news analysis The expectations and euphoria generated initially by the Agra Summit petered out when India and Pakistan faced the reality on the ground and were confronted with changing the status quo.

In what was the most media hyped-up summit in recent sub-continental memory, probably also the most televised, Pakistan and India came close, but yet remained far apart on not just the formulation but also the path to pursue on an agreed bilateral road map to normalisation and resolution of the contentious Kashmir dispute.

The summit was like a seesaw, starting with optimism, turning into realism and ending on a note of pessimism. In the end, they both agreed to disagree.

The muted blame-game and the relative absence of a shrill 'war of words' that normally follows such an impasse underscores a mutual desire to continue the dialogue, and not turn a deadlock into a point of no return.

It started on Sunday, July 15 - Day One of the Summit - with Pakistan responding to an interview of the Indian Information minister Sushma Swaraj, who omitted reference to Kashmir while listing the issues being discussed at the Summit, implying as if Kashmir was a non-issue.

Pakistan responded with its standard formulation about the centrality of Kashmir to any enduring settlement between the two countries.

Blind date

On Monday, July 16 - Day Two - General Pervez Musharraf held a breakfast meeting with Indian editors, which was televised, where he reiterated Pakistan's point on Kashmir as the 'core' question, and criticised the Indian Information minister for her statement.

About eight hours later, the Indians came out with their formulation that gave Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's opening statement at their summit talks the day before, which was a checklist of all issues seen as 'outstanding' by India.

Despite what the media had termed as a 'blind date' between Musharraf, the military man turned politician, and Vajpayee the poet-turned politician, they seemed to have struck a good rapport, during their six hours of one-one-one talks.

The Pakistan side accused the Indians of going back on their committed draft, at least three times, and the Indians accused the Pakistanis of not accepting their formulation on 'cross border terrorism'.

But despite this blame-game, neither side wishes to call the Summit a 'failure', implying a desire to keep talking so that the threads can be picked up again at an opportune moment.

Unanswered questions

Going by official statements on both sides, there are three areas on which there is apparent convergence. First, whether it is an 'issue, problem or dispute', and whether it is 'core or central' or plain 'issue', Kashmir is accepted as the principal roadblock to any normalisation of Pakistan India ties.

This issue will therefore have to be addressed from whatever angles, but it is the main marker on any future road map to peace.

Second, both sides are keen to continue to talk, to have the dialogue continue. And, above, all, the acceptance by Vajpayee of General Musharrraf's invitation to visit Pakistan on the first day of the Summit still stands, and both sides say the two leaders would meet before the year end, although no dates are set.

Some unanswered questions remain. The Pakistani side initially accused the Indian 'bureaucracy' of undermining the agreement said to be arrived at between Vajpayee and Musharraf in their one-on-one talks.

That sounds inexplicable, given that such decisions are taken at the highest political level and bureaucrats are there to implement what their leaders tell them to do, basically, cross the t's and dot the i's, they can't reverse decisions.

And if the talks were such a big 'failure', why would Vajpayee still agree to got to Islamabad in the next few months or the two sides agree to carry on the dialogue?

And if they could not 'reconcile basic approaches to bilateral relations', why didn't they agree to do what the Americans and the Chinese did when they faced a similar situation during President Richard Nixon's historic journey to China in 1972?

Then, despite the two sides having a fundamental disagreement on Taiwan, they decided to draft a joint communiqu with each side setting out its respective formulation, instead of trying to force an agreement on semantics while differing on substance.

After all, as on the Sino-American views of Taiwan, Pakistan-India perspectives are well known to differ.

Alternative interaction

For the future, while there will be intense media speculation and scrutiny of each and every move in the summit while it is being dissected for posterity, both sides are aware that the stakes are high, with both being nuclear powers.

As far as Kashmir goes, on Day Two of the Summit, 90 people were killed in fighting in Kashmir, illustrative of a conflict that has a dangerous capacity to escalate with a high human cost and dangers for regional peace as well.

Finally, pressure from the world community will be on both sides to continue the dialogue and ensure that the impasse does not lead to renewal of tensions.

The best part of the summit has been its transparency and openness with the highest number of Pakistani media (over 100) visiting India plus over 50 academics and activists.

This, plus the fact that through television, millions of people on both sides of the border were able to see each other's points of view, debate and discuss these, and have a kind of alternative human interaction on the summit's sidelines which is unique for the people of these two adversarial neighbours.

The above article was first written for the Inter-Press Service (IPS).