Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s offer to talk peace with Pakistan is significant for more than the platform from which it was made. Wrapping up the discussion on the president’s address, he said: “If the leaders of Pakistan have the determination and statesmanship to take (the) road to peace, I wish to assure them that we will meet them more than half way.” Pakistan, he indicated, needed to be visibly doing enough to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism on its soil, and “bringing to justice” those involved in the Mumbai attacks. The site is important, because the parliamentary platform asserted the nature of political decision-making in India. The prime minister makes the offer as leader of a democratically elected government, and one seen by all power blocs as representing the will of the people. In doing so, he indicated a crucial problem in talks with Pakistan: the failure of Pakistani interlocutors to show their ability to carry the establishment with them.

Dr Singh’s statement reflects the wide political consensus that after Pakistan’s failure to show good faith post-Mumbai, bilateral talks cannot be returned to where they were pre-26/11. But it also reflects the realism that not having channels of official communication is simply not an option. Engagement is inevitable. Engagement, however, cannot be within the old framework. With the Mumbai attack in November 2008 and its diplomatic aftermath, India and Pakistan lost two years of progress in the peace talks, especially on Kashmir. Crucially, that experience highlighted a change in Pakistan’s internal power structure: there was no single powerful interlocutor to conduct high-level engagement with India. Pervez Musharraf’s successor as army chief has shown no interest in involving himself in the process; the army has for some reason chosen to turn its back on the peace process. And experience suggests the inability of Pakistan’s political leadership to deliver on guarantees on cross-border terrorism.

... contd.