India’s unclear stance
Friday, May 29, 2009
Editorial, Dawn, Pakistan
Friday, 29 May, 2009
MIXED messages do not aid dialogue. If anything they serve to obfuscate issues or harden black-and-white notions of who is right and who is wrong. India needs to make up its mind on where it stands vis-à-vis Pakistan. Are we or are we not partners in the battle against militancy and terrorism? Or are we to remain perennial adversaries locked in a no-win situation that can benefit neither country? New Delhi hasn’t been terribly clear on this point, possibly because it had been caught up in electioneering where rhetoric does not always reflect facts. But the elections are over now, the Congress has won with consummate ease and Pakistan-bashing should, as such, also end sooner than later. Yet, even as Islamabad embarked on what was possibly its first truly coordinated effort to go after the Taliban, the response from New Delhi remained more or less Mumbai-specific. Not that we need India’s blessings or kudos, far from it. But such sentiments can’t hurt what should be the common cause of fighting militancy.
India’s new foreign minister said on Tuesday that any dialogue between New Delhi and Islamabad was dependent on the speedy prosecution of the alleged Pakistani masterminds behind the Mumbai assault last year. Pakistan, it must be said, has arrested some key members of the Lashkar-i-Taiba and is acting on possibly incriminating information provided by India. What does India expect Pakistan to do, summarily prosecute these people or build up a case that will stand up in a court of law? Pakistan is a democracy with an independent judiciary. Any case tarnished even by a shadow of doubt will be thrown out of court. Better then, is it not, to wait until the state is in a position to present a watertight argument? Bringing those who planned the Mumbai attacks to book serves not just India’s interests but also Pakistan’s. Indeed the whole region would be well served if the mass murderers behind that carnage are made to pay for their crimes.
A change of tack was seen on Wednesday when the same Indian foreign minister condemned the suicide attack in Lahore. “… [W]e hope that Pakistan and India could join hands [sic] together to fight this spectre of terror,” said Somanahalli Mallaiah Krishna. The point is this: are we engaged in an ongoing dialogue or not? Is any cooperation from India dependent solely on the outcome of the Mumbai case or is it still possible in the meantime to discuss other outstanding issues? Coordination is needed in the sphere of counter-insurgency, the Kashmir dispute needs to be resolved, Siachen discussed and Sir Creek taken to its fair and logical conclusion. A single-point agenda hinging on the Mumbai attacks will simply not deliver. A holistic approach is in order.
Source
Friday, 29 May, 2009
MIXED messages do not aid dialogue. If anything they serve to obfuscate issues or harden black-and-white notions of who is right and who is wrong. India needs to make up its mind on where it stands vis-à-vis Pakistan. Are we or are we not partners in the battle against militancy and terrorism? Or are we to remain perennial adversaries locked in a no-win situation that can benefit neither country? New Delhi hasn’t been terribly clear on this point, possibly because it had been caught up in electioneering where rhetoric does not always reflect facts. But the elections are over now, the Congress has won with consummate ease and Pakistan-bashing should, as such, also end sooner than later. Yet, even as Islamabad embarked on what was possibly its first truly coordinated effort to go after the Taliban, the response from New Delhi remained more or less Mumbai-specific. Not that we need India’s blessings or kudos, far from it. But such sentiments can’t hurt what should be the common cause of fighting militancy.
India’s new foreign minister said on Tuesday that any dialogue between New Delhi and Islamabad was dependent on the speedy prosecution of the alleged Pakistani masterminds behind the Mumbai assault last year. Pakistan, it must be said, has arrested some key members of the Lashkar-i-Taiba and is acting on possibly incriminating information provided by India. What does India expect Pakistan to do, summarily prosecute these people or build up a case that will stand up in a court of law? Pakistan is a democracy with an independent judiciary. Any case tarnished even by a shadow of doubt will be thrown out of court. Better then, is it not, to wait until the state is in a position to present a watertight argument? Bringing those who planned the Mumbai attacks to book serves not just India’s interests but also Pakistan’s. Indeed the whole region would be well served if the mass murderers behind that carnage are made to pay for their crimes.
A change of tack was seen on Wednesday when the same Indian foreign minister condemned the suicide attack in Lahore. “… [W]e hope that Pakistan and India could join hands [sic] together to fight this spectre of terror,” said Somanahalli Mallaiah Krishna. The point is this: are we engaged in an ongoing dialogue or not? Is any cooperation from India dependent solely on the outcome of the Mumbai case or is it still possible in the meantime to discuss other outstanding issues? Coordination is needed in the sphere of counter-insurgency, the Kashmir dispute needs to be resolved, Siachen discussed and Sir Creek taken to its fair and logical conclusion. A single-point agenda hinging on the Mumbai attacks will simply not deliver. A holistic approach is in order.
Source
Labels: Extremism, India, Indopak Relations, Mumbai Attacks, Taliban, Terrorism
posted @ 6:53 PM,
0 Comments:
Post a Comment