Pakistan has been waging an open proxy war against India for the last one decade and a silent one since its inception. Despite its sponsorship of cross country terrorism and training fanatic religious militias, it has not only got away with it but is also trying to present itself as a wronged and victimised nation. It has been using its leverage with OIC, US and China to siolate India. After engaging in nuclear brinkma-nship for over two decades,on nuclear blasts it tried to convince international opinion that the problem was with India. It tried to plead Pakistan was not breaking consensus on nuclear non-proliferation. After Pokhran blasts, India became more vulnerable to international blackmail. International pressure mounted due to its bad projection of Kashmir, Pak-sponsored terrorism, immature posturings in the wake of nuclear blasts, and endemic political instability. Domestic compulsions of vote-bank politics have been responsible for its apologetic responses on Kashmir, terrorism and nuclear-isation. Indian policy works in fits and starts only.Immediately after the blasts,instead of issuing empty threats,it could have offered to Pakistan that the two nations should jointly fight the discriminatory nuclear policies of the superv-powers. 

Prof Brahma chellaney explains the basis of India's vulnerability ot external coercion in this expression, 'India is at odds with itself and increasingly marginalised through its vacillatons and 'revolving door politics' which makes it vulnerable to external coercion. It has not built the military power needed to command respect, the economic strength to gain leverage or the distinct political philosophy to lead others'. On dialogue with Pakistan there has been euphoria and misplaced optimism on the Indian side. Indian gestures were one sided. The visit was described a 'Defining moment', 'a new dawn', 'breakthrough', 'momentous' etc. About it, a senior journalist remarks, '..we not only imagined things, we actually celeberated an event before it had taken place.. Hearing the breathless, rhapsodic English commentary made one wonder whether Mr Vajpayee was going to Lahore or to the moon. And the Hindi commentary was in Urdu (!) so much so that it constantly referred to the Pradhanmantri as Wazir-e-Azam, and seemed more like a one-man mushaira..' 

The composition of the team that accompanied Mr Vajpayee and earlier in 'people to people' contacts seemed to indicate that Indo-Pak relations are basically a Punjabi and Indian Muslim problem. This diplomatic naievity was reflected earlier also when Mr Gujral was Prime Minister. A reasoned columnist wrote then, 'Now chances of Indo-Pak breatkthrough are more because of the two PMs being Punjabis'. 

On the Pakistani side, there was a restrained and measured welcome. Urdu press in general highlighted the troubles due to Jamaat Islami demonstrations. Khabrain even went to the extend of writing that the whole 

nation rose against the visit of Indian PrimeMinister. In the preceding fortnight before the visit, local English dailies hardly carried any coverage. There were very few editorials on the visit. The English The News claimed that the chiefs of the three services had refused to join the welcome party at Wagah. Also Pakistani side tried to give the impression that the visit of Chinese Defence Minister Chi Haotian was far more important. On February 5, the Kashmir 'Day' was observed with usual aggressive rhetoric. The President and the Foreign Ministers of Pakistan made statements on February 18, which said that Indo-Pak discussions can be relevant only if India agreed to a compromise on Kashmir within the framework of Pakistan demands. On the eve of the visit 25 Hindus were gunned down by ISI backed terrorists in Rajouri. And a few days after the talks in Akhnoor sector alone 19000 rounds were fired on a single day. 

What then are the compulsions for Pakistan in entering into a serious dialogue with India' Is Pakistan really failing as a state due to continuing internal in stability, faiting economy, rising sectarian killings and regional alienation' Is their a trader lobby in Pakistan whose interests run counter to those of Army and other hawkish elements in the power structure' How far the Army backs Nawaz Sharif's 'initiatives' on India' Is Army opinion monolithic in character' Are religious militias totally out of control of Nawaz Sharif' Is Sharief government using hawkish army postures and destructive potential of religious militias for better bargain with India on Kashmir and allied issues' Why is America overlooking the backing of these religious militias by its strategic client state in the Gulf i.e. Saudi Arabia' All initiatives in the ongoing India-Pakistan are to be viewed in this context. 

