10-07-2008, 12:47 AM
<b>Pak-India relations | A new beginning</b>
Tayyab Siddiqui
The prime example of trust deficit that defines the chasm between the nation and its rulers, besides Pakistanâs war against terror, is the policy of normalisation of relations with India. The PPP-led government has broadly followed the policies on both issues enunciated by the military regime. There is consequently a deep feeling of disappointment among those who legitimately expected that the verdict given by the February 18 elections would be recognised and honoured. The vote was not given to change faces but to have leaders who will display courage and conviction, reject the senile policies of Musharraf and company and will no longer compromise on national dignity and honour. Alas the trust has been betrayed.
President Zardariâs meeting with the Indian Premier Manmohan Singh in New York on the sidelines of the UNGA last week led to their joint statement. The statement referred to a âshared visionâ of the two leaders of profound normalisations of relations. In this context the two leaders agreed to:
The Foreign Secretaries of both countries will schedule meetings of the 5th round of âComposite Dialogueâ in the next three months which will focus on deliverable and comprehensive achievements.
The ceasefire should be stabilised to this end, DGMOs and sector commanders will stay in regular contacts. A special meeting of the Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism will be held in October 2008 to address mutual concerns including the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul.
The expansion of people-to-people contact, trade, commerce and economic cooperation provides an effective platform to develop and strengthen bilateral relations. Towards this end, it was decided to:
Open the Wagah-Attari road link to all permissible items of trade.
Open the Khokrapar-Munnabao rail routes to all permissible items of trade.
Continue interaction between the planning commission of both the countries to develop mutually beneficial cooperation including the energy sector.
Commence cross LoC trade on the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad and Poonch-Rawalakot roads on October 21, 2008. Modalities for the opening of the Skardu-Kargil route will be discussed soon.
No sane person can take exception to any of the measures listed above. It must, however, be recognised that such noble expressions of peace prosperity and security have been the staple of all such joint statements but in practice there has been no change of heart and before the ink is dry on these statements that hostile acts and allegations follow to impede the process.
Despite its protestations to the contrary, India misses no opportunity to belittle and denigrate Pakistan. It has now become routine that any bomb blast or terrorist attack in India and without any evidence or proof, Pakistan is accused of supporting these heinous acts. Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony on September 15 accused Pakistan of being behind the bomb attacks in New Delhi which killed 20 people. The extremists attack on the Indian diplomatic mission in Kabul was also blamed on Pakistan and senior officials and ministers in Delhi directly pointed the finger at the ISI. Finance Minister Chidarnbaram echoed similar feelings; âPakistan is implacably opposed to India. While Kashmir appears to be the central issue of contention, Pakistan has taken its hostility beyond Kashmir and supports terrorist activities and communal conflagration in other parts of India.â Such incendiary and irresponsible statements emanating from Ministers reveal the mindset of Indian policy-makers.
While India keeps repeating that âa peaceful, prosperous and strongâ Pakistan is also in Indiaâs âinterestâ the actions belie the statements.
The recent most Indian action denying water from Chenab River in violation of the Indus Basin Treaty which has caused serious damage to Pakistanâs crops reflects the huge trust deficit that divides India and Pakistan.
The reports that bilateral meeting between two leaders Manmohan Singh and Zardari was held in friendly atmosphere are hardly of any consequence unless supported by action on the ground. Musharraf extended invitation to Manmohan Singh to visit Pakistan in 2006 and has since been repeated. But Manmohan Singh has not reciprocated, despite the fact that the President of Pakistan has paid two official visits to India. The fact that the peace process initiated in 2004 has made no progress on any of the contentious issues is a direct outcome of this lack of political will and Indian imperial mentality that it will determine the course of dialogue as per its priority.
The joint statement has exposed President Zardariâs lack of diplomatic experience and finesse as also his lack of trust in his own advisors and a disregard for the foreign office. His reassurances that âPakistan stands by its commitments of January 6, 2004â was totally uncalled for as it was a unilateral commitment not to allow Pakistanâs territory for any terrorist acts. The obligation ought to be mutual. Similarly, inclusion of the bomb blast of the Indian Embassy in Kabul had no relevance to bilateral relations. The inclusion of the phrases has indirectly put the onus on Pakistan to prove its non-involvement in the Kabul blasts.
To have agreed to hold a special meeting of a joint anti-terror mechanism in October 2008 to address mutual concerns including the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Pakistan has implicitly accepted the Indian charges of the ISI masterminding the attacks. Zardari having received massive mandate betrays a streak of over-confidence and pronounces decisions and policies of the government in his wisdom and discretion. Such behaviour is not in consonance with the spirit of democratic norms. The tendency needs to be curbed particularly in relations with India, which need extremely cautious handling and inputs from professionals in the foreign office.
President Zardari in an interview to the Wall Street Journal stated that âIndia has never been a threat to Pakistan.â He would be well advised to the read the history of the subcontinent again and revisit the 65 and 71 wars for the correct perspective.
The writer is a former ambassador
Tayyab Siddiqui
The prime example of trust deficit that defines the chasm between the nation and its rulers, besides Pakistanâs war against terror, is the policy of normalisation of relations with India. The PPP-led government has broadly followed the policies on both issues enunciated by the military regime. There is consequently a deep feeling of disappointment among those who legitimately expected that the verdict given by the February 18 elections would be recognised and honoured. The vote was not given to change faces but to have leaders who will display courage and conviction, reject the senile policies of Musharraf and company and will no longer compromise on national dignity and honour. Alas the trust has been betrayed.
President Zardariâs meeting with the Indian Premier Manmohan Singh in New York on the sidelines of the UNGA last week led to their joint statement. The statement referred to a âshared visionâ of the two leaders of profound normalisations of relations. In this context the two leaders agreed to:
The Foreign Secretaries of both countries will schedule meetings of the 5th round of âComposite Dialogueâ in the next three months which will focus on deliverable and comprehensive achievements.
The ceasefire should be stabilised to this end, DGMOs and sector commanders will stay in regular contacts. A special meeting of the Joint Anti-Terror Mechanism will be held in October 2008 to address mutual concerns including the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul.
The expansion of people-to-people contact, trade, commerce and economic cooperation provides an effective platform to develop and strengthen bilateral relations. Towards this end, it was decided to:
Open the Wagah-Attari road link to all permissible items of trade.
Open the Khokrapar-Munnabao rail routes to all permissible items of trade.
Continue interaction between the planning commission of both the countries to develop mutually beneficial cooperation including the energy sector.
Commence cross LoC trade on the Srinagar-Muzaffarabad and Poonch-Rawalakot roads on October 21, 2008. Modalities for the opening of the Skardu-Kargil route will be discussed soon.
No sane person can take exception to any of the measures listed above. It must, however, be recognised that such noble expressions of peace prosperity and security have been the staple of all such joint statements but in practice there has been no change of heart and before the ink is dry on these statements that hostile acts and allegations follow to impede the process.
Despite its protestations to the contrary, India misses no opportunity to belittle and denigrate Pakistan. It has now become routine that any bomb blast or terrorist attack in India and without any evidence or proof, Pakistan is accused of supporting these heinous acts. Indian Defence Minister A.K. Antony on September 15 accused Pakistan of being behind the bomb attacks in New Delhi which killed 20 people. The extremists attack on the Indian diplomatic mission in Kabul was also blamed on Pakistan and senior officials and ministers in Delhi directly pointed the finger at the ISI. Finance Minister Chidarnbaram echoed similar feelings; âPakistan is implacably opposed to India. While Kashmir appears to be the central issue of contention, Pakistan has taken its hostility beyond Kashmir and supports terrorist activities and communal conflagration in other parts of India.â Such incendiary and irresponsible statements emanating from Ministers reveal the mindset of Indian policy-makers.
While India keeps repeating that âa peaceful, prosperous and strongâ Pakistan is also in Indiaâs âinterestâ the actions belie the statements.
The recent most Indian action denying water from Chenab River in violation of the Indus Basin Treaty which has caused serious damage to Pakistanâs crops reflects the huge trust deficit that divides India and Pakistan.
The reports that bilateral meeting between two leaders Manmohan Singh and Zardari was held in friendly atmosphere are hardly of any consequence unless supported by action on the ground. Musharraf extended invitation to Manmohan Singh to visit Pakistan in 2006 and has since been repeated. But Manmohan Singh has not reciprocated, despite the fact that the President of Pakistan has paid two official visits to India. The fact that the peace process initiated in 2004 has made no progress on any of the contentious issues is a direct outcome of this lack of political will and Indian imperial mentality that it will determine the course of dialogue as per its priority.
The joint statement has exposed President Zardariâs lack of diplomatic experience and finesse as also his lack of trust in his own advisors and a disregard for the foreign office. His reassurances that âPakistan stands by its commitments of January 6, 2004â was totally uncalled for as it was a unilateral commitment not to allow Pakistanâs territory for any terrorist acts. The obligation ought to be mutual. Similarly, inclusion of the bomb blast of the Indian Embassy in Kabul had no relevance to bilateral relations. The inclusion of the phrases has indirectly put the onus on Pakistan to prove its non-involvement in the Kabul blasts.
To have agreed to hold a special meeting of a joint anti-terror mechanism in October 2008 to address mutual concerns including the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul, Pakistan has implicitly accepted the Indian charges of the ISI masterminding the attacks. Zardari having received massive mandate betrays a streak of over-confidence and pronounces decisions and policies of the government in his wisdom and discretion. Such behaviour is not in consonance with the spirit of democratic norms. The tendency needs to be curbed particularly in relations with India, which need extremely cautious handling and inputs from professionals in the foreign office.
President Zardari in an interview to the Wall Street Journal stated that âIndia has never been a threat to Pakistan.â He would be well advised to the read the history of the subcontinent again and revisit the 65 and 71 wars for the correct perspective.
The writer is a former ambassador