Pakistan is a peace loving country; its foreign policy is directed by its desire to live in peace through friendly relations with its neighbours, especially with India, maintaining Islamic identity and promoting regional peace and cooperation. Friendly relations with neighbouring countries is essential for Pakistan's own economic prosperity. Pakistan's foreign policy is based on the twin pillars of sovereign equality of nations and non-interference in internal affairs of other countries.

In India and Pakistan, human development indices have been low. The people of both countries deserve better and this could be achieved only if both countries cooperate with each other. Relations between both countries have been marked by mistrust and hostility. One single incident is capable of destroying the trust that both attempt to cultivate over a period of time. Pakistan wants to resolve all outstanding issues and conflicts, including Kashmir, peacefully with India. It aims to evolve a durable mechanism to do so in accordance with international law. In the last one year, India and Pakistan have taken significant measures to reduce the gap between them. Rail, road and air links have been restored. Diplomatic missions in both countries have also been restored. Both countries have exchanged prisoners who were languishing in each others jails. Besides, people to people contacts have improved, which have raised great hopes at popular level.

Irrespective of change in governments, the dialogue process which was started last year continues. Foreign secretaries of both countries met each other in New Delhi and Islamabad in which many issues have been discussed to the satisfaction of both sides. During these meetings, neither side tried to score points over the other nor were there statements deliberately given to the media. After proposing a series of nuclear CBMs, Pakistan has also proposed conventional CBMs to be discussed at experts' level. Forthcoming meetings in September 2004 between foreign ministers have generated high expectations in both countries.

India and Pakistan today are at a historic juncture. Non-resolution of Jammu and Kashmir has been the sole reason for not resolving other outstanding issues between India and Pakistan. Both countries have to accept this stark reality and proceed accordingly. Minus Kashmir, all other issues are minor and could be resolved. There is no military solution to Kashmir. Both countries have to reach a solution politically along with the Kashmiris. On this, the four points proposal enunciated by General Musharraf is ideal to resolve the issue; it takes into account the positions of all parties.

Questions and Comments from the Floor

• In the last one year, people in both countries have moved forward, whereas the establishments are falling behind. Pakistan, in particular has been sticking to the old stand while its people have moved forward and are willing to move further.

• The meeting between Nawaz Sharif and Bill Clinton during Kargil conflict on 4 July 1999 at Washington DC is significant. The meeting and the subsequent joint statement has further strengthened the belief in the sanctity to the Line of Control (LoC).

• Why can't both countries get rid of the irritants first? Let people to people contacts move forward and let minor irritants be resolved first. This would automatically pressurize the governments to move further on other issues.

• Why have there been so much of nuclear saber rattling between both countries? Is it intended for foreign consumption?

• What is the position of Pakistan's Army in Kashmir? Its stated aim for long has been wresting Kashmir from India. General Musharraf is on record stating that irrespective of the resolution of Kashmir issue, low intensity conflict would continue. "Pakistan Army is the only army in the world to have run a big business enterprise. Irrespective of the talks for the last one year, little has been achieved at the ground level from Pakistan's side. How is India to trust Gen Musharraf when he has stated on record on the continuance of low intensity conflict?

• What is the political future of Pakistan? The present system may be stable; but what of the future? What kind of Islam does Pakistan want? Taliban or moderate? What kind of role should the Army have in future?

• General Musharraf seems to be confused. Earlier he talked about UN resolutions; he gave it up later. He spoke about a time frame to resolve issues with India; later he back tracked. He does not trust anyone either in PML-Q or in the Army.

• Pakistan today is unstable. Never before have these been attacks on the President, Corps Commanders or Prime Ministers. "The religious parties in Pakistan do not have an uniform policy towards India. " What would be required to keep the peace process alive? If there is more violence in J&K, one side may pull out of the cease-fire or the dialogue process.

• In Kashmir, how would Pakistan define progress? What would be acceptable to Pakistan? What is it willing offer to India?

• How much of the instability that one witness inside Pakistan from Waziristan to Karachi is the outcome of Pakistan's Kashmir policy?

