what's the use of a dialogue so 'composite'?

Many great liaisons have happened and are happening this month. First with the Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari in Yekaterinburg, on the sidelines of G-8, then with Pakistani PM Yousuf Raja Gilani during the NAM summit and now the US secretary of states, Hillary Rodham Clinton's visit to India. It seems as our prime minister is finally busy tackling the 'real' issues. But is it really so? During his meeting with Asif Zardari in Yekaterinburg, he had conveyed the mandate he was provided by the people of India to book the perpetrators of the 26/11 and any repeat of such an incident will land Pakistan in trouble, which was welcomed from every quarter of the society. it was perceived as the Zero tolerance attitude of the Indian government. But recently, when he met the Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raja Gilani, in Sharm-el-sheikh, the two premiers cautioned not to repeat the last mistake this time by having a private conversation followed by a diplomat level meeting away from the reach of the media glare. However, the Indian Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh in a hurry to walk an 'extra mile' or probably to compensate the 'mistake' he made last time, forgot the mandate, he has been provided by the people of India. The Indo-Pak joint statement, in Sharm-al-Sheikh, is a huge compromise that India has made to please its western neighbor. It has been widely criticized as a non- compensate able foreign policy failure. Thus, our foreign policy needs to be chastened in order to avoid any repeat of such an incident. After the Mumbai invasion of 26/11, the Indian government ceased to any dialogue with Pakistan. Was it to douse the popular sentiment and provide a consolation prize to the victims and the rest of the country? The dialogue process resumed within 7 months of Mumbai carnage and just 2 months after congress got re-elected to the office. The immediate put-off of the dialogue process and now the dilution of the Indian stand can be sensed as a political gimmick. Mr. prime minister you have been provided with this mandate to fight terrorism without any compromise and not to please its exporters. For the first time in the history of Indian diplomatic relation with Pakistan, the Indian side has allowed Pakistan to accuse India of the turbulence in Balochistan and its presence in the joint statement strengthens the accusation. Infant, Pakistan has already started to encash this rare opportunity, it has got in 60 years of its existence, with Pm Yousuf Raja Gilani blaming India for 'exporting' terror to Balochistan. The reason given for compromising on the dialogue process with Pakistan is that the tension between the two nuke-powered nations can only be minimized through talks. But a talk like this one is highly unacceptable. What's the use of a dialogue so composite? Our government should acknowledge that we don't need any favour from our neighbour and that it's Pakistan who needs support for running its infrastructure and downtrodden economy. History repeats itself. Probably, this is our second biggest mistake since we took the Kashmir issue to the UN Security Council. And now, with this incident Pakistan is always going to have a upper hand. a nation so opportunist like Pakistan will not leave any chance for an innuendo directed towards India. So it is imperative not to overlook any indication about where we are heading.