The continuing controversy over the Sharm el-Sheikh statement poses a huge challenge for the prime minister. He has to recognise how much at odds his strategy on Pakistan appears to be with a lot of public opinion. He is clearly right in thinking that there is no option but to try for peace. Trying for peace within the bounds of prudence risks failure, not trying at all will guarantee perpetual failure. Most people would understand that point. They also understand that if politically helping the Pakistani leadership buys you some long-term dividends, it will be absolutely worth it. But what they are a little mystified by is how the Sharm el-Sheikh statement helps anything. The key issue is not the linking of talks with progress on terrorism. You talk if you think you can make progress. The really worrying aspect was the reference to Balochistan in the joint statement. The PM is technically right in his statement: mere mention does not amount to an admission of anything. But this technical self-exoneration misses the larger politics of the issue.

India-Pakistan relations are steeped in symbolism; and the fact that this was the first reference made to Balochistan in any joint statement was, not implausibly, taken as a mark of something. Our response to questions about the activities of our consulates in Afghanistan was unusually defensive. And the PM should have realised that the matter will not be as simple as denying our involvement in Balochistan. Whatever is the truth of the matter, there is a propaganda war on this issue; and recently scholars in the US have given succour to claims of Indian involvement. Our challenge will not be issuing denials: it will be reclaiming the moral high ground.

... contd.