COMING after years of strained relations between India and Pakistan, the proposed summit meeting between Vajpayee and Musharraf is a welcome development. Whatever be its outcome, the scheduled talks are a reflection of the deep urge among the people on both sides of the border for making an attempt to break the impasse and overcome the bitterness that has crept into the relationship between the two neighbours. Bilateral dialogue between the two countries is essential to sort out all the outstanding problems. Such a course alone can lead to establishment of normal relations between the two countries and, more importantly, enable them to devote their energies to tackling the urgent problems facing their respective peoples. It is in this context that the invitation extended by Prime Minister Vajpayee to President Musharraf has to be welcomed.

During the run-up to the summit, a lot of expectations have been raised. A good part of this hype is thanks to the media, which is projecting the summit as a major breakthrough and raising high expectations. While it is also a manifestation of the earnest desire of the people to resolve the outstanding issues, it would be naïve to expect any major agreement or settlement right now. If anything, the summit can only be construed as a resumption of the bilateral dialogue that had been disrupted after the Lahore meeting between Vajpayee and Nawaz Sharif, owing to the Kargil intrusion by Pakistan.

While no concrete agenda has been set for the summit, it is expected that several pending matters --- including those of Kashmir, trade and commerce, cross-border terrorism, etc --- would be discussed. However, the Pakistani side has made it abundantly clear that it would like to focus on Kashmir alone. As Musharraf put it, Kashmir is the core issue. The general being a staunch advocate of Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan, it would be foolhardy to expect anything substantial on this issue. The failure to respond to the Indian side's appeal to stop cross-border terrorism as an initial step has to be seen in this light. The inclusion of the Pakistan foreign minister Abdul Sattar in the team accompanying the president and the exclusion of the trade and commerce ministers is yet another indication of what signal Pakistan wants to send before the actual summit takes place.

However, irrespective of what is finally agreed upon, the people would like the two leaders to discuss a host of issues affecting their lives and interests. Giving vent to this desire and expectations of the people, the CPI(M) and the CPI, in their meeting with the prime minister on July 10, emphasised on the necessity of making all efforts to ensure the success of the summit. They also made it clear that while nobody expected any major breakthrough, the desire for peace was overwhelming in both countries. The deterioration of relations between the two countries has also affected regional cooperation forums like the SAARC. We conveyed to the prime minister that while Pakistan would like to stick to Kashmir, India should, while showing its willingness to discuss the issue, also spell out the other important issues that have to be addressed and sorted out urgently. Amongst them are a commitment from both sides not to use nuclear weapons against each other, a no-war pact, improvement in economic relations and trade between the two countries, and so on.

Regardless of what view Musharraf expresses on the Kashmir issue, the Pakistani establishment's viewpoint is diametrically opposite to the Indian standpoint. It is in fact based on the two-nation theory. While they maintain that Kashmir is a part of Pakistan, the Indian parliament not very long ago adopted a resolution laying claim over the Pak-occupied Kashmir. The Pakistani claim rests solely on the spurious logic of religious affinity. But the liberation of Bangladesh has already demonstrated how the two-nation theory was hollow and had to be rejected. Also, that religion cannot be a binding factor was demonstrated by none other than the Kashmiri people way back in 1947 when young boys and girls, armed with weapons, confronted the Pakistani raiders. Proof of India's secular credentials lies in the fact that here live about 180 million people of religious minorities, including Muslims, who are very much part of the mainstream.

These are matters that require to be thoroughly discussed and thrashed out. Achieving the desired results may require many more summits and dialogue at the ministerial level. But there is no denying the fact that it is not force but negotiations alone that can achieve such results. Therefore, the Indian effort should be to ensure that the process of dialogue continues. The whole world is looking forward to this summit. The Indian government must respond in a positive manner and make all efforts to ensure its success.

Before the summit proposal was mooted, many disturbing and dangerous ideas were mooted by various quarters as a solution to this problem. As opposed to the CPI(M) stand of providing maximum autonomy to Jammu & Kashmir within the ambit of article 370, a dangerous proposal regarding trifurcation of the state on communal lines is doing the rounds within and outside governmental circles. According to this proposal, the Hindu majority parts of Jammu are to be separated and the Muslim parts would be amalgamated with Kashmir. As for Ladakh, the Buddhist-inhabited parts would also be separated. This in essence would mean acceptance of the same pernicious theory of communal division. But, as said, it is a theory that ought to be outrightly rejected, as it will seriously undermine the secular fabric of our country.

An unnecessary controversy has been raked about the invitation being extended to the All-Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) to the tea party being hosted by the Pakistan High Commission in connection with President Musharraf's visit. A proposal was mooted at the all-party meeting convened by the Indian prime minister, to the effect that political parties boycott the tea party in protest against the invitation extended to the Hurriyat. The Left has made its stand clear --- that such tactics will only divert attention from the real issues. Moreover, the Hurriyat is still undecided about the invitation, with differences within the APHC on the issue surfacing. It may be noted that the Vajpayee regime itself had earlier sought to hold negotiations with the All-Party Hurriyat Conference. While granting permission to an APHC team to visit Pakistan and hold talks with the extremist leaders based there, the Vajpayee regime refused to issue passports to two members of the delegation on flimsy grounds, even while being fully aware that the Hurriyat leaders have been in constant touch with the extremist leaders based on the other side of the border.

It is in this overall background that the Vajpayee-Musharraf talks assume significance. Whatever be its outcome, the summit will have to be seen as a continuation of the process that was set in motion by the Shimla accord and resumed by the Lahore declaration. The summit in effect means only a resumption of that process and does not represent any major shift or change at the moment. We hope that the government of India, as the prime minister promised, will carry this process forward and hold more such dialogues in the days to come. Media commentators in Pakistan, like those in the Dawn, have also been emphasising the fact that dialogue is the only way out. This is in essence a manifestation of the urge of the people on both sides.