Not to be browbeaten

Diplomacy, let us not forget, is war by other means. Pakistan has repeatedly gained through diplomacy what it has lost on the battleground. It seeks to do so again. And Manmohan Singh has done well to stand firm during his encounters in New York with President Musharraf of Pakistan and the American leadership.

The "war on terror", when it was launched four years ago, put Pakistan on notice that it could not hope to continue its low-grade war with India. Still, Mr Musharraf was unwilling to call off the game of "death by a thousand cuts" until the riot act was read out to him.

In return, India came back to the negotiating table. The good general, always in a hurry, has got impatient about progress and therefore returned to the business of nurturing terrorist camps, and sabre-rattling in the United Nations.

The US, which defines the war on terror in unilateral terms, is keen to give the general other countries' medals to take home as trophies. A year ago, when Dr Singh met President Bush in New York, the American leader said that he had invested a great deal in Mr Musharraf. The message was clear.

This time round, it has been clearer still. Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, told Dr Singh to give some concessions to the Pakistan leader. The virtues of being a client state are obvious: your many sins are forgiven, and the big boy bats for you.

Dr Singh speaks softly, but he speaks well. He made a neat point in his address to the UN General Assembly about that organisation's "democracy deficit", a well-chosen phrase in today's context. And in his comments to President Musharraf as well as to Ms Rice, he stuck to the now established positions: progress on Kashmir is dependent on the Pakistan leader sticking to his promise to end terrorism, and there can be no question of changing borders.

This kind of dialogue suggests an impasse, and it may take some back channel diplomacy to get forward movement again. It can only be hoped that President Musharraf has got the message.

It is also time to ask the Indian negotiators some questions. Other than ending terrorism, what exactly is India asking in return for working towards a flexible position on Kashmir? Indeed, are we asking for anything at all?

Or is this to be a one-way street where India is expected to make concessions and be happy with Pakistan's promise of good neighbourliness in return?

A wiser strategy would be to make the talks with Pakistan the side show and develop a more full-bodied Kashmir policy that focuses on effective development, job creation, the ending of atrocities by the security forces (and swift retribution if anyone crosses the line), reduction of troops, and a multi-level dialogue with the people of the state (not just with the Hurriyat).

Especially since the Hurriyat itself has apparently recognised that the state can cease to be an armed encampment if the threat of violence recedes, it is time the people of Jammu & Kashmir saw that Indian nationhood has meanings other than the wrong end of a rifle.

It is this which will make possible Dr Singh's vision of a borderless region, free of strife. It will not come through negotiations with Pakistan, which above all else wants territory that India controls and will pursue that objective using whatever tactic is suitable at any point of time.