news details |
|
|
| National consensus must on Indo-Pak talks | | |
RUSTAM
Early Times Story
JAMMU, Feb 19: It is now almost clear that the Union Government has finally made up its mind to overlook the opposition of the main opposition BJP and restart talks with Pakistan, which has made it amply clear that its Foreign Secretary would rake up all issues, including the issues of Kashmir and Indus waters, during the scheduled meeting between him and his Indian counterpart in New Delhi on February 25.
An impression has gained ground over the last few days that it is only the BJP that has bitterly opposed the decision of the Union Government on reengaging Pakistan. It’s not true. There are definite reports that there are serious differences within the Union Cabinet itself on this issue of great import. The reports, which have emanated during the last two/three days, clearly suggest that at least two senior Cabinet Ministers, Home Minister P Chidambaram and Defence Minister A. K. Antony, have not taken kindly to the idea of talks with Pakistan in the prevailing situation. The reports also suggest that it is the Prime Minister, the Finance Minister and the External Affairs Minister who are insisting on the resumption of talks with Pakistan.
If these reports are to be believed, and there is no reason why should these not be believed, then it can be said that the views expressed by these the Home and Defence Ministers and the BJP on the issue are almost identical. According to reports, both these ministers have, like the BJP, expressed the opinion that since Islamabad has neither taken any concrete action against those involved in the 26/11 Mumbai carnage nor has it destroyed the terrorist-related infrastructure on its soil, it would be imprudent to reengage Pakistan.
The upshot of the whole argument advanced by the Home Minister and the Defence Minister is that the Pakistani belligerence, coupled with the February 13 Pune terrorist attack, doesn’t suit New Delhi in any manner and that talks should be held only after Pakistan proves by definite actions that it is really committed to stopping cross-border terrorism, dismantling terror producing factories and maintaining good and cordial relations with New Delhi.
It needs to be underlined that there are certain inputs which suggest the involvement of the Pakistani-based terrorist organizations, including Jamaat-ul-Dawah (JuD), frontline outfit of the supposedly banned Lashkar-e-Toiba, in the dreaded Pune attack. What has given further credence to these inputs was the statement made by the JuD leader at Muzzaffrabad on February 5, “Kashmir Solidarity Day”. The statement was to the effect that “Delhi, Kanpur and Pune were their next targets”.
The views of the Union Home Minister and Defence Minister appear to be quite convincing and logical when viewed in the light of the statements emanating on a daily basis from Islamabad. None of the statements, which have emanated from Islamabad between January 28, when New Delhi made the offer of talks, and till date, even remotely suggests that the Pakistani attitude is sophisticated and positive.
On the contrary, all the statements, particularly the statements made by Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, leave none in any doubt about their evil intentions. Both of them have been ridiculing and belittling New Delhi using a language no one uses while dealing with other sovereign countries.
It would be desirable if the Prime Minister reconsider the decision taking into consideration the concerns expressed by the two senior Cabinet Ministers and parties like the BJP. Even otherwise, it is not desirable to reengage Pakistan, which is hoodwinking and misleading the international opinion and coercing New Delhi by saying that Pakistan is affected more by terrorism, that terrorist attacks in India should not be an excuse for not resuming the composite dialogue process between the two countries and that both the countries are nuclear states. All these are cunning ploys. All this and the mood of the Indian nation do warrant a national consensus on the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
