The monumental lapse committed by the Prime Minister and his team of negotiators at Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt on 16.7.2009 has reversed the consistent foreign policy position pursued by the Government of India.  While we thank the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, for the words of appreciation that he had for peace process initiated by the former Prime Minister, Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Dr. Manmohan Singh has effectively reversed the process set in motion by Shri Vajpayee.  The 6th January, 2004 joint statement between Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf stated –

 

    “Prime Minister Vajpayee said that in order to take forward and sustain the dialogue process, violence, hostility and terrorism must be prevented.  President Musharraf reassured Prime Minister Vajpayee that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan’s control to be used to support terrorism in any manner.”  The purport of the 6th January,2004 statement was—

(a)    that to take forward the dialogue process, terrorism must be prevented and;
(b)    Pakistan will not permit its territory to be used to support terrorism.

Thus, from a Nation which had to bend backwards to India and the world community that terrorism would not be  permitted from Pakistan, the first dilution of the Vajpayee line came in 2006 at Havana, where the Prime Minister brought parity between India and Pakistan.  The prime Minister declared to the world that Pakistan was also a victim of terror.  Thus, from a Nation which allowed its territory to be used to sponsor terrorism against  India, a moral equivalence was sought to be brought between India and Pakistan by the Prime Minister of India  by equating both as victims of terror.  
    
    The second major lapse by the Prime Minister which negated the Vajpayee philosophy completely took place at Sharm-el-Sheikh.  Sharm-el-Sheikh was witness to two major lapses by India’s foreign policy negotiators.  
    
    Firstly, the reference to Baluchistan was conscious and deliberate. It was intended to point an invisible finger at India.  Pakistani media and Prime Minister Gilani have maintained after Sharm-el-Sheikh that the guilt of sponsoring terrorism was being shifted to India and that is why after the Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement,  India, far from being a victim of terror, had overnight become a sponsor of terror.  India went to Sharm-el-Sheikh as a complainant and returned as a guilty.  “ Muddaii ban ke gaye, Mudda alaeha ban ke loute”.   
    
    Secondly, The major lapse at Sharm-el-Sheikh was to delink action on terrorism from the Composite Dialogue process.  The statement emphasizes the need for dialogue.  It states that the dialogue is the only way forward and to over-emphasize  the need to dialogue, it delinks dialogue from action against terror.  This completely destroys the Vajpayee line on peace process. Thus, the Prime Minister paying lip sympathy to Vajpayee’s initiatives is of no avail.  The statesman in Vajpayee and the praise for him cannot shield the prime Minister from the monumental lapses.  
    
    Thirdly, truth has only one version and that is why the Prime Minister on his return to India on 17.7.2009 has changed his statement of what happened at Sharm-el-Sheikh.  His statement to both houses of Parliament reads – 

    This position has now been changed by the Prime Minister in his statement in Lok Sabha on 29.7.2009.  The Prime Minister now says –

“I have said time and again and I repeat right now again.  It is impossible for any Government in India to work towards normalisation of relations with Pakistan unless the Government of Pakistan fulfils in letter and spirit its commitment not to allow  its territory to be used in any manner  for terrorist activities against India.”  

     The condition precedent for a Composite Dialogue  on 6.1.2004 was not to allow its territory to be used for terrorist activities against India.   On 17.7.2009 the Prime Minister understood his Sharm-el-Sheikh commitment to mean that the condition precedent for the starting of a meaningful dialogue will be to stop the use of Pakistani territory for terrorism.  The Prime Minister has now diluted his position on 29.7.2009.  The condition  not to allow its territory to be used for terrorist activities against India is now only for full normalization of relations and no longer for starting a Composite Dialogue with Pakistan.  The truth has inconveniently slipped out.  The joint declaration at Sharm-el-Sheikh means that irrespective of there being no action against terror, the dialogue can start.  
    
    Fourthly, the stand of the Congress Party on this issue is ambivalent. The Congress Party is only appreciative of Prime Minister’s reply in Lok Sabha.  The Congress President in her address to the Congress Parliamentary Party on 30.7.2009 has fully supported the Prime Minister for his firm and unequivocal statement in the Lok Sabha.  Why is the Congress President reluctant to support the joint statement.  There is a fundamental distinction between the joint statement and Prime Minister’s reply in Lok Sabha.  The Congress supports the reply but is shy of making any comment on the joint statement.  
 
    Fifthly, international relations are governed by joint statements and the agreed texts.  They are never governed by unilateral speeches of Heads of Governments in their own countries.  Further engagement between India and Pakistan would commence only from an analysis of the joint statement text.  Will India be bound  by the clear and unambiguous meaning of the joint text in English language or will India be bound by the unilateral explanations of our Prime Minister which are at variance to the plain and simple meaning of English text.

    Sixthly, the argument put up by the Prime Minister that the alternative to a dialogue is a war, is alarmist.  The   success of India’s diplomacy lies in compelling Pakistan to agree to a Composite Dialogue while not allowing its territory to be used for terrorism against India. India should encourage dialogue but not dialogue with terror.  The Prime Minister’s foreign policy does not represent the continuity and the legacy of Vajpayee’s foreign policy. Vajpayee’s foreign policy was to negotiate from a position of strength- dialogue but without terror. That was the core concern . Sharm-El-Sheikh declaration is a negotiation out of fear not strength. It is dialogue irrespective of terror. That is why the Prime Minister erroneously told the nation that there are only two options- Dialogue or War. This is an understanding of India’s foreign policy from a position of weakness, not strength.