In a fast-flying war of words on the interpretation of Ufa declaration, Pakistan late on Saturday night called off the National Security Advisor (NSA)- level talks saying that they "would not serve any purpose if conducted on the basis of the two conditions laid down by external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj."
This means India will have to start afresh to bring Pakistan to the talking table to settle issues of immediate urgency – ceasefire violations and terrorism.
The talks were scheduled to have been held in New Delhi on Sunday and Monday.
Swaraj made it clear that the talks would not happen if Pakistan insists on discussing Kashmir and meeting Hurriyat leaders. She then set a midnight deadline for Pakistan to respond.
India's response came soon after Pakistan's NSA Sartaj Aziz reiterated in a press conference that he was still prepared for the talks, but without preconditions.
Aziz not only blamed India for "virtually cancelling" the first-ever official talks between the NSAs on the pretext of his scheduled meeting with three or four Hurriyat leaders but also claimed that Kashmir was part of the three-point agenda agreed at Ufa. Ufa is the Russian city where Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif met in July and laid a framework for talks on terrorism and ceasefire violations.
Differentiating between composite dialogue and NSA-level talks and blaming Aziz for not looking at Ufa agreement's spirit and operative part, Swaraj said: "It was decided at Ufa that talks will be held at the levels of NSA, DG of Border Security Force and Army Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) on terrorism, peace at border and ceasefire violations only. Kashmir was not a part of the agenda. It can be discussed as part of the composite dialogue process, but, to start that, we first need to have a conducive atmosphere, free from terror and violence."
Reacting to Swaraj's statement that differentiated between composite dialogue and NSA-level talks, Pakistan's foreign affairs ministry said: "She unilaterally restricts the agenda to only two items: creating an atmosphere free from terrorism and tranquility on the LoC…considering that many terror "incidents" blamed initially by India on Pakistan eventually turned out to be fake, it is not improbable that India can delay the Resumed Dialogue indefinitely by concocting one or two incidents and keeping the LoC hot."
"If the only purpose of NSA-level talks is to discuss terrorism, then instead of improving the prospects for peace, it will only intensify the blame game and further vitiate the atmosphere. That is why Pakistan had suggested that apart from discussion on terrorism-related issues, the two sides should also discuss modalities, and, if possible, a time schedule, for discussions on all outstanding issues including Kashmir, Siachen and Sir Creek, in keeping with the understanding of the Ufa statement"
Rebutting India's condition not to bring in Hurriyat as it would be against the Shimla Agreement, where the two countries had decided not to have any third party mediation on Kashmir, Pakistan said: "It has been pointed out repeatedly that it has been a long-standing practice during the past twenty years.. It would be inappropriate for India to now impose the condition of changing this longstanding practice."
However, what took the situation beyond the tipping point, according to MEA sources, was Aziz's sermonic remark: "Is it conceivable that a country like India will cancel the first ministerial interaction between the two countries since Mr Modi's take over, on such flimsy grounds, especially when the main purpose of the meeting was to reduce tensions on the Line of Control and restore trust by addressing each other's concerns regarding terrorist activities sitting across the table rather than through the media?"
Trying to explain that the Modi government gave a long rope to Pakistan, Swaraj said: "India wanted talks to happen despite 99 ceasefire violations by Pakistan, since the Ufa statement and the terrorist incidents in Gurdaspur of Punjab and Udhampur in J&K, because it believed that talks are a necessary option to bring Pakistan to an understanding."
Asserting that India was not running away from talks, but it's the other way, Swaraj said: "Had he (Sartaj Aziz) come to India, we would have presented a live terrorist, Naved (who was involved in the Udhampur attack on a BSF convoy), in front of them. That is why they do not want to come. They will give a dossier, we will give a live terrorist."
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Sushma Swaraj")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}