Islamabad/New Delhi, July 16: The dissonance in the India-Pakistan discourse spilled over into the morning after, with talks meant to build trust between India and Pakistan, threatening to create more animosity as the mood soured a day after their foreign ministers met on Thursday in Islamabad.
Pakistan’s foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi caused a flutter the night before when he sought to compare JuD chief Hafiz Saeed’s hate-India speeches with home secretary G.K. Pillai’s remarks about Pakistan’s involvement in the Mumbai attacks. He did not help matters with his volley of potshots at Indian foreign minister S.M. Krishna.
Mr Qureshi told reporters the Indian delegation’s “selective” approach on discussing some issues at the expense of others did not conform to the spirit of Thimpu.
Mr Qureshi questioned Mr Krishna’s authority, saying that while he did not step out during the meeting to “attend any phone calls”, the Indian minister “repeatedly received foreign policy directions from New Delhi”. “I led Pakistan’s team, I didn’t need to make even a single call. Why were directions being sent repeatedly from Delhi? Who is the top foreign policy adviser for India?” Mr Qureshi said. New Delhi dismissed Mr Qureshi’s remarks as an exercise in futility.
Mandate was precise: SMK
Mr Krishna said he had confined himself to the mandate given to him at the Manmohan-Gilani meeting in Thimpu. He described Mr Qureshi’s remark about him making telephone calls as an “extraordinary” statement. “I have not spoken to anybody. The mandate given to me was so precise, so clear, that it does not need any additional instructions from Delhi.”
‘Diversionary tactic’ of Pak
New Delhi believes Mr Qureshi’s remarks about home secretary G.K. Pillai was a “diversionary tactic” by Pakistan, which has so far failed to take action on its promises made to home minister P. Chidambaram during his visit to Islamabad. “Hawkish elements” in Pakistan may have wanted to wreck the talks after Mr Chidambaram’s was deemed a success.
Who gave Pillai nod?
Questions remain on whether Mr Krishna conveyed during the talks that Mr Pillai’s remarks which “only repeated what the Pak agencies are well aware of,” were ill-timed, and explained the foreign minister’s silence during the joint presser. MEA officials were unsure who authorised Mr Pillai to repeat what was conveyed to Pakistan during the Chidambaram-Malik talks.