O that lazy feeling

Those who write editorials about Indo-Pak affairs can be neatly divided into two groups - the pessimists and the optimists. The former think nothing should be expected until the Pakistani state changes it character. The latter ignore this reality and allow hope to triumph over experience.

But last week everyone seemed hopeful, even the habitual doom-sayers. By and large the leader-writing brigade chose to ignore Condoleezza Rice`s advice to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that he should give something for President Musharraf to carry back.

I thought there would be an analysis of why she said that because it clearly indicates the Musharraf is under pressure and is being blamed for giving in too much to US pressure. Instead we got either howls of protest or more often, silence. As I have said so many times before, our leader writers are lazy fellows.

The Telegraph was content to gab on about the fact that India and Pakistan had committed to press on with the talks. But it did warn that there are difficulties ahead over Kashmir where Pakistan is asking for things that India cannot possibly do, such as troop reductions in specific areas, namely, Baramula and Kupwara, the two districts where the infiltration from Pakistan is the maximum.  The paper had this to say.

".. what is more worrying is that bureaucrats from both sides may have regained control over the bilateral dialogue. If this continues to happen, then the sad saga of India-Pakistan relations promises to continue into the foreseeable future. Political imagination, and not bureaucratic inertia, must determine the fate of these relations."

The Hindu, meanwhile, was busy damping down expectations, rightly too. "It is obviously unrealistic to expect Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Pervez Musharraf to give a major boost to India-Pakistan relations each time they meet."   That said, it listed all the nice things that have happened in the last two years and finally got down to recognising the fact that the hard bit may be just beginning.

"…there is no doubt that the peace process has entered a dangerous moment. Peace processes are often compared to riding a bicycle. Stop pedaling, and you fall down... India and Pakistan, however, have an opportunity to pedal again when the external affairs minister, Natwar Singh, visits Pakistan early next month and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will hopefully find time to travel to Islamabad later in the year. But if Manmohan Singh lets mindless scepticism take charge of the Pakistan policy, it will only be a matter of time before the peace process unravels."

The Hindustan Times said much the same thing but with a different emphasis. It first railed at the TV channels for raising expectations beyond what could reasonably be expected. Then it said that the peace process had reached the stage where "the two sides must narrow down their differences before they make the big deal on Kashmir." It would have been helpful to know just what the paper thinks this `big deal` might look like. But no such luck.

The Pioneer ran two edits, actually, on the PM`s visit. The first was a rant about what Dr Singh said to President Bush about Mr Vajpayee`s reaction to July`s nuclear deal. The second was about Condoleezza Rice`s suggestions. It landed on the deck running. "Rather than mind the mess in their own backyard for instance, in New Orleans US Administration officials have a penchant for trying to get involved in the affairs of others. Nothing else explains US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to offer some "concessions" on Jammu & Kashmir to Pakistan when the two met in New York."

That set the tone and the rest of the edit was a harangue. Other than saying that Musharraf was under pressure, which we all know, it said nothing of note. If this is what I get from the edits, why I should I read them?