news details |
|
|
| J&K not disputed territory, Nov 15 a great day for India | | | NEHA
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Nov 17: Three, the otherwise uninspiring Indian Foreign Minister S M Krishna told his Chinese counterpart Yang Jiechi in Wuhan, China, that "Jammu and Kashmir is to us (New Delhi) what Tibet and Taiwan are to you" (Beijing). "Just as New Delhi has been sensitive to its concerns over the Tibet Autonomous Region and Taiwan, Beijing too should be mindful of Indian sensitivities on Jammu and Kashmir," Krishna candidly told Jiechi. Besides, Krishna asked Yiechi to give up the policy of issuing stapled visas to the Indian citizens in Jammu and Kashmir and start issuing proper visas to them to travel to China. What Krishna told Yeichi was unambiguous. There was a streak of assertion in his suggestions. There was no ambiguity. However, it will be seen if Beijing ultimately changes its policy taking into consideration the Indian sensitivities. In any case, the talks between Krishna and Jeichi crealy drew, according to reports from China, "a dramatic parallel between the territorial red lines of both countries." One can hope that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would take up these crucial issues with his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao when he visits New Delhi next month.
Four, In New Delhi, the Delhi High Court issued notice to the city government seeking its response as to why criinal case should not be registered against Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, Arundhati Roy and others under the charge of "sedition" and other offences. The court issued notice to the Delhi Government and asked it to file its response by January 27, when the matter would be taken up for further hearing. It needs to be noted that the concerned Indians have been demanding action again Geelani, Roy an others under section 124 A IPC (sedition). Geelani, Roy, Varvara Rao and others had made seditious speeches in New Delhi on October 21. Let's see what happens. However, one can say with greater amount of confidence that the case made out against Geelani, Roy and others is very strong and that the Delhi High Court would surely bring these Islamic and Maoist separatists and terrorists to justice. This is what the nation wants.
What is the moral of the story? Moral of the story is that the Egyptian resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh, where Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani met on July 16, 2009, has, now it seems, become a story of the past. At Sharm-el-Sheikh, our Prime Minister and his Pakistani counterpart had issued a joint statement. The joint-statement, which had caused a sort of furore in India, had, among other things, said: "Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed" and that "Pakistan has some information on threats in Baluchistan and other areas" (read Indian involvement). The joint-statement had been described in India as a great diplomatic victory of Islamabad over New Delhi. It had been taken to mean that India had virtually endorsed the Pakistan's motivated and baseless charge that New Delhi had been fomenting troubles in the frontier areas of Pakistan and that India had softened its stand on the perpetrators of 26/11, notwithstanding the official clarification to the contrary.
What is the moral of the story? The moral of the story is that the shame of New Delhi, where the Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Salman Bashir, virtually insulted India on February 24, 2010, in the very presence of his Indian counterpart, the sophisticated Nirupama Rao, has, now it seems, become a story of the past. While talking to reporters, Bashir had, among other things, said: "Kashmir is the main issue; Siachin is very important for Islamabad; India must implement the 1960 Indus Water Treaty so that Pakistan gets water to the extent it wants; Sir Creek is very important for Pakistan and its geo-political interests; India and Pakistan are nuclear states and hence it is incumbent on both countries to ensure a lasting peace in South Asia and it is for India to take cognizance of this fact; India will have to address Pakistani concerns as far as the Baluchistan problem is concerned; we want good relations with India; we will help peace process between the two countries move forward; we are very clear on all issues; We cannot proceed against Hafiz Saeed or LeT because we do not have any proof of his involvement in the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack; The dossiers given by India to Pakistan in this regard are no more than pieces of literature"; so on.
As for Rao, she had said: "The talks were held in a congenial atmosphere; we are open to discuss all issues; we want to remain in touch with Islamabad; the outcome of the talks was positive; we want to befriend Islamabad notwithstanding the huge trust deficit [read chasm] between the two countries; we will move forward step by step and keep our doors open; the talks were open, transparent and meaningful; we don't overrule the possibility of our Prime Minister meeting his Pakistani counterpart at Thimpu (Bhutan) in the next few days" and so on. (T be concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
