By Tarun Basu,

New Delhi, Sep 19 (IANS) Is there a subtle change in Indian policy towards Pakistan or at least a shift in emphasis? Indian policy planners deny this, but a change has been discernible in Indian pronouncements after the Havana declaration about resumption of high-level dialogue between the two countries.

When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh spoke to the media accompanying him on his trip to Brazil and Cuba, he made two comments that led to much discussion: one, that Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism and, two, there were forces in Pakistan that act outside of government control.

What this meant was that for the first time India was saying that Pakistan was as much a victim of terror as it was a source. This was a far cry from the usual demonizing of Pakistan and the almost instinctive blaming of Islamabad every time violence strikes India - whether in Mumbai, Malegaon or Bangalore.

With Indian investigative agencies yet to come up with solid evidence linking Pakistan-based groups to either the train bombings in Mumbai or the blasts in Malegaon in the most recent of terror acts in India, realization had dawned on Indian policy planners that snapping the dialogue process with Pakistan on the basis of circumstantial evidence was not going to get them anywhere.

As the prime minister himself said: "We cannot wish away geography. Our destinies are interlinked, and these cannot be realized unless there is reconciliation between India and Pakistan."

The Joint Statement issued after the meeting between Manmohan Singh and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf in Havana reflected these sentiments: "The leaders agreed that the peace process must be maintained and the success was important for both countries and the future of the entire region.

"In this context, they directed their foreign secretaries to resume the composite dialogue at the earliest possible."

This was a far cry from the atmosphere immediately after the Mumbai train bombings of July 11 that killed nearly 200 people, when Pakistan was instantly blamed for the outrage and even Manmohan Singh talked of "elements from across the border" orchestrating violence in India.

It was then made out by the government that it cannot talk to Pakistan unless it gives iron clad assurances that it will not allow its soil to be used by anti-India terrorists. The foreign secretary-level talks due in July got indefinitely postponed as New Delhi refused to confirm the dates for the meeting.

With Havana looming on the horizon, it became clear that the two top leaders who were going to be there to attend the NAM summit could not avoid a face-to-face meeting. Much water had flown down the Ganges since the last NAM summit in Kuala Lumpur in February 2003 when Indian diplomats strove to ensure that then prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee did not even accidentally "bump into" Musharraf in the lobby of the Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre - so deep was the estrangement then.

Then came the thaw with Vajpayee shaking off the bureaucratic restraints on talking to Pakistan and making his dramatic offer of "hand of friendship", then his visit to Islamabad in January 2004 followed by the resumption of the peace dialogue.

A senior Indian official who travels usually with the prime minister on his foreign trips and is quite familiar with his thinking describes the latest reconciliation as a "leap of faith".

It will help India to reduce the trust deficit with Pakistan, he said. The India-Pakistan anti-terror institutional mechanism that has been decided upon will go into specific charges against and evidence of who was behind terror attacks and will investigate them under joint auspices. It was better than trading charges against each other and getting nowhere, he explained.

"This meeting (in Havana) produced solid results," said the prime minister, as he returned home. "I am very pleased with the outcome."

Informed sources familiar with current thinking say policy planners realize that India has to be realistic about Pakistan.

"We cannot just say we don't talk to them. They are our neighbours. We also have to realize that there are different interests in Pakistan - there is the military, the ISI (the Inter-Services Intelligence agency that is seen as the fount of anti-India subversion), the emerging middle class that wants to do more business with India, the common people who want peace, etc.

"Our policy may in many ways sound contradictory but it is a nuanced approach that we have to take," said a source, seeking to rationalize the present policy.

Musharraf was desperate for a resumption of the foreign secretary-level talks. After seven years in power, with elections next year, and things going wrong for him on other fronts, he needed to have "something to show" to his people about his achievements. One of them was peace with India, which the ordinary citizens who are going to vote do want.

Will this 'talk tough-talk peace' policy work? Nobody is sure. But it is a sure way to remain engaged while making it clear to the policy makers in Islamabad that if they do not act more firmly against terror-fomenting groups, it will be to their own peril.

"You have to remain engaged. You cannot just say we won't deal with them. It's the policy of the United Progress Alliance (UPA) government to have better ties with Pakistan and the prime minister is committed to that," said the officials who travelled with Manmohan Singh.

And although Manmohan Singh and others deny there is any shift in policy towards Pakistan, there is no doubt one will see more of what one official says is attaining a "certain mean in our relationship".