Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

A clincher?

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • The phrases and code-words of India-Pakistan dialogue had become so familiar that departures in the joint statement out of Sharm El-Sheikh have instantly invited clarifications. A reading of the text of the joint statement issued after Thursday’s meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart, Yusuf Raza Gilani, has become tied to Dr Singh’s remarks at a press conference later in the day. The composite dialogue with Pakistan, he said, cannot begin until and unless the perpetrators of the Mumbai terror attacks are brought to justice. Flagging the second key point in the statement, he added that India has nothing to be afraid about events in Balochistan. But, given the unanticipated reference to debracketing of action on terrorism and the dialogue process and to “threats in Balochistan”, there will have to be more hardsell domestically of the contents of the joint statement.

    Textualism in diplomacy — especially one as keenly based on gesture and semantics as India-Pakistan’s — is always fraught with the danger of over-reading. New Delhi’s position on the reference to not “bracketing” action on terrorism and the composite dialogue is, as the prime minister stated, that Pakistan cannot demand movement in the dialogue process for action on India’s concerns on terrorism. Islamabad, sceptics may say, could spin it just the other way. But the reality is this. Since the November 26 attack in Mumbai, there has been impatience in India on movement on its demands on actions against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attack. There has, too, been no movement on the low-hanging fruit in the composite dialogue, like Sir Creek and visas. There has been in this period considerable pressure by the US on the two countries to resume the dialogue process, pressure that the two leaderships feel they have a stake in addressing. The joint statement, evidently hard-fought word for word, reflects an acknowledgement that they have to, with optics, address issues on which little substantive has been achieved. Indeed, resumption of India-Pakistan engagement is a valuable achievement. This is, it must be clear, not an Islamabad (January 2004) moment. There is no clinching breakthrough. But it is not an Agra moment either. The principals still have much to do to get the optics right; the silences in the joint statement are yet to be filled. The Egypt meet, therefore, will be judged in great measure on what is delivered by Pakistan on the Mumbai accused.

    ... contd.

    Next12
    Joint StatementBy: Dr. Ram Chander Sharma | 17-Jul-2009 Reply | Forward Divided families may meet again and in the process on Indo Pak relations the meaning of a dialogue is not just sitting across the table, but to resolve the six decade old issues. Well the Pakistan Govt seems to be a puppet and having no control over the jihadi terrorism unleashed all over Pakistan but India may not loose any stretegy to deal with the terrorism. The statement on Bloachistan is not a diplomatic but a well chosen move to keep both the windows open peace as well as threat. India should continue composite dialogue process.
    India and BalochistanBy: Rajesh Vyas | 17-Jul-2009 Reply | Forward How is India concerned with what is going on in Balochistan? It is an internal matter of Pakistan and they have to handle it. Why was a reference made to Balochistan in these futile talks between Manmohan and Gilani? Umpteen such meetings have taken place between the Pakistani and Indian heads of states but no result has emerged. Both the Governments in their respective countries are fooling their own people. While it may ne OKAY for the Pakistani Leadership to do this, India is a democratic Country and we demand explanations from the Prime Minister for this statement on Balochistan. Why are we not able to tell Pakistan that ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!! Are we under pressure from the USA to resume talks with the ever hostile neighbour? If so, what do we get in return from the USA? The Government must come clean on this. The inclusion of Balochistan business is once again an utter failure of Indian Foreign Poicy and Indian Diplomacy.
    Some historical factoidsBy: Devasahayan | 17-Jul-2009 Reply | Forward By your logic Rajesh, it could have been said in 1971 that Bangladesh crisis was "internal matter of Pakistan to handle"--but it proved otherwise, when refugees came across border and then Pak troops followed to massacre them. BTW, the reason for 1965 War was because Pakistan wanted to divert attention from its atrocities in Balochistan.
    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.