Indo-Pak Peace Process
Indo-Pak Peace Process
Indo-Pak Peace Process
The urge for peace must come from the gut
By
M.M.Khajooria
Ever since its creation the conduct of Indo-Pak relations by Pakistan was characterised by brinkmanship and denial. Military dictators and elected rulers alike have traditionally been indulging in double speak and blowing hot and cold. In the recent past, the behaviour of Pakistan establishment, however had a strong steak of exasperation and rashness. It all began with Pakistan foreign Minister, Shah Mohd Qureshi's insulting remarks that an unwilling India was pressurised by the USA into extending invitation for Foreign Secretary level talks in New Delhi.? The "successful operation" for forcing India to the negotiation table during which Pakistan went shopping world over and even pressed into service all the overt and covert supporters and sympathisers in India merited jubilation and celebration not frustration . And yet he went raving and ranting about Indian "intransigence on the core issue of Kashmir". His body language and uncharacteristic aggressive outpourings on the small screen left no one in doubt that some thing had very seriously gone wrong with Pakistan establishment's calculations. The repeated assertion that the talks would be "meaningless" unless the Core issue of Kashmir was "meaningfully and seriously addressed", though in line with her official position had a ring of desperation. Perhaps for good reasons.
As the vents unfolded the secret was revealed. it Even though the US A succussed in facilitating the resumption of contact between the two countries at officials' level , she was in no position to dictate to India the agenda favoured by Pakistan . It was therefore left to the two sides to sit across the table and charter a course that could lead to the resumption of the stalled composite dialogue. Pakistan found the situation galling . She got India to come to the negotiation table but not the agenda of her choice an package with attractive wrapping but the big question mark as the content.
The talks in New Delhi predictably started on an ominous note. India pressed for evidence of concrete and convincing action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai carnage for which credible evidence had been provided . Special emphasis was laid on action against Hafiz Saeed , the Patron of Lashkar-e- Tohiba, the premier terrorist outfit with international reach. Pakistan, on the other hand harped on the resumption of composite dialogue to resolve the core issue of Kashmir , sidestepping Indian concerns in a somewhat cavalier manner. There was thus no meeting ground at all. Neither party was left with any space for manoeuvre .No wonder the talks ended in an acrimonious stand off.
The Pakistanis went home declaring that their country was not interested in off and on contacts conveying not so subtly that any future talks will have to be on their terms. Indian position was that Pakistan must first prove her bona fides in implementing the undertaking that her soil will not be used for terrorist attacks against India and tender proof of effective action taken against those involved in 26/11 Mumbai attack the focus being on action against Hafiz Saeed, the UN security council branded terrorist.
During his last Washington visit Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had made pointed mention of two elements as prerequisite to the resumption of dialogue with Pakistan. One, the action against the culprits of 26/11Mumbai terror assault. Two ,the dismantling of the terrorist training infrastructure in Pakistan. It was therefore only logical for the Indian side to press for Pakistan response on both these elements. As a matter of fact , the issue of dismantling terrorist training infrastructure was fundamental to the termination of cross border terrorism . Moreover, any action in this behalf was both quantifiable and verifiable. According to Defence Minister Anthony the number terrorist training camps in Pakistan stood at 76 or so. Some observers rated the Mansehra Terrorist training facility in Pakistan as "world class". There was, however no explanation by as to why the issue was or could not be raised by the Indian side. The Pakistan establishment was clearly in a foul mood. And in this mood of deep frustration they fielded Hafiz Saeed , the most hated man in India as well s the most wanted criminal to lambast India on the twin issues of Kashmir and the water dispute , Interestingly, Prime Minster Gillani had only the other day added the water dispute to the Indo-Pak negotiation menu at par with Kashmir. Could this be a coincidence?
In an interview on the Frontline programme of Express News Channel, his first appearance after he put under "house arrest" in the wake of Mumbai terror attack, Saeed said "Look at India s attitude especially after the 9/11 attack. It has taken advantage of Pakistan's weakness and made dams and stopped our water" . Please Check your fact first . Hafiz Sahib. MUAF KEEJIAYAi APP KA HAFIZA KAAM NAHI KAR RAHA HAI. No dams were constructed in Jammu & Kashmir after 9/!1 and the water was flowing down from our sources as usual. Please remember, it is our water that we share with you under a treaty after signing which the then Prime Minister Nehru said that he had paid a very heavy price for peace with Pakistan. Pakistan continued to exact the price but where is the peace? Yes, the great Hafiz further declared "Pakistan for its defence, will have to fight a war at all costs with India if it is not prepared to talk on Kashmir and water". "If India doesn't hold talks and is not willing to accept the problems over the water what other option (except war ) is left?, he demanded. And declared "If there is a war between Pakistan and India, the Pakistan army, people and JUD will stand united and fight with India". Imagine, JUD, a proclaimed charity fighting a war against the third largest army in the world. Or is it that time to shed the pretence had arrived? In any case the nexus was now into the open.
War was also on the mind of the Pakistan army chief Gen. Kiyani when he picked up " Cold Start Military doctrine of India " for comments out of the blue and boasted that his army was ready to give a befitting reply to any attack from the eastern front. There was no threat to Pakistan on the eastern front. So Was he hallucinating or was something really cooking?
The world knows that India is and has been a victim of Pakistan aggressive and subversive designs ever since its creation. All these six decades plus, India has exercised tremendous restraint and reacted only when it became inevitable and that too in a measured manner . Her magnanimity in repatriating 93 thousand Prisoners of War in 1972 and vacating huge chunks of territory occupied after fierce fighting was a part of history. Knowing fully well that Pakistan and her Pan Islamic mentors had embarked on the path of not only pursing the strategy of "bleeding India with thousand cuts" but also to secure its Balkanisation, Our Prime Minster repeatedly asserts that there was no alternative to Dialogue between the neighbours. Having sais this, when faced with decades old proxy war and renewed threats of war , India must not only keep its powder dry but also let it be known that its decency should not be mistaken for weakness. It also needed to be forcefully stated that the nuclearisation of the two countries did not confer any special advantage upon Pakistan which should, in fact act as a deterrent against any military adventurism. The history of cold war at its peak when numerous nuclear weapons were poised for launch testified to this compulsion..
India as a responsible nuclear power had unilaterally adopted the policy of "No first use' of nuclear weapons. But it does not mean that we were either lowering our guards or our defence forces would fail or falter in any manner if a war was forced upon us. We seek peace and as the Prime Minister said we were willing to walk an extra mile if Pakistan effectively acted against terrorism. The people of Pakistan in general and the civil society in particular must rise to the occasion and cry a halt to this insane war mongering particularly at a time when that country was itself bleeding from the fundamentalist terrorist onslaughts .Geography ,ethnicity, history, culture and tradition dictated peace and friendship between the two neighbours . This indeed was a necessity not a luxury. This recognition must inform the urge for peace which should come from the gut . Bluff and bluster have time and again proved not only pointless but also counterproductive .
Indo-Pak Peace Process
By: Mohan.Khajooria
Ever Heard of Aubergines? Historia Y Usos Del Cuero Enhance your look The Basics of Gondola Ride in Venice Chest of drawers - more than just somewhere to store your underwear! Call Centers to Proliferate Winchester gun safe: Get the desirable deal Правильное Питание – Наше Всё! A Guide to Young Driver Cover Is all this bullying stuff just a lot of bull...? Excellent small cap stocks - Just how to pick out cheap stock investments to show an individual's money within a large amount Arbaaz Khan Gives Shobhaa De Retaliation for Criticizing Dabangg Диетические Рецепты Сентября