Diplomatic immunity?

How difficult is it for a 329-word statement to be screwed up? On July 16, India and Pakistan issued a joint statement after a meeting of the prime ministers at the NAM summit in Egypt. The brief statement contains two sentences that, quite rightly, created an uproar in the press and Parliament:

"...Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas."

"Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed."

Together the statements reflect a seemingly self-inflicted body blow to India's longstanding positions vis a vis Pakistan. For over a decade now, India has explicitly demanded action by Pakistan against terrorists based in its terrority as a pre-condition for bilateral talks to progress. And India has denied any involvement in the Balochistani separatist movement.

The inclusion of Balochistan in the joint statement obviously implies Indian acceptance of its involvement in the province's separatist movement, or atleast that of elements operating from Indian soil (why would the Pakistani PM discuss information about threats in Balochistan to the Indian PM if this information had no connection to India). Obviously India did not and does not intend to accept any such hypothesis, as the government later clarified. Why then was Balochistan mentioned in the joint statement?

The second statement seems to accept that the bilateral dialogue between the two countries can continue even if there is no action by Pakistan against terrorists who have attacked or are intent on attacking India. The Indian government has since claimed in Parliament that the sentence actually meant to convey that Pakistan must take action against terrorists, whether or not the bilateral talks proceed. If so, someone has to work on their penmanship.

That someone is the Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon, it seems. He and his Pakistani counterpart were the only officials involved in drafting the statement. In an article in the Indian Express ("Joint statement: After the blooper, a bizarre assumption"), Coomi Kapoor says that Menon initially dismissed the concerns about the obvious lacunae in the joint statement raised by Indian journalists in Egypt. "The secretary suggested arrogantly that journalists did not understand English and could not comprehend what was there before them in black and white," she says of his conduct in Egypt. Later, he conceded to Parliamentarians that the statement was poorly drafted ("These things happen, what can we do?" Coomi quotes his excuse).

It is amazing that such a short statement could have been messed up so badly, that too by such a high standing diplomat. He probably won't be given the boot, especially since his removal will mean public acknowledgment by the government of his blunder. But for a country with ambitions of global influence, these self goals will make the already difficult climb up the league tables even more so.