SMs failed..

Ya! Both Indian foreign minister S M Krishna (SM1) and Pakistani foreign minister S M Qureshi (SM2) failed to make headway.

SM2 lashed out at India for being “selective” and “not fully prepared” and reversing gears at the last minute. On the other hand, S M1 said all core issues and burning problems between the two sides were discussed and considerable work had gone into preparing for the talks. Yes! It is a paradox, when one is saying it is SELECTIVE, the later is saying ALL ISSUES were discussed. Is ‘all’ means ‘all selective issues’? I think so. But can I ask what were the issues deliberated upon?

SM2 also compared home secretary G K Pillai with JuD chief Hafiz Saeed. But my submission here is: India is responsible for the statement of Mr. Pillai, but is Pak responsible for Saeed’s. What the former said is based on evidence on record but what was the basis of Saeed’s non sense speech? If Pak is ready to take responsibility, it must be understood that it is a terror State. Qureshi said, “We had an extended meeting, looking at various options that will build and restore trust.” But, is this the way of restoring trust? I doubt.

SM2 even alleged the minister lacked the mandate, while the latter come up saying, “There was no ambiguity. I have confined myself to the mandate I was given.” I think its fine. A minister has to confine him/herself to the mandate, which he is given. 

SM2 said “India was narrowing the dialogue…Indian foreign minister received foreign policy directions from New Delhi…” The latter refused it saying, “I did not call anyone.” But even if he called, what’s wrong in it? Was SM2 expecting SM1 to get directions from Islamabad?

SM2 said, if we focus on only one those issues, which India gives importance, it will be difficult to move forward. Why don’t he come to India to discuss what they feel important? He said Pak is a victim of terror and its cities were repeatedly attacked by terrorists. Look here is a common ground. Is this issue, only important to India?

I agree with opposition that we can’t bear insults again and again. But BJP’s demand for “Call off talks” is not a good idea. Talk and talk, until we achieved…Hurriyat chairman Mirwaiz Umer Farooq was right, when he said, “both countries were caught in a ‘jugglery of words and political jargon’.”