***Analysts say that the talks were resumed because of the Indian prime minister's vision of India as an influential global player, which would depend on robust economic growth in the coming decade, which, in turn, would depend on IndoPakistan relations.***

THE relation between India and Pakistan is like a see-saw game. Sometimes it improves but often it goes two steps backwards. The reason is mistrust between them and rivalry on regional issues.

After a 14-month hiatus, the much-

publicised ice-breaking talks between the Indian and Pakistan foreign secretaries — Nirupama Rao and Salman Bashir — were held in New Delhi on February 25.

The general hype associated with an India-Pakistan meeting was reportedly absent in New Delhi. The talks on February 25 were sandwiched between the announcement of India's railway budget

on February 24 and the general budget on February 26. Much of the attention of the people had been diverted by these two mega events.

The usual joint statement that follows such meetings was not issued, indicating that this meeting was just a meeting for meeting's sake. At best, the talks have formally ended the freeze in ties.

After the meeting, India's foreign secretary was quoted to have said: "We have set out to take a first step toward rebuilding trust... We have agreed to remain touch." Nothing more was said.

The dialogue between the two countries was called off after the Mumbai terror strikes of November 2008 as public outrage forced the government to withdraw from the talks.

The agenda was not agreed upon because India wanted to focus on terrorism while Islamabad wanted all "core issues" and pressed for resumption of composite dialogue, which was suspended after the Mumbai attacks. Meanwhile, Pakistan has hinted at taking up the Kashmir issue during the meeting with Indian officials on priority basis.

The squabbling on the agenda demonstrates that very little trust and confidence have been restored between the two countries.

Furthermore, the volatility of the relations was made evident when a bomb exploded at a bakery on February 13 in Pune, killing 15 people. The Indian authorities suspect that the attack could have been orchestrated by Lashkar-e-Taiba, the same Pakistani terrorist group that plotted the Mumbai attack The opposition party BJP demanded India should step away from talks.

Most fundamental for Pakistan is the Kashmir dispute, which has remained unresolved for more than 60 years. Pakistan is helpless because it cannot force India on the issue. Indian-controlled Kashmir has again become a battlefield for separatists and Indian security forces. India thinks that Pakistan is behind this. This has added to the problems between the two countries.

Currently, Afghanistan has become the power game between India and Pakistan. The Karzai government in Afghanistan suspects that Pakistan could be destabilising the country through militants.

The Afghanistan government supports the assistance and role of India in the process of bringing stability in the country. India has committed more than$l.lbillion for the reconstruction of the country. It is also training teachers and civil servants in Afghanistan, giving scholarships for Afghan students in India, and erecting a new Afghan Parliament building.

Pakistan suspects that India is deliberately undermining its influence in Afghanistan.

Pakistan's perennial fear is of being squeezed between India on one flank and an Indian-dominated Afghanistan on the other. Strategically, Pakistan cannot let it occur because it will be suicidal for it.

Analysts say that, to counter this uncomfortable squeeze, Pakistan's intelligence agencies are likely to provide assistance to extremists in Afghanistan so that India does not succeed in holding sway over Afghanistan. Furthermore, until the Kashmir issue is resolved, jihadis will continue to target soft spots in India. To an average Pakistani, India poses a greater threat to its security than a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan.

Many analysts say that the talks were held to help the US create an environment between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, in which the American military effort against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan can be successful.

Another reason for the failure of the February 25 talks is the political instability in Pakistan. President Zardari has locked horns with the Supreme Court, and the leader of PML (N) Nawaz Sharif reportedly said: "If there is any danger to democracy, it is from these actions by Zardari. Inmyview, Zardari is the biggest threat to democracy today."

Furthermore, military chief Kayani's apparent distaste for the Zardari government is now barely disguised.

The Indian side argues that talking with the beleaguered Zardari civilian government of Pakistan is meaningless because the real decision-making power is far from the government.

However, analysts say that the talks were resumed because of the Indian prime minister's vision of India as an influential global player, which would depend on robust economic growth in the coming decade, which, in turn, would depend on Indo-Pakistan relations.

During the past year, the Indian PM repeatedly tried to keep the door open to Pakistan, and he was severely criticised by the opposition parties for doing so.

Salman Haider, the former Indian foreign secretary, said that there was no other way that India and Pakistan could address the issues, while former Indian high commissioner to Pakistan, G. Parthasarathy, disagreed and said that the government was undercutting its post-Mumbai position of refusing to negotiate formally until Pakistan took concrete steps to curb Pakistani terrorist groups that sought to attack India.

Finally, talks are certainly much better than freezing dialogue, as Churchill once said: "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war."

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.