From the time it came into existence, Outlook has consistently espoused Indo-Pakistan comity. In the process, I have been frequently portrayed as ignorant, naive, foolish, even anti-national for this "crime". As someone who lit midnight candles at Wagah some years ago, I am a card-carrying dove on Pakistan. This magazine has, like any other media organ, a limited role in influencing the diplomatic processes being set in motion to ensure normalcy on the subcontinent but I am proud of the Outlook line: India as the larger, relatively more prosperous and stable democracy should extend the hand of friendship to an angry, slightly confused neighbour still grappling with the basics of nation-building. Walking the high road called friendship, India must make, whenever necessary, small unilateral concessions.
I form the post-Partition generation. People like me do not carry the burden of history. I like Pakistan and its people and am appalled at the lies, deceit, intrigue, even farce, which has characterised interaction between the two countries. An otherwise mature republic, we have developed two standards of behaviour: one (generally fair) with the rest of the world, one (generally devious) for our exchanges with Pakistan. Some historian, probably American, will one day assess the price of estrangement, describe how this 54-year (and still going ...), hot-and-cold war has damaged and brutalised the Indian state.
So, Agra last week was potentially the biggest story after 1947 since it held the promise of a new beginning. Those who talk glibly of media hype fail to appreciate the Himalayan possibilities a successful summit held out.
In this issue we examine closely, from both sides of the divide, the intricate and, occasionally, Chaplinesque reasons for the debacle. For me personally, the collapse of the Vajpayee-Musharraf summit was deeply, deeply disappointing. Failure is seldom one-sided but, at Agra, President Musharraf misjudged India's resolve. The General thought if he pressed hard enough, he could get something for nothing.
Much to the chagrin of some of my colleagues, I kept chanting at Agra that we should give the General some verbal satisfaction on the 'core' (or, as he said, 'main') question. Do not send him back empty-handed. In return, I had assumed, on the basis of hard information supplied by Pakistani friends, that our concerns on cross-border terrorism would be met. The elusive draft was supposed to harmonise their concerns with our concerns. Subsequently, one or two other pressing concerns cropped up. However, a deal was still on. Alas, President Musharraf and his foreign minister, long-time India-baiter Abdul Sattar, refused exchange. Most of the concessions had to come from our side. That is not exchange, that is capitulation.
Besides Star TV, I have been badly roasted for indiscretions uttered to the General at the breakfast. By announcing that for the vast majority, Kashmir was indeed the core issue, it seems I "gifted away the Valley". I thought I was merely telling the truth. If you are a joint secretary in South Block on the Pakistan Desk, you will doubtless disapprove my choice of words since diplomats play football with language at Indo-Pak encounters. I was not playing football; neither was I representing the Indian government. With most of my robustly independent fellow-editors, I was representing the Indian media which, thank god, speaks in many voices. The fact that some (most?) Pakistani journalists assumed the role of spokespersons did not persuade me to follow suit. The Indian media has no compulsion to subscribe to the pernicious doctrine of reciprocity.
Despite the furious damage limitation in New Delhi and Islamabad, picking up the pieces from Agra is not going to be easy. The leaders and delegations of both countries will approach the next round extremely warily, expecting treachery at every draft. Establishing minimal trust is the prerequisite now. In future, personal chemistry should take the backseat with more conventional pre-summit procedures up front. Meanwhile, irrespective of the bad atmospherics, talking must not stop. Even if we have to go through the agony of one more no-show summit.