News
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Phraseology in joint statement ‘ruined’ Islamabad talks* Both sides discussed issues including Kashmir, water, Siachen, Sir Creek but India opposed mentioning talks on Kashmir in joint statement
By Iftikhar Gilani
NEW DELHI: Indian and Pakistani diplomats are endowed with rich English vocabulary, often used to launch verbal attacks against each other and drafting watertight statements.
Their mastery over the linguafranca has proved more than a bane in their relations, as for the second time after the Agra Summit of July 2001, the talks in Islamabad between the two foreign ministers were rocked by their locking horns on “phraseology” and the “choice of words” to be used in the joint statement.
Even after discussing all issues during the six-hour-long talks, India objected to using the phrase “substantive discussions were held on Jammu and Kashmir” in the synopsis of agreed points, formulated ahead of the draft joint statement.
India insisted on formulating it as “Jammu and Kashmir and peace and security would be discussed at an appropriate time”. Sources said both sides discussed all issues, but India was not ready to mention the talks on Kashmir and Siachen in the joint statement.
Contrary to general perception, the sources believe the delegation-level talks progressed well, setting a calendar for secretary-level talks on commerce, internal security, terrorism, visa issues and matters related to drug trafficking and water sharing.
The Pakistani side even asked India to put in writing its formula on the Sir Creek issue, drawing a boundary running down the middle of the creek.
But India insisted that no such calendar was needed for the issue of Kashmir, peace and security and Siachen, and suggested to use the phrase that “they will be discussed at an appropriate time”.
The Indian side also confirmed that they never shied away from discussing the issue of Pakistan’s concern. “We said building trust will be a catalyst to move forward in these areas. We believe there is need to warm up before the process is actually launched,” they maintained.
Pakistan insisted on having a timeline for Kashmir and Siachen, as well as for other issues, which was rejected by the Indian delegation. “We cannot reach the intensity if there is no warm up,” the Indian side said.
“We had clear idea what is doable. We had gone into lots of preparations. Let a degree of normalcy return. We wanted to start with trade, economic exchange, modest CBMs, even to address Pakistan’s concern on water. We are also willing to talk on other issues that they wanted,” sources in the Indian government said.
Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi feared a political backlash if a joint statement eluded the mention of Jammu and Kashmir with the current political unrest consuming much of media attention.
Pakistan’s perception was that since Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram had already flagged the issue of terrorism just 25 days ago and shared the detailed interrogation of American citizen David Headley, it was expected that External Affairs Minister SM Krishna would broaden the ambit of the dialogue.
In July 2001, the Agra summit between former president Pervez Musharraf and Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee was also rocked by the choice of words to be included in the joint statement.
Courtesy www.dailytimes.com.pk