Much too important to be left to bureaucrats

Somehow the warmth the Pakistan-India relationship had received in terms of hectic official exchanges and think-tank events over the last three months, since the Mohali cricket summit, does not reflect from the outcome of the three rounds of foreign secretary-level talks the two countries held in Islamabad last week.
At the end of the day, there was a tinge of sadness and disbelief that the foreign secretaries could not move the talks any further, into the realm of reality and substance - though the atmospherics remained cordial in that the two of them even held a joint news conference as against the original plan to meet media persons separately. Even when Indian Foreign Minister S M Krishna had warned against expecting any significant move forward from these talks, the people here and around the world had hoped that India would like to finally get out of the Mumbai shock - given that Pakistan has done everything possible to prove its innocence.
But Nirupuma Rao was not convinced; she kept insisting the Kashmir could not be discussed under the "shadow of gun", and wanted "a satisfactory closure" of the Mumbai incident as a kind of pre-condition to "enable us (India) to move on with the process of normalisation". India, however, is dragging its feet on the Samjhauta Express episode. To her, that's a different matter and she wanted her hosts to "wait and be patient".
Yes, India does want normalisation of relations with Pakistan but on her own terms. And cardinal among them is to accept India's occupation of Kashmir. That's hardly a propitious omen for the talks of the foreign ministers of Pakistan and India in New Delhi next month. Quite a bit of progress had been made on the issues of Siachin and Sir Creek and the foreign secretaries could announce something concrete on both, or either of them, but did not, confirming reports that the Indian military is adamant not to vacate its aggression. But India's stiffness did not seem to have deterred Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, who saw in the talks the beginning of a fresh start of a "very substantive process", and though "there are well-known positions of both countries on the Kashmir issue... Nonetheless, we have agreed to continue to further discuss all the matters relating to Jammu and Kashmir with a view to finding common grounds". What 'common ground' has come into existence now after Pakistan's long-held and internationally recognised position that the Kashmiris' right of self-determination is sacrosanct and absolutely non-negotiable? Now that the sides have agreed to set up a mechanism to consider ways and means to ease travel between the two parts of Kashmir one may, albeit cynically, say the move is more in the direction of reinforcing the status quo than towards the realisation of Kashmiris' dream. Rao's assertion that the benefits of that move, fondly called 'Line of Control Confidence-Building Measures', would be there for all to see, pales in the face of the Indian government's persistent work at the international level to sabotage Pakistan's economic opportunities - be it Islamabad's market access deal with the European Union or its approach to the Asian Development Bank over the construction of the Diamer-Bhasha Dam.
But having said this, one cannot overlook the desideratum of remaining engaged, keeping the channels of communications open. Even when nothing comes out of talks and they turn out to be barren and inconsequential, the channels of communications remain open, an option of considerable importance to relations between the two nuclear rivals. Given that the entire region is in the grip of terrorism, anything can happen any time, potentially derailing the tenuous relations and can even plunge the region into a serious crisis. In that case these channels would be of some use. So in a way, talks do help in establishing a stable environment. But beyond that it is the quality of political leadership that has to rise and confront the challenges, something that has thus far eluded them because the issues that need to be addressed are much too important to be left to bureaucrats.