KARACHI, 31 August — For those who are not initiated into the mysteries of relations between India and Pakistan, another round of talks between the leaders of the two South Asian neighbors, this time in New York on the sidelines of September’s UN General Assembly session, may not have much significance.
After all, the overpowering expectations that were associated with the Agra summit held in the middle of July had also dashed to the ground because of that perennial and seemingly insoluble issue of Kashmir.
And this has been the fate of all previous initiatives and declarations as well as accords in the 54-year-old history of the two countries independent existence.
But observers do detect a silver lining this time, partly because the heartbreaking deadlock in Agra, attended by an unprecedented media hype, may have injected a new dose of realism on both sides. In the first place, the expectations are unlikely to be raised high this time.
In fact, the announcement that President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee will have a round of talks in New York when both of them of will be there to address the UN Assembly was in itself a major development after India’s very hardened attitude in the wake of the Agra summit.
It is becoming increasingly evident that the two countries carved out of the British India are under intense international pressure to resolve their differences and devote their scarce resources to developing a region which is about the most deprived in the world.
Much of this concern is rooted in the fact that the rivals are now equipped with nuclear weapons.
That is why the Agra summit was seen as a new beginning and there were statements from sides to show that at last the lessons of history were being learned.
But again, India was unwilling to accept Kashmir as the “core” issue and Pakistan rejected the charge that it was involved in “cross-border terrorism” in the Indian-held Kashmir.
It is significant that after the breakdown in Agra, both countries said that the process of dialogue that had begun would continue. Though provocative statements were issued from the Indian side, blaming Musharraf for the lack of even a joint statement at Agra, the Pakistani leader showed restraint and that has made the New York meeting, expected on Sept. 19, possible. What this indicates, as observers have noted, is that the India-Pakistan dialogue is not dead and the hopes that had been raised in Agra can be revived.
Meanwhile, Musharraf, expressing his readiness for constructive and meaningful dialogue with India, has underlined the centrality of the Kashmir issue.
Speaking in the Pakistani-administered Kashmir on Monday, he sought to dispel the impression that he was rigid or unifocal and said that he was willing to discuss all other issues with India.
But he said that there could be no trade or cultural and good neighborly relations with India unless the Kashmir issue was resolved.
On his part, Vajpayee has said that Kashmir issue would of course be discussed during his meeting with Musharraf but added that he would like to improve economic understanding between the two countries.
Analysts in Pakistan have welcomed his openness to discussing Kashmir and have noted that both countries also have an obligation to go beyond the stage of merely stating old positions.
It was not clear whether the New York round will pick up the threads from where they were left off in Agra or if the leaders would be willing to embark on a new course. What is apparently certain is that no major breakthrough will come during this meeting.
But if some flexibility on both sides is preserved, a more significant progress should be possible when the Indian prime minister comes to Pakistan within the next few months. He was formally invited to visit Pakistan in Agra and the invitation had been accepted.
Both leaders are under pressure from their hawks and in Pakistan, Musharraf is struggling to tackle the issue of religious extremism and sectarian terrorism.
Attempts are being made to curtail the activities of a number of jihadi organizations that are believed to have some association with the Mujahedeen engaged in an armed struggle in the Indian-held Kashmir.
The militants are resisting these restrictions, including a ban on collecting donations for jihad, and have alleged that this was being done under US pressure. In that sense, Musharraf has very little space to maneuver against the surge of militancy in Pakistan.
Both leaders, it is felt, are confronted with a very difficult domestic situation and they also realize that persistent confrontation will undermine the prospects for growth in their respective countries.
The situation is more alarming for Pakistan and Musharraf has conceded that the country was facing an internal threat due to unstable economy. After Agra, both sides should understand the others position and be willing to find a middle way.
