Yesterday's edition of malaysiakini carried a report on India-Pakistan Summit which was highly biased in favour of Pakistan.

If the talks failed it was not because of India's intransigence. It was because of Pakistani president Pervez Musharaff's insistence that Kashmir should be the only topic of discussion. It is not correct to say India did no conciliatory moves. India had, among other concessions:

1) Extended the invitation to talk, despite its earlier stance that it would not do so until cross-border terrorism is stopped. The terrorism there still persists unabated and in fact escalated considerably during the weekend of the talks;

2) Released from prison all Pakistanis held for illegal entry from Pakistan;

3) Prior to the talks established five new border immigration posts to facilitate legalised entry from Pakistan. Visas were issued at the border posts 'on presentation' of travel papers;

4) Offered a mutual no-visa-requirement offer, which has still not been accepted; and

5) Had agreed to talk (and in fact invited Gen Musharaff) though he was not an elected representative of the Pakistanis. Benazir Bhutto, a previous prime minister of Pakistan had pointed this out in her statement even before the onset of the talks.

Gen Musharaff held a press conference in the hotel he was staying in Agra on the very first night of his talks and released to the press his version of the talks held earlier in the day.

By any diplomatic standards this is an unusual procedure. When heads of governments meet for discussions, one party does not go to the press unilaterally. Either a joint communiqu/statement/declaration is released at the end of the talks or a joint press conference is held at the end of the talks, not midway during the talks.

India was taken by surprise at this move of the general; in fact, taken aback! CNN interviewed Pakistani politicians on this issue and they expressed the view that this only revealed Gen Musharaff's political immaturity.

Whereas India's view was that previous accords between the two governments (like the Simla and Lahore agreements) should be the basis for further talks, the Pakistani position was that old agreements should not be taken into account, but fresh negotiations should commence all over again!

Those earlier agreements were between two independent states, not between any two individuals or two prime ministers, and should naturally form the basis for further discussions/agreements and cannot be ignored completely.

That was the rub, not Indian intransigence.