Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is battling to control the damage after signing a controversial Joint Statement with Pakistan. Ranjit Bhushan reports
If you could possibly arrive at a consensus between India and Pakistan, expect it to be a stormy one. The joint statement by the two countries at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt at the recent non-aligned summit had all the qualities of a political potboiler — and startling brinkmanship.
The primary question at stake in Parliament and the
media was whether India had bitten off more than it could chew by alluding that its ‘role’ in fomenting trouble in Balochistan was on the discussion table with Pakistan as part of the composite dialogue process. Some analysts say the joint statement delinking action on terror from the composite dialogue process has come as a bolt from the blue.
In the joint statement, of the total three summary points one point alluded to India’s role in creating troubles in Balochistan. As per another point, the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan was de-linked from Pakistan’s responsibility to take action against people who planned and helped execute 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai.
“Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed,” the statement said.
Opposition parties are up in arms saying it is tantamount to declaring that Islamabad’s actions against terrorist groups operating from its soil was no longer a pre-condition for resumption of talks between the two countries. “The joint statement is a continuation of the earlier Indian negotiating strategy of yielding ground to satisfy Pakistani hunger in the hope this will make it less disposed to bite. We continue to want to test Pakistan’s good faith, even as it has failed all previous tests,’’ former Foreign Secretary, Kanwal Sibal, told TSI. (see interview)
Defending the India-Pak joint statement in Parliament, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said there was no change in the Indian position. For good measure, he also added that the Pak dossier makes it clear that LeT inspired, financed and executed the Mumbai attack and also this is the first time Pakistan had formally briefed us on a terror attack in India.
While the impact of the statement on the dialogue process is yet to be assessed, the government appeared to have tied itself up in knots. Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon set the ball rolling by telling the media that the joint statement was “wrongly drafted’. Does the Foreign Secretary get paid to help make ‘wrong drafts’, questioned one irate MP in the Lok Sabha. If that was bad, Home Minister P Chidambram’s attempts to save the situation took the cake. He said India had nothing to do with fomenting any trouble in Balochistan! Compounding the chaos was junior foreign minister Shashi Tharoor who sought to dilute the value of the joint statement itself by claiming that it was only “a diplomatic paper” that had no legal sanction, a dangerous game to play.
According to political sources, there was considerable disquiet in the Congress over the joint statement, though no one has chosen to differ publicly with the PM. In his column, former Union minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, a Congressman and ex-diplomat in Pakistan, noted that there is no question of India wanting to meddle in Balochistan. There are others though who say Manmohan has taken the right stand at the right time. “After years of backroom diplomacy, we have reached a crucial stage. The PM needs our backing,’’ says Salman Haider, whose tenure as Foreign Secretary under IK Gujral in the mid-1990s, saw relationship between the two neighbours at an all time high. The proof of the pudding would lie in the eating. In the days to come, it would be important to see how Balochistan plays out.
If you could possibly arrive at a consensus between India and Pakistan, expect it to be a stormy one. The joint statement by the two countries at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt at the recent non-aligned summit had all the qualities of a political potboiler — and startling brinkmanship.
The primary question at stake in Parliament and the
media was whether India had bitten off more than it could chew by alluding that its ‘role’ in fomenting trouble in Balochistan was on the discussion table with Pakistan as part of the composite dialogue process. Some analysts say the joint statement delinking action on terror from the composite dialogue process has come as a bolt from the blue.In the joint statement, of the total three summary points one point alluded to India’s role in creating troubles in Balochistan. As per another point, the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan was de-linked from Pakistan’s responsibility to take action against people who planned and helped execute 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai.
“Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed,” the statement said.
Opposition parties are up in arms saying it is tantamount to declaring that Islamabad’s actions against terrorist groups operating from its soil was no longer a pre-condition for resumption of talks between the two countries. “The joint statement is a continuation of the earlier Indian negotiating strategy of yielding ground to satisfy Pakistani hunger in the hope this will make it less disposed to bite. We continue to want to test Pakistan’s good faith, even as it has failed all previous tests,’’ former Foreign Secretary, Kanwal Sibal, told TSI. (see interview)
Defending the India-Pak joint statement in Parliament, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said there was no change in the Indian position. For good measure, he also added that the Pak dossier makes it clear that LeT inspired, financed and executed the Mumbai attack and also this is the first time Pakistan had formally briefed us on a terror attack in India.
While the impact of the statement on the dialogue process is yet to be assessed, the government appeared to have tied itself up in knots. Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon set the ball rolling by telling the media that the joint statement was “wrongly drafted’. Does the Foreign Secretary get paid to help make ‘wrong drafts’, questioned one irate MP in the Lok Sabha. If that was bad, Home Minister P Chidambram’s attempts to save the situation took the cake. He said India had nothing to do with fomenting any trouble in Balochistan! Compounding the chaos was junior foreign minister Shashi Tharoor who sought to dilute the value of the joint statement itself by claiming that it was only “a diplomatic paper” that had no legal sanction, a dangerous game to play.
According to political sources, there was considerable disquiet in the Congress over the joint statement, though no one has chosen to differ publicly with the PM. In his column, former Union minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, a Congressman and ex-diplomat in Pakistan, noted that there is no question of India wanting to meddle in Balochistan. There are others though who say Manmohan has taken the right stand at the right time. “After years of backroom diplomacy, we have reached a crucial stage. The PM needs our backing,’’ says Salman Haider, whose tenure as Foreign Secretary under IK Gujral in the mid-1990s, saw relationship between the two neighbours at an all time high. The proof of the pudding would lie in the eating. In the days to come, it would be important to see how Balochistan plays out.
For Complete IIPM Article, Click on IIPM Article
Source : IIPM Editorial, 2008
An IIPM and Professor Arindam Chaudhuri (Renowned Management Guru and Economist) Initiative
Read these article :-
Delhi/ NCR B- Schools get better
IIPM fights meltdown
No comments:
Post a Comment