03-27-2006, 09:20 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Dangerous offer </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
It has become as customary for India's political leaders to make grand gestures of goodwill towards Pakistan as it has for 'secular', English-speaking society in Delhi to patronise Sufi singers and musicians. Neither the political class given to 'bold initiatives' nor the neo-patrons of Sufiana kalam truly understand the true import of either. Hence, it is doubtful whether policy-makers in South Block, if at all they have a say in the UPA regime's official pronouncements, are greatly excited by <b>the prospect of working on a draft 'Treaty of Peace, Security and Friendship' between India and Pakistan</b>.
There was no reason for the Prime Minister to offer such a treaty to Pakistan while flagging off a new bus service between Amritsar and Nankana Sahib. He could have taken recourse to the usual homilies about the need for sustaining the ongoing composite dialogue, announced some more confidence building measures, and reminded Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf that he is yet to keep his 2004 promise of putting an end to cross-border terrorism. Instead, Mr Manmohan Singh chose to elaborate on a grand strategy that rests on good governance in Jammu & Kashmir, open borders and co-operative mechanisms on both sides of the Line of Control, and, of course, a 'Treaty of Peace, Security and Friendship'.
<b>In keeping with the UPA regime's style of functioning, all this was offered to Pakistan without taking the people of India into confidence</b>. Parliament may have been adjourned last week, but<b> Mr Singh had ample time and opportunity during the Budget Session to sound out MPs on his sweeping proposals whose consequences the country will have to bear after he has relinquished office. He forgets the Congress does not have the mandate to so radically alter India's Pakistan policy, nor does the UPA Government have the authority to bulldoze the country into accepting "out-of-the-box" solutions to a problem whose true contours it does not seem to have the capacity to comprehend</b>.
Seen against the backdrop of Gen Musharraf's demand that India must "demilitarise" Jammu & Kashmir (which means all security forces should be withdrawn from the State), introduce "self-governance" (that is, end all linkages between the State and the Centre) and accept "joint management" (Pakistan will have a say in the administration of the State without reciprocal rights for India to meddle in occupied Kashmir affairs), Mr Singh's offer can only be termed as outrageous.
Are we then to assume that the UPA Government has quietly buried our position on Jammu & Kashmir and prepared the blueprint of a 'solution' that can only warm the cockles of the hearts that beat for Pakistan? The people of India have the right to know what is the nature of the cooperative mechanisms that the Prime Minister has suggested should be set up.
Will bodies set up by Islamabad in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir influence policy in Jammu & Kashmir? By unilaterally offering a 'Treaty of Peace, Security and Friendship', Mr Singh has placed the entire onus on India. It would seem that India, and not Pakistan, is the recalcitrant and aggressor state, that peace, security and friendship between the two countries is dependent on whether we desire so.
The fallacy of such warped thinking is too obvious to merit elaboration. In any event, in this day and age such treaties mean little, not least because they became irrelevant with the passing of the Soviet era. National security strategy across the world is no longer made hostage to what Mr Singh thinks is a novel initiative.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The Pioneer Edit Desk
It has become as customary for India's political leaders to make grand gestures of goodwill towards Pakistan as it has for 'secular', English-speaking society in Delhi to patronise Sufi singers and musicians. Neither the political class given to 'bold initiatives' nor the neo-patrons of Sufiana kalam truly understand the true import of either. Hence, it is doubtful whether policy-makers in South Block, if at all they have a say in the UPA regime's official pronouncements, are greatly excited by <b>the prospect of working on a draft 'Treaty of Peace, Security and Friendship' between India and Pakistan</b>.
There was no reason for the Prime Minister to offer such a treaty to Pakistan while flagging off a new bus service between Amritsar and Nankana Sahib. He could have taken recourse to the usual homilies about the need for sustaining the ongoing composite dialogue, announced some more confidence building measures, and reminded Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf that he is yet to keep his 2004 promise of putting an end to cross-border terrorism. Instead, Mr Manmohan Singh chose to elaborate on a grand strategy that rests on good governance in Jammu & Kashmir, open borders and co-operative mechanisms on both sides of the Line of Control, and, of course, a 'Treaty of Peace, Security and Friendship'.
<b>In keeping with the UPA regime's style of functioning, all this was offered to Pakistan without taking the people of India into confidence</b>. Parliament may have been adjourned last week, but<b> Mr Singh had ample time and opportunity during the Budget Session to sound out MPs on his sweeping proposals whose consequences the country will have to bear after he has relinquished office. He forgets the Congress does not have the mandate to so radically alter India's Pakistan policy, nor does the UPA Government have the authority to bulldoze the country into accepting "out-of-the-box" solutions to a problem whose true contours it does not seem to have the capacity to comprehend</b>.
Seen against the backdrop of Gen Musharraf's demand that India must "demilitarise" Jammu & Kashmir (which means all security forces should be withdrawn from the State), introduce "self-governance" (that is, end all linkages between the State and the Centre) and accept "joint management" (Pakistan will have a say in the administration of the State without reciprocal rights for India to meddle in occupied Kashmir affairs), Mr Singh's offer can only be termed as outrageous.
Are we then to assume that the UPA Government has quietly buried our position on Jammu & Kashmir and prepared the blueprint of a 'solution' that can only warm the cockles of the hearts that beat for Pakistan? The people of India have the right to know what is the nature of the cooperative mechanisms that the Prime Minister has suggested should be set up.
Will bodies set up by Islamabad in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir influence policy in Jammu & Kashmir? By unilaterally offering a 'Treaty of Peace, Security and Friendship', Mr Singh has placed the entire onus on India. It would seem that India, and not Pakistan, is the recalcitrant and aggressor state, that peace, security and friendship between the two countries is dependent on whether we desire so.
The fallacy of such warped thinking is too obvious to merit elaboration. In any event, in this day and age such treaties mean little, not least because they became irrelevant with the passing of the Soviet era. National security strategy across the world is no longer made hostage to what Mr Singh thinks is a novel initiative.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->