news details |
|
|
| Mercenaries, CPI-M, CPI, LJSP, TDP, RLD, RSP, FW, News X join hands | | | NEHA
EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Feb 1: Forces supportive of Kashmiri communalism and separatism and forces supportive of theocratic, terrorist, ambitious and unscrupulous Pakistan, which has been bleeding India since decades, have become quite active. Actually, they feel that time is ripe to strike and browbeat the already rather weak and under-attack-from-all-sides the Congress-led UPA-Government so that Islamabad and Kashmiri separatists are able to achieve their ultimate goal. The last two, three days have witnessed hectic activities in and outside India, all aimed at frightening the Government of India and convincing the powers-that-be at the Centre that it is appropriate time to conclude a truce over Jammu and Kashmir and address the Pakistani concerns in the region so that a lasting peace is forged in South Asia.
I am not referring here to what separatists and communalists like Sayeed Ali Shah Geelani and Mirwaiz Umar Farooq have said during the past five days. I am referring here to the activities undertaken by certain Indians and Pakistanis in and outside India, in Thailand's capital, Bangkok, and Indian capital, Delhi.
First the Bangkok conference on Jammu and Kashmir. On January 29 and 30, a number of Indians and Pakistanis discussed issues ranging from terrorism to extremism to Jammu and Kashmir to nuclear stability to security to safety. The forum was provided by the Jinnah Institute, Islamabad, and Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi. The above-mentioned issues were discussed at the sixth round of what is called the Chaophraya Dialogue. Some of those who took part in the two-day-long discussion included Sherry Rehman, President Jinnah Institute; General (retd) Jehangir Karamat; Ambassador (retd) Humayun Khan; Ambassador (retd) Shahzad Chaudhry; Nasim Zehra; Dr Rifaat Hussain; Moeed Yusuf; Brig (retd) Feroz Khan; and Sehar Tariq of the Jinnah Institute. And, some of those from India who participated in the discussion included Major-General (retd) Dipankar Bannerjee; former media advisor to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Sanjaya Baru; former Raw chief AS Dulat; former Vice-Chancellor of Jammu University Amitabh Mattoo, Sagrika Ghose of CNN IBN; Admiral (retd) Raja Mohan; Ambassador (retd) G Parhasarthy; and Siddharth Vardarajan of The Hindu. According to report, a few former "foreign secretaries" and "academics" also took part in the discussion.
Those who organized the discussion, obviously with the help of certain elements in the government of India and the Government of Pakistan, termed the participants as "opinion makers" and "experts." They are the same persons who have been taking part in discussions aimed at diluting the Indian sovereignty in Jammu and Kashmir and making India to give concessions unilaterally to accommodate the Pakistani evil designs on India. In fact, they are the same persons who would want India to endorse the Musharraf's four-point formula as a first step towards the final resolution of the so-called Kashmir issue and empower Pakistan to exercise co-equal sovereign powers in the Indian Jammu and Kashmir. They believe the relations between India and Pakistan could be harmonized through the instrumentality of shared sovereignty, something no state worth its name would ever accept.
The discussion was organized at a time when the foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan are scheduled to meet at Thimpu, Bhutan, to prepare the ground for the resumption of the stalled composite dialogue and, hence, it can be said that it was with a definite motive that the said discussion was organized in Bangkok.
After detailed discussion, the so-called experts and opinion makers also issued a joint declaration. The declaration, among other things, suggested the inclusion of Jammu and Kashmir in the forthcoming meeting between the Indian and Pakistani foreign secretaries. The resolution said: "We agree with the broad vision of India-Pakistan relations in which borders cannot be altered but can indeed be made irrelevant. We resolve that a dialogue between the two countries should include discussions on Jammu and Kashmir. The formal bilateral dialogue should be complemented by back-channel contacts (read the persons who took part in the discussion). The people of Jammu and Kashmir (read Kashmiri-speaking Sunni leadership) should be appropriately consulted in this process."
The declaration also said: "The absence of a formal and sustained engagement on the full range of issues confronting India and Pakistan is unhealthy, counterproductive and dangerous. We welcome the forthcoming meeting of foreign secretaries in Thimpu and hope the two sides will be able to prepare the ground for the resumption of a comprehensive and sustained dialogue. We hope this will lead to a productive summit. We note with disappointment the difficulty in people-to-people contact because of the increasingly restrictive visa regime. We urge the two governments to adopt a more rational visa policy that facilitates contacts, particularly between media practioners, academics, students and business people. We reiterate the need to initiate institutionalized and regular dialogue between the intelligence agencies of the two countries. We believe that South Asia faces serious challenges posed by extremism which undermine democratic and pluralistic societies. Indian concerns about the Mumbai attacks in 2008 have seriously affected the dialogue process. Pakistan has deep concerns about loss of lives in the Samjhauta Express attack. India has to expeditiously persecute those involved and keep Pakistan informed."
There is no need to reflect on the implications of what the joint declaration said, as every word in the declaration was self-explanatory. Suffice it to say that the so-called Indians and committed Pakistanis who met at Bangkok have suggested what could legitimately described as a break-India solution and that they are simply interested in a policy that panders to communalism and separatism and that helps Pakistan to achieve what it has failed to achieve so far. This is one part of the story. The other part would be on the activities undertaken by certain India-based political groupings and commentators and anchors. (To be concluded) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
