news details |
|
|
| Indian Minister served up a mouse to Pakistani hawk | | Former J&K Chief Secretary's plain-speaking | | B L KAK
NEW DELHI, SEPT. 10:
Ashok Jaitly, a former Chief Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir, has attracted atention of both Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Prime Minister's Ofice (PMO), following his bitter comments on New Delhi's handling of the Kashmir problem. Jaitly, currently going about as a Distinguished Fellow at The Energy and Research Institute (TERI), has prefaced his latest write-up by saying that by reiterating in the Rajya Sabha on August 24 that "there can be no compromise on the sovereignty of India over Jammu and Kashmir" and that "joint control" or "joint management" cannot be a basis for a settlement of the dispute because the State is an integral part of Inddia, not only has Minister of State for External Afairs, E. Ahamad, thrown "a cat among the peace-making pigeons at home but also served up a mouse to the Pakistani hawk on a platter".
Given India's ambivalent posture, it is, insists Ashok Jaitly, extremely doubtful that Gen. Parvez Musharraf will be able to sustain his reasonable position on Kashmir for too long. There are elections in Pakistan in 2007. There is also the question of his holding on to the office of Army Chief. And then there is the charge of him acting on the dictates of Washington. That is a great deal of pressure, indeed. The killing of Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and the consequent turmoil in Balochistan has added enormously to Gen. Musharraf's woes, Jaitly has added.
And Ashok Jaitly's two loaded questions: Is it a good time to rub salt into the lesions? Or is it the time to provide a salve? Jaitly's answer: "New Delhi has decided otherwise. The killing of Nawab Bugti was 'unfortunate' and 'military force could never solve Pakistan's political problems' was the response of our Foreign Ministry. It reflects a very superficial understanding of sensibilities. Prompt came the response: 'India should focus on putting its own house in order rather than commenting on the internal affairs of other countries". Jaitly also asked: Do we really think we are clever or are we just ham handed?
Not unexpectedly, the immediate and pithy response from a senior foreign ministry official in Islamabad was to describe Ahamed's statement as 'incorrect and misleading'. The official, Jaitly recalled, went on to add that 'the Indian minister needed to jog his memory to separate fact from fiction'. That the area is 'disputed' according to the UN Security Council resolution accepted by India; that the Line of Control (LoC) is not an international boundary; and that there is complete alienation in Kashmir against 'Indian occupation' are the facts whereas Indian legalese as enunciated by Ahamed is the fiction. An equally familiar stance...
What indeed is the Indian government up to, asks Ashok Jaitly. He argues: Unless something is really wrong with administrative procedure in South Block, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh must have approved Ahamed's statement, at least in his capacity as Foreign Minister. If so, was he not advised that there is an apparent contradiction with his statement at the roundtable with the Kashmiri leadership in Srinagar May 25 where he spoke of making LoC irrelevant and creating institutional arrangements between the two parts of Jammu and Kashmir.
Jaitly has also placed himself onrecord, saying: "No doubt, South Block mandarins will trot out fine nuances about the difference between the two concepts of 'joint management' and 'institutional arrangements' but the Indian prime minister cannot take refuge in such pettifoggery if he has to carry credibility with the other side in the dialogue process. In fact, the other side is two in this case, first the Kashmiris and then the Pakistanis. Both must be not just confused but more than ever convinced that India is not at all sincere in its true intentions".
In Srinagar, there would be, according to Jaitly, the inevitable sigh of resignation and a frustrating sense of déjà vu. How often has this happened in the past? And Jaitly has noted: "No sooner does the political leadership in New Delhi make some overtures at finding a compromise formula than the establishment strikes back with ultra super legality; that too, positing the hardest position in the highest forum of the land from which backtracking becomes that much more problematic, if not well nigh impossible. How do you retract from a strong nationalist position taken in Parliament without drawing severe flak from a belligerent opposition? Syed Ali Geelani must be finding it difficult to restrain himself from shouting 'I-told-you-so'. The 'moderate' Hurriyat will not find it easy to come to the 'roundtable' despite exhortations from several quarters".
In Islamabad, Gen. Parvez Musharraf, says Jaitly, must be fuming at being shown up as a naïve leader who puts his trust in India's pronouncements about the peace process and 'thinking out of the box'. Gen.Musharraf was Jaitly added, "all sugar and honey" while assuring A.G.Noorani (from India) that he was open to all possibilities for an honourable settlement and believed that Manmohan Singh was sincere and had 'a desire to settle disputes' but 'the very next day there is a strong statement from the foreign ministry spokesman that India totally rejects the offer'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