Pakistani media is subtly trying to divide the concerned Indian opinion on the proxy war against India. An impression is sought to be conveyed that Sharief is not a run of the mill politician and that he is the most powerful Prime Minister in the country's history. It is argued that it is the most opportune time for India to reach a firm understanding with him. Najam Sethi, the Editor of 'The Friday Times' says, 'If Nawaz Sharief had his way he would put Kashmir on one side and accept an extraordinary slow progress on that, while progress is made on other issues e.g. Siachen, Trade, etc. Nawaz Sharief has greater leverage in foreign policy, because he doesnot move in any institutional manner. Nawaz Sharief has made certain statements to appease media but his instructions to foreign office is to move on'. Sethi adds that Sharief made two major concessions-Bilateralism and willingingness to talk on other issues straightway. Najam Sethi argues, 'you have to deal with the equation which after a longtime is favourable'. Shahrayar Khan, former Foreign Secretary echoes a similar line, 'Pakistan is also not saying first resolve Kashmir and then only will we talk of trade, finance agreements etc. Final solution to Kashmir will take two to three years. Nawaz Sharief wants to build a strong economic basis for Pakistan'. Najam Sethi says that Sharief's compulsions are 70% while Vajpayee's are only 30% so far as the American pressure on sanctions is concerned. What Pak media is trying to say is that Sharief represents the interests of nascent Pak bourgeoisie and economic conditions in Pakistan are the main motivating force for Sharief to have serious dialogue with India. Sharief wants a bail out package from the Clinton administration by loosening the sanctions further. In fact, on the eve of Vajpayee visit, Sharief said in a statement that Pakistan was capable of taking bold decisions. 

To stress that Pakistan is no longer indulging in blackmail and shifting priorities from defence to development, Pakistan even indicated that it is willing to withdraw from Siachen if India reciprocated.It suggested demiltitarisation of the glacier and a regime of aerial inspection to be worked out to enforce adherence. In Pakistan National Assembly the enormous cost (Rs 300 million per month) Pakistan was spending to maintain the glacier war, was played up. So far Pakistan has spent Rs 50.2 billion on Siachen and 1344 Pak soldiers have died since 1984. In Vajpayee-Sharief talks the understanding was, sources say, that after thaw over Siachen, ground could be prepared for moves on LoC conversions. However, there has been a backlash from the Pak Army. Its Chief said on March 13 that Pakistan would not accept delinking of Siachen issue from Kashmir. 

There have been many takers among Indians for Pakistan's economic crisis being real'. The Indian media highlights that Pak business class is well disposed towards bilateral trade relations. Govt of India cleared imports worth Rs 387 crore of sugar from mills owned mostly by Sharief family. Sharief is under sever pressure from the business lobby to freeze Kashmir issue and open all trade channels with India, it has been claimed. The advantages of trade with India are also being targetted at Pak business class. Pakistan can get machinery, iron are, coat, wheat and some other items at 25 to 40% cheaper rates from India than elsewhere. India is also a vast market for cotton yarn, textile fabrics, leather products, surgical instrument, sports goods, sugar. In the last fiscal year the illegal imports were worth $1.5 billion while legal imports totalled $155 million. It is also being advocated that there can be joint exploitation of Central Asia gas reserves. 

Prime Minister Vajpayee made three significant gestures to Pakistan.   He visited Minar-e-Pak and Allama Iqbal's tomb. Both symbolise creation of Pakistan on the basis of two-nation theory. India rejects two-nation theory principle on Kashmir. While agreeing to discuss it, Mr Vajapyee did not reiterate the traditonal Indian stand that J&K was an integral partof India. In reply to a question if accepting Kashmir as an issue meant acceptance of right of determination for Kashmiris in India, Mr Vajpayee said, 'the issue was very difficult. I cannot say what solution would finally emerge out of the discussion. Wait for the outcome'. Nawaz Sharieflater claimed that 'when I stated during the talks that Kashmiris should decide on their right to self-determination, Mr Vajpayee said 'It is right'. 

This has been seriously criticised in Parliament. Mr Madhav Rao Scindia, senior Congress MP asked Vajpayee government for a clarification on Sharief's reported statement. Mr Scindia accused Mr Vajapyee for including Kashmir as part of the official agenda for bilateral talks and entering a secret deal on CTBT. He said 'it is high time that these murky, behind the scenes, clandestine deals at the international level cease and the Vajpayee government adheres to his much declared principle of transparency, which has been stated when he assumed office.' What exactly transpired in one to one meeting between Sharief will only be known later. To the waiting reporters, Mr Vajpayee asked 'to wait for the appropriate time' and Sharief said that it will be known in 'duecourse of time'. 

About the prospect of a singificant breakthrough it is too early to say. Much of Pakistani posturings could be to get economic sanctions lifted. India has not been able to get any firm committment, whether Pakistan would refrain from sponsoring cross country terrorism by taking concrete measures. Many analysts attribute the built-up Indian euphoria to attempts by beleagured BJP government to extricate itself from a difficult situation. While attacks on Christians dented BJP's image at international level, party squabbles and non-performance caused a nose dive in its popularity at home. Politically and diplomatically it suits Vajpayee to be friends with Pakistan to send a signal to the Muslim votebank. Alliance with Dr Farooq Abdullah has been a similar compulsion for BJP leadership to improve its image among Muslims. 

However,the fallout of Indian euphoria over Indo-Pak talks can lead to lowering of guard against Pak proxy war and weakening of social resistence against separatists in J&K. Some reports even suggest that whitepaper on ISI activities has been shelved and the firing of Agni-II has been deferred under international pressure.