President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan suprised quite a few with his comments about relations with India in a Wall Street Journal interview over the weekend:

When I ask whether he would consider a free-trade agreement with traditional archenemy India, Mr. Zardari responds with a string of welcome, perhaps even historic, surprises. "India has never been a threat to Pakistan," he says, adding that "I, for one, and our democratic government is not scared of Indian influence abroad." He speaks of the militant Islamic groups operating in Kashmir as "terrorists" -- former President Musharraf would more likely have called them "freedom fighters" -- and allows that he has no objection to the India-U.S. nuclear cooperation pact, so long as Pakistan is treated "at par." "Why would we begrudge the largest democracy in the world getting friendly with one of the oldest democracies in the world?"

Not only does Mr. Zardari want better ties with Delhi, he notes that "there is no other economic survival for nations like us. We have to trade with our neighbors first." He imagines Pakistani cement factories being constructed to provide for India's huge infrastructure needs, Pakistani textile mills meeting Indian demand for blue jeans, Pakistani ports being used to relieve the congestion at Indian ones. For a country that spent most of its existence trying to show that it's the military equal of its neighbor, the agenda amounts to a remarkable recognition of the strides India has made in becoming a true world power.

Zardari's description of the Kashmir rebels as "terrorists" rather than "freedom fighters" or "jihadis" as Pakistani politicians have traditionally referred to them was particularly controversial. Kashmiri seperatists responded by breaking curfew to protest and burn him in effigy. Zardari has since walked back his remarks somewhat, assuring the public that there's no change in Pakistan's Kashmir policy.

While it would be great if Zardari intended to get serious about normalizing relations with India, it seems like there might have been a bettter way to go about it than overturning decades of military policy through an off-the-cuff remark to an American reporter. Given how fragile his political position is, he might want to cover his flanks a bit more thoroughly before he makes another comment like this.