Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

More of the same

Hussain Mohi-ud-Din Qadri


The developments following the issuance of the joint statement after a
meeting of the Pakistani and Indian prime Ministers in Sharm el Sheikh
point to a familiar patter of ‘on and off’ relations between both countries.
The dictum that “the more things seem to change, the more they remain
the same” appears to have been coined in view of peculiar nature of
relations between Islamabad and New Delhi that have seen few ups but
more downs in the troubled history of 62 years since 1947.
The grilling of the Indian Prime Minister by the opposition parties in
parliament and media over his ‘concessions’ to Pakistan in the joint
statement shows that there is a lot that needs to be done on both sides of
the border at multiple levels that may encourage governments to take
bold initiatives without fear of reprisal at home. Pakistani governments
that dared cross ‘red line’ also faced similar treatment at the hands of the
conservative elements and hawkish establishment. The oft-spoken slogan
of ‘sell-out on Kashmir and compromise on the national interest’ comes to
mind.
What really caused uproar in Indian media and parliament was the
agreement of the Indian government to the de-linking of peace talks from
terrorism and not so unveiled reference to ‘threats in Balochistan and
other areas’. So ferocious was the reaction of the journalists
accompanying the Indian PM during the visit that the latter was forced to
put a different interpretation on the joint statement which clearly belied
the facts. While the joint statement manifestly signaled the resumption of
composite dialogue between Islamabad and New Delhi starting with the
meeting at foreign secretaries’ level, Dr Manmohan Singh would have the
Indians believe that it did not mean anything to that effect and that India
was wanted Pakistan to fulfill the conditions for dialogue before it formally
entered into structured talks with it.
The opposition political parties in India thought that the government was
going too far in accommodating Pakistan without getting anything in
return on bringing the alleged perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to
justice. Their contention was that Pakistan was able to achieve major
diplomatic success through Indian readiness to resume the composite
dialogue, which also meant that her official position on the Mumbai
carnage was also correct. It is to be kept in mind that following the events
in Mumbai in 2008, India not only suspended the composite dialogue but
also put forward two preconditions for initiation of dialogue. One condition
related to the complete dismantling of the terror infrastructure in Pakistan
and second was about bringing the alleged perpetrators of the Mumbai
attacks to justice.
This brings us back to not too distant a past when the Indian
establishment used the similar trick to browbeat Pakistan into submission.
In December 2001 when the Indian parliament building was attacked,
India put all the blame at the doors of Pakistan and mobilized its forces to
the borders. Pakistan was left with no option but to follow suit. Thus there
developed very explosive situation which could get out of hand anytime
due to any mistake or miscalculation by either of the sides. The eye-ball
to eye-ball confrontation between both countries that persisted till the end
of 2003 coupled with aggressive Indian diplomacy to isolate Pakistan
internationally and get her declared as terrorist state was only avoided
due to active American engagement. The American backdoor efforts paid
off when the leadership of both countries singed what came to be known
as ‘Islamabad Declaration’ in January 2004 sparing South Asia what could
well develop into one of the worst catastrophes of the world.
One can easily discern a pattern to this Indian approach towards Pakistan.
Invoking any untoward terrorist incident, the Indian establishment aims
all the guns at Pakistan holding it responsible for the perpetuation of the
terrorist acts before any proof is found and presented in the court of life.
This is followed by aggressive media and diplomatic offensive against
Islamabad, which is meant to alienate it and prove it culprit in the eyes of
the world community. The coming of the Indian defence forces into war
mode is geared to browbeat Pakistan and cripple its fledgling economy.
Then after a certain period of protracted confrontation, de-escalation
takes place, largely due to involvement of the international players led by
the US, and India agrees to resume the stalled dialogue process with
Pakistan. This cycle continues until another incident thwarts the pace of
the developments brining everything back to square one.
Thus there is something fundamentally wrong with the structure and
principles of composite dialogue framework as it exists today. Though the
contention of de-linking terrorism from talks is not new as the same was
agreed to in talks of both countries in April and September 2005,
however, the reiteration of this important point could lay the much-
needed foundation to move the dialogue process forward. The
disproportionate reaction of the Indian media and conservative political
forces appears pregnant with the vested interests.
As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rightly pointed out in his speech in the
Lok Sabha, dialogue with Pakistan is the only option available to India.
Both countries do not afford the continuation of adversarial relations
anymore. Pakistan, on its part, has been more than welcome to think ‘out
of box’ solutions to the disputed issues between both countries including
the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian establishment needs to
introspect and review its Pakistan policy with all the seriousness at its
disposal. Threats posed to the region could be turned into opportunities if
India felt the pulse of time and changed its policies accordingly. This
requires vision, statesmanship, dynamism and courage to take difficult
decisions.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen