WAS IT A MISS OR A DIPLOMATIC BLUNDER? P. N. Ganjoo |
here can never be a disagreement about the need for talks between countries for problem resolution. Even more so, when it comes to two historically inimical neighbors like India and Pakistan. All such parleys should be articulated from equal and equitable positions. So, continuation of bilateral talks between India and Pakistan through their Foreign Secretaries in the first week of July 2012 was a welcome move for strengthening peace and prosperity in the region. But unfortunately, the handling of these crucial talks by mandarins of South Block in Delhi has left much to be desired.
First of all let us talk of the role of the personnel in these talks. These talks were lead by Foreign Secretaries of the two countries and were held intermittently in either of two countries. In July, 2012 parleys were held in New Delhi. The Indian team was led by Ranjan Mathai foreign secretary GOI. He is a hard-working, capable and senior bureaucrat who has risen from the ranks and has no individual political agenda. The Pakistani side was headed by foreign secretary, Jalil Abbas Jilani. Besides being a top bureaucrat in Pakistani hierarchy, he also follows a political agenda while performing his duties. Post the November 2000 terrorist attack on Indian Parliament by Pakistan motivated and trained terrorists, Jalil Abbas Jilani who was then working as the ambassador for Pakistan in India had been bundled off from the country after being declared as persona-non-grata. This had been done as it was proven that he was instrumental in siphoning hawala money to Kashmiri separatists to shore up terrorism and insurrection in the valley. So, his deputation as head of the Pakistani team was nothing short of an affront by Pakistan. Equally, his acceptance by GOI was timid. GOI had reason to resent his deputation in the team on the basis of his previous tract record. In international diplomacy it is required to adopt hard and stiff postures when national security interests warrant. That sends correct signals which generates positive responses for diplomatic dialogue process. But unfortunately as it happens more often than not GOI handles all national security related matters with a soft attitude. As a result, we tend to give an impression that as a state, we are weak and imbecile. The second round of this dialogue too was lost by us even before it started due to our acquiescing nature, when we allowed some Kashniri separatists having a deep connect with Pakistani terrorists to call on the Pakistan foreign secretary even before his meeting his Indian counterpart! It was simply impolite and arrogant of Pakistani FS to agree to the request of Kashmiri separatists over the head of his host, besides being an act of impropriety and hostility in diplomatic parlance. It was starkly brazen of the Kashmiri separatists to seek such an appointment with the Pakistani FS when they are Indian citizens. The changed scenario in the region and internal contradictions and turmoil in Pakistan must have created the critical reason for Jalil Abbass Jilani to meet with the Kashmiri separatists. It was simply to allow the separatists to remain relevant even when geo-political complexion of the region has undergone fundamental changes after removal of the Taliban regime from Afghanistan and political evolution in the Middle East. It could have been expected of the separatists who have wasted decades and thousands of precious lives in the valley, that they realize the latitude of permitting shows of allegiance to the enemies of India is possible only and only in a liberal ,secular democratic state like India, where individual freedoms are guaranteed supreme. But these freedoms for every citizen of India cannot be misconstrued as acceptance of insurrection and revolt from India. Such latitude allowed to citizens needs to be made subservient to national security and territorial integrity of the country. It may be pertinent to state that in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and Pakistan, even acts of civil defiance would attract penal provisions for conspiracy and sedition. If India were to encourage and motivate dissidents and separatists from the North-East areas of Pakistan where there is simmering revolt, by having them meet with the Indian signatory of a “Peace Delegation,” how would Pakistan react? It is understandable that Pakistan would not take it at all. Therefore India too should have taken strong affront to this brazen position of the Pakistan Foreign Secretary. The belligenrent attitude of Pak Foreign Secretary and the separatists from the valley had already cast its shadow on the dialogue process. Both sides followed the favorite lines. Pak denied all allegations made by India on the basis of the revelations made by Abu Jundal and proposed joint investigation instead of the Bombay terrorist act of 2008. India rejected the suggestion as a Pakistani alibi for delay. It was however agreed to promote people to people contact in trade travel and sports. It was also agreed to accelerate CBM to strengthen cross border LOC operations for increased trade and travel. But all these measures are of very little consequence to normalize relations between the two countries, which have strained to the extreme. In its situation, Pakistan should havemade an allout effort to mend fences with India and remove all hurdles that exist. But there does not seem to be a will! Talks proceeded, with both sides keen to continue the dialogue process to achieve agreements on core issues, which could pave way for an Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Pakistan in the near future. Both sides discussed peace, security, terrorism and Kashmir. But both sides held on to their stated positions on core issues. While Pakistan wanted concessions on Saichan Glacier and Kashmir India emphasized on establishment of peace, security and end of terrorism sponsored and abetted from Pakistani soil. While India wanted friendly exchanges and discussions on freewheeling interactions, it also wanted Pakistan to do substantially more to check Pakistan sponsored and abetted terrorism on Indian soil, especially in the valley. It wanted Pakistan to bring to book all conspirators who stand identified by Abu Jundal (an Indian citizen and key actor on 26/11/2008 Bombay terrorist attack). Full facts of the attack have been revealed by Abu Jundal who was deported from Saudi-Arabia where he had been hiding on a fake Pakistani passport. All evidence and proof of Pakistani implicity has been furnished by GOI in the shape of dossiers to the Government of Pakistan. Yet our Foreign Minister was to state that delay on the part of Pakistan to take action against its citizens who conspired to unleash terrorist attacks on Indian soil will not hold the dialogue process. While the terrorist act had been perpetuated in Mumbai, the Control Room for the operation was in Pakistan, as was revealed by Abu Jundal who also worked as the monitor, handler and guide to the terrorists operating in Mumbai. Abu Jundal also conceded that he had links with Zaki-ur-Rehmam Lakvi a, a Pakistani citizen who headed LeT a terrorist outfit in Pakistan. He also admitted that he was escorted to Lakvi for briefing and indoctrination based on Islamic fundamentalism. Even he mentioned the presence of Major Samir, an acting officer of ISI in the Control Room for the Mumbai terror attack, which proved the Pakistani State’s involvement in terrorist acts perpetrated on Indian soil. All these revelations exposed and proved the active support and tacit connivance of the Pakistani establishment for terrorist acts in India beyond any shadow of doubt. If the goal of the conference was to bring future peace, why would the Foreign Minister of India not insist harder on Pakistan to help India bring the attackers and planners of terrorist acts in India to book? Pakistan is in dire need to get face-saving status in Saichen, which has already taken a heavy toll of its men and funds. Of course it would not like to change its strategic position on this weak wicket. Pakistan wants India to agree to bilateral withdrawal from the glacier, to reduce pressure from the Pakistan army without conceding anything in turn on Kashmir and in the discussion on terrorism reduction measures. Pakistan should not ignore the march of history and the changes in the geo-political matrix of the region. It should not ignore deep internal dissentions and financial troubles in Pakistan which beg for it to see reason and participate more honestly and actively in conflict resolution. All said, we still need to welcome any talks in the interest of peace, stability and prosperity of the region. It could eventually lead to positive thinking on various contentious issues that plague Indo-Pak relations. Both sides have to be honest and sincere. In bilateral relations each party has to respect and address the sensitivity of the other so that no doubts and suspicions defile relations. |
*P.N.Ganjoo was born in a modest Kashmiri family about 7 decades ago, lost his father early and was raised by his honest, hardworking mother. With her efforts he received his education in Srinagar and went on to serve in various Government Departments before retiring as a senior grade KAS officer. Presently he is working on his varied interests besides being a consulting Director of a software services company. |
Copyrights © 2007 Shehjar online and KashmirGroup.com. Any content, including but not limited to text, software, music, sound, photographs, video, graphics or other material contained may not be modified, copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, or distributed in any form or context without written permission. Terms & Conditions.
The views expressed are solely the author's and not necessarily the views of Shehjar or its owners. Content and posts from such authors are provided "AS IS", with no warranties, and confer no rights. The material and information provided iare for general information only and should not, in any respect, be relied on as professional advice. Neither Shehjar.kashmirgroup.com nor kashmirgroup.com represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Service by any user, information provider or any other person or entity. You acknowledge that any reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, memorandum, or information shall be at your sole risk. |