EDITS | Tuesday, July 28, 2009 | Email | Print | 
India betrayed at Sharm
A Surya Prakash
The India-Pakistan joint statement delinking action on terror from the composite dialogue process has come as a rude jolt to a nation which, despite 26/11, reposed faith just two months ago in the Congress-led coalition’s ability to combat Pakistan’s cross-border terror tactics and protect national interest.
Indians who have read the text of this statement, which declared that Pakistan’s actions against terrorist groups operating from its soil was no longer a pre-condition for resumption of talks between the two countries, are aghast. How can the Prime Minister of India, a country that has been targeted by Pakistan via serial terror strikes that have claimed over 50,000 Indian lives, be a signatory to something as preposterous as this? How can a country whose financial capital was crippled by Pakistani terrorists just eight months ago agree to this?
By the time he returned from Sharm el-Sheikh, where he agreed to this dubious and anti-Indian formulation after a so-called meeting with his Pakistani counterpart, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh knew that the fat was in the fire. Since Parliament was on and MPs were exercised over the issue, he had no option but to appear in both Houses to ‘explain’ his conduct. However, while doing so, he compounded the mischief by taking a stand that smacked of cunning and dishonesty.
The joint statement has two offensive portions. The first of these says, “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.” Anyone with even a rudimentary acquaintance with the English language can understand what this means.
Our Prime Minister has shockingly committed himself to the position that even if Pakistan continues to manufacture and export terror, as it has been doing all these years, the composite dialogue between the two countries will go on. India will not insist that Pakistan change its ways. Nor will it insist on Pakistan taking action against those who are in the same terror business.
After having allowed the Pakistani delegation to get away with murder, the Prime Minister told Parliament on his return that he was glad to report that the Non-Aligned Summit “heeded our call to strongly condemn international terrorism”! Further, without batting an eyelid, the man who agreed that “action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process”, told Parliament, “It has been and remains our consistent position that the starting point of any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan is a fulfilment of their commitment, in letter and spirit, not to allow their territory to be used in any manner for terrorist activities against India.”
So, who is speaking the truth? Dr Jekyll Singh, who was party to the joint statement on July 16, or Mr Hyde Singh, who appeared in Parliament on July 17? He also claimed that he had returned home convinced that these interactions with world leaders “have served to further advance India’s interests”!
Even this statement made in Parliament had its Jekyll-and-Hyde parts. At the beginning he said his Government’s consistent position was that the “starting point” for any meaningful dialogue with Pakistan would be “fulfilment” of Pakistan’s commitment not to allow use of its territory for terrorist activities against India. However, in conclusion he said India sought cooperative relations with Pakistan and “engagement is the only way forward”.
Mr Sitaram Yechury of the CPI(M) drew everyone’s attention to these contradictions soon after the Prime Minister’s statement in the Rajya Sabha. As he tied himself in knots, Mr Singh sought to wriggle out of the mess. He made the extraordinary claim that the statement “action on terrorism should not be linked to composite dialogue” actually meant that Pakistan should not hold up “action on terrorism” until the resumption of the composite dialogue! Somebody needs to tell the Prime Minister that this sleight of hand will not wash. More so after his Foreign Secretary admitted that the joint statement had been poorly drafted.
Worse, Mr Shashi Tharoor, a Minister of State for External Affairs, sought to dilute the value of the joint statement itself by claiming that it was only “a diplomatic paper” that had no legal sanction. Is this the same person who was bidding for the UN Secretary-General’s post? Does he represent the people of India, who attach far greater value to the spoken word than to sworn affidavits and legal papers? Those who wish to study the negative impact of power politics on individuals would find Mr Tharoor to be an excellent study. What a fall!
The other offensive aspect of this joint statement is the reference to Baluchistan. This is yet another faux pas for which the people of India and many of Mr Singh’s successors will have to bear the cross. Yet, Mr Singh made no reference to this while speaking in Parliament. We have been grappling since independence with covert and overt Pakistani operations to destabilise Jammu & Kashmir and other vulnerable areas along the border and there are no signs of any let-up.
All our metros and big cities have been hit by Pakistan-trained and Pakistan-inspired terrorists over the last 10 years and this includes deadly terrorist strikes in the national capital and the attack on Parliament House, the dastardly bombings on commuter trains in Mumbai and 26/11. We are just observing the tenth anniversary of the Kargil war which claimed hundreds of our young.
Yet, this entity whose raison d’être is hatred for India and for whom cross-border terrorism is a key aspect of state policy has the temerity to insinuate that there is mutuality and reciprocity in terrorist strikes. Hence, the reference to Baluchistan in the joint statement. And the Prime Minister of India, the country which has been subjected to a thousand cuts over 62 years, becomes a party to this statement. Whom are you batting for Mr Singh?
All those who care for India and all those who have lost their near and dear ones in the serial terrorist strikes across India leading up to 26/11 in Mumbai, ought to see the Prime Minister’s conduct at Sharm el-Sheikh for what it is it — betrayal — and press for an end to such duplicitous conduct by this Government.
Email | Print | Rate:
|