• What if the understanding reached by India and Pakistan is not acceptable to the militants/jihadis? General Musharraf has been on record stating that he does not have a whistle to stop the militants. If the militants are to have an independent policy and not under Pakistan's control, why then should India speak to Pakistan? It may as well speak to militants directly either through military means or political dialogue?

• What would be Pakistan's policy after General Musharraf? Is his 'enlightened moderation' shared by everyone inside the Army? " Does the Hurriyat represent the people of Kashmir? On their visits to Delhi Hurriyat leaders' first visit is to the Pakistan High Commission. The people of Kashmir have expressed their views several times during their elections in the past. What kind of mechanism would be needed to ascertain the wishes of Kashmiris?

• If the Kashmiris on both sides of the LoC are willing to agree to more autonomy from New Delhi and Islamabad, would that be acceptable to Pakistan? If India and Pakistan are to give up their positions there exist large space to resolve the conflict.

• Mindsets and lack of political will have been two major factors between India and Pakistan in resolving their problems in the past. How to generate a political will in both countries and how to change the mindsets?

Answers/Responses from HE Ambassador Aziz Khan

• The people in both countries in fact have moved ahead. Looking at the popular mood, the governments should be led by the people and should not lead the people. The governments should attempt to create or mould public opinions; rather they should respond to it.

• The meeting on 4 July 1999 between Sharif and Clinton could be interpreted in different ways. The sanctity of the LoC has always been there and has been violated before. It was violated first in 1984.

• People to people contacts have been taking place for the many years. There are further plans to ease visa regimes. Recent discussion between the governments over this issue would make these contacts move further ahead. In fact India and Pakistan should attempt visa free regimes in South Asia. Why should there be any visa restrictions between India and other SAARC countries?

• There has not been much change in terms of the dialogue itself. It seems both India and Pakistan have been caught in a time wrap. Many issues being discussed now have been under discussion since 1989.

• There have been no nuclear saber rattling in the recent past. Both countries have been particular on this.

• There is no separate agenda for Pakistan's Army in Kashmir. Pakistan's agenda has been stated in General Musharraf's four points.

• Both countries should move away from their stated positions. India does not accept a plebiscite; Pakistan does not accept India's position that Kashmir is an integral part of India.

• Low intensity conflict in Kashmir - every one knows what the reasons are for it and when it all started. If the reasons for its beginning are removed, it would stop.

• General Musharraf's statement on low intensity conflict could have been the result of mistrust vis-?-vis India.

• India and Pakistan need not have a fixed time frame for resolving outstanding issues. However, time is now favorable to resolve their long standing misunderstandings.

• The present government has taken adequate steps to establish democracy in Pakistan. The National Security Council (NSC) does have a civilian majority.

• There is no confusion in General Musharraf's actions or statements. Since the stated positions have not made any head way, he has put forward positions which are practical.

• The present security situation in Pakistan is due to external factors - the war against Soviet Union in Afghanistan, subsequent jihad and 9/11. Whatever is happening inside Pakistan, cannot be called as destabilizing. Pakistan has been taking efforts to address these threats.

• Religious parties have in fact made it clear many times that they are willing and ready to co-exist with India. When Vajpayee visited Lahore, they were present in the meeting and attended the dinner.

• India is giving full consideration to the proposals submitted by Pakistan; so has Pakistan to Indian proposals. At times statements have been carried in the media more for propaganda purposes which need to be ignored.

• Militancy would stop once Kashmir issue is resolved. When a resolution is reached between India and Pakistan, why should there be any militancy?

• Pakistan has been taking enough steps to control militants/jihadis. Madrasas today are accountable to the government and are engaged in educating the people.

• It is an important point on how to determine the wishes of Kashmiris. Plebiscite and a role for the UN are two modalities which have been discussed earlier.

• India and Pakistan should sit down and find out together what is acceptable to the Kashmiris before finding out whether an option is agreeable to Pakistan or not. Also the final agreements should be acceptable to the people of Pakistan as well.

• Every time a dialogue takes place, a change does take place in the mindset of the leaders. Continuing the dialogue would take care of changing mindsets in both countries. Political will would come once the people start expressing themselves.