How historic?

The Prime Minister conveys an air of satisfaction at the end of his visit to Britain and the US. Some of this could be the after-glow of high-level meetings, which seem to have gone well.

It also helps that the Prime Minister struck the right chord in his public appearances, including at the UN General Assembly. And he correctly focused on the need to reassure the international business audience, in both London and New York, that his government means business.

As a coming out party for a new Prime Minister heading a minority government dependent for survival on communists, therefore, the sense of mission being accomplished is understandable.

Certainly, the relaxed body language at the meeting with President Musharraf of Pakistan told its own story, and stood in sharp contrast with the stiffness of Mr Musharraf's encounters with Mr Vajpayee.

The Pakistan President may want to change his negative image in India, but that will depend more on his actions than on clever diplomacy, which he does not always understand.

Certainly, both leaders need to demonstrate how the meeting was "historic", given that there has been no breakthrough on any significant issue.

Perhaps more has happened behind the scenes than has been publicly acknowledged, and we have to suspend judgement. But the Prime Minister has clarified that no new options on Jammu and Kashmir have been discussed (no surprise there), while the Pakistan President has seen the logic of the Indian position that progress can and should be achieved simultaneously on all fronts.

India in turn has softened its public emphasis on the issue of cross-border terrorism. Since the basic agreement is to keep talking, the substantive outcomes are still to materialise. For that, both leaders need to build an atmosphere in their countries of mutual trust and goodwill, and thus make give and take feasible.

Meanwhile, India's bid for a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council has gained support and credibility, with the four main aspirants coming together on a common platform and Dr Singh making India's somewhat obvious case with a finely nuanced speech to the General Assembly.

That has immediately provoked neutralising steps by the counter-magnets of these countries (Korea against Japan, Italy against Germany, Argentina against Brazil, and Pakistan against India).

The swing factor remains the United States, which so far has not said much; if anything, it has cooled towards Germany because of the Iraq issue. But this would not have been the focus of the Prime Minister's short meetings with President Bush and Prime Minister Blair.

These seem to have been in the nature of courtesy and familiarisation meetings. From India's perspective, Dr Singh is a good ambassador on such occasions and the meetings would have generated both goodwill and understanding.

As for the immediate issue of whether India is able to attract more foreign investment, the coming months will show whether Dr Singh has been able to successfully "sell" his government to the business leaders whom he met.

The short point must be that global business will be willing to buy into a positive India story, but the government has to build credibility by pushing ahead with economic reform. For that, the real work lies back at home.