counterparts from other areas of the world they are driven by curiosity and hopes for a better future. Both India and Pakistan have economies which can be further developed for mutual benefit. Ultimately, South Asia can have a common market as in Europe where cheaper goods and services could be made available for the benefit of all.

This is as much a reality as talking turkey.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.