An emissary of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mahmoud Quraishi in Singapore a few days ago to remind him of his promise to visit New Delhi to resume talks which Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna had initiated in Islamabad two months ago.

Very little progress was made then because Pakistan insisted on discussing Kashmir, while India was not willing to do so.
Quraishi apparently did not respond on the grounds that India refused to discuss Kashmir whenever the talks were held. I think the core issue is not Kashmir, but distrust between the two countries. Even if Kashmir is solved, some other issue will assume the proportion of Kashmir since there is a lack of mutual trust.
My information is that Islamabad wants to discuss Kashmir from scratch while India from the point which was reached during General Pervez Musharraf's time when 80 per cent of the problem was reportedly solved. Therefore, the problem is stuck where it was.
Not long ago foreign secretaries of the two countries went more or less over the same exercise, one asking for talks on Kashmir and India's Nirupama Rao saying she had “no mandate” to do so. This may be exasperating for Pakistan. Yet it probably knows the reason.
Kargil was bad enough. But the terrorist attack in Mumbai two years ago was worse. Both incidents were watched on the television in drawing rooms which had left deep impact on the Indian psyche. Even at the best of times, New Delhi has reservations about Islamabad. Kargil and the 26/11 have deepened them.
Terror roadblocks
Had the perpetrators been brought to book, New Delhi would have felt confident.
New Delhi continues to consider the action against Laskhar-e-Taiba chief Hafiz Mohammad Saeed a litmus test. Pakistan has a point when it says that he has been let off by the court “due to lack of evidence”. Had he even kept quiet and not often threatened a war against India, New Delhi would have appreciated Islamabad's difficulties. But this is not the case.
Perhaps an agreement on Kashmir is possible if a comprehensive or composite dialogue gets started. Whichever item is on the agenda, it should be implemented as soon as there is an agreement. For example, the Sir Creek pact has already been initiated by both sides. That can be formalized, much to the relief of fishermen. These are the worst of times for relations between India and Pakistan. Still some improvement in this field may change the focus in both the countries, one battered by scams and embarrassing tape revelations and the other by terrorists and political wrangling.
Since the media in both the countries toes the official line when it comes to India-Pakistan relations, there is no pressure on the governments to resume talks. Activists working for good relations between the two countries have also fallen silent. But the younger generation has grown up in an atmosphere of hostility.
Public response
There is no people-to-people contact because the governments on both sides have drastically reduced the number of visas to each other's nationals. India, a bigger country, should have taken the initiative and made travel free for those above 70 and below 15. Yet things at New Delhi remain frozen.
The public response sustains hope. The biggest applause that a team received at the opening ceremony of the Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, after India's, was that of Pakistan. Indians returning from Pakistan — the number is lessening day by day — talk, not only about the hospitality, but also of the affection they receive.
When India and Pakistan double up to win an international tennis match, it tells the trend is positive, not negative. It means the problem is with the governments, more so with foreign offices and the media.
New Delhi should also be conscious of terrorism within India. The saying that all terrorists are Muslims is not relevant because there is saffron (Hindu) terrorism. It is welcome to see the government taking action against them, although belatedly.
According to the anti-terrorism squad's charge sheet, the list of targets, as gathered from questioning the saffron crowd in custody, included Delhi's Jama Masjid, the Ajmer Dargah, the Makkah Masjid in Hyderabad and the Samjautha Express.
India is settling down as a secular, democratic state. The structure is still weak. But the state election in Bihar showed that it is beginning to overcome the politics of identity. Unfortunately, India has become too chauvinistic and one can see how activist Arundhati Roy has been booked for sedition for having criticised the idea of India. That she evokes little attention within the country shows that her ideas are not acceptable.
A country's integrity is not dependent on stringent laws or their use but how tolerant and accommodative it is.
Kuldip Nayar is a former Indian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and a former Rajya Sabha member.
(Source: Gulf News)