Winds of change between New Delhi and Islamabad
Mumbai (AsiaNews) -After he came back from the Non-alignment conference in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt, the prime minister of India, Manmohan Singh, had been criticized in parliament because he did not support India’s decision regarding the fact that dialogue with Pakistan can take place only after cross-border terrorism is stopped. In a joint communicate of the two prime ministers of India and Pakistan they affirm the decision to restart the composite dialogue on several pending issues irrespective of the results on anti-terrorism.
While the Indian press is unanimous on the fact that India has been too lenient regarding terrorism, the Pakistani press has praised the joint statement issued by New Delhi and Islamabad at the NAM summit in Egypt. They said: “Credit must go to both sides for seizing the moment and breaking the impasse. The much needed breakthrough was achieved”.
But what bemused the political circles in India was de-linking of terrorism with the composite dialogue. When he spoke in the Lok Sabha (parliament), the Prime Minister reiterated the point, saying action on terrorism cannot await other developments. He pointed to Gilani’s assurance to bring the 26/11 guilty to book and the latter’s claim that there is a consensus in Pakistan over combating terror as it can be see in the Swat valley action.
But the opposition of BJP slammed the government for “surrender” to Pakistan and walked out of parliament. The opposition leader, LK Advani, registered a strong protest against PM Manmohan Singh “conceding” ground to Pakistan on the issue of cross-border terror. Advani asked the prime minister what had led the government to de-link terror talks from the composite dialogue and why the government had chosen to reverse the stand it had taken after the Mumbai attacks. The party accused the government of “surrendering before Pakistan”. The prime minister was also criticized for allowing the introduction in the joint-statement the mention of Balochistan (part of Pakistan where acts of terrorism are attributed to Indian infiltrators). The leader of the opposition in the Rajya Sabha, Arun Jaitley, told AsiaNews, “Allowing Pakistan to refer to Balochistan in the joint statement is allowing a perennial source of harassment for India and it gives Pakistan an opportunity to level bizarre charge that Indian agencies also use terror”.
The news papers in India are suggesting that behind India’s climb-down and concession on terror, there is the hand of the United States. It may not be a coincidence that Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, has just come to India to clarify and give an helping hand to Manmohan Singh. As she landed in Mumbai she stated that “there must be justice for 26/11 victims” and she was concerned that there is no trial and no justice so far: “Pakistan must go after every terror group” she said.
Also Pakistan gave some sign of change. The trial of the five top LeT operatives accused of involvement in the 26/11 attacks in Mumbai resumed in an anti-terror court in Rawalpindi on Saturday, after nearly two months, but was soon adjourned until July 25. The development follows Pakistan’s apparent acceptance of Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi as the carnage mastermind and Ajmal Amir Kasab, currently on trial in Mumbai, as its citizen in the dossier it gave to India last week.
Islamabad had been able to project itself as being genuinely desirous of rolling back the Taliban and help up its operation in Swat as evidence.
American insistence that India ease Pakistan concerns on its eastern front had grown. Indian sources had also pointed out that in the statement in Egypt there is no specific mention of Kashmir, that is the main problem of relationship between the two nations. For this reason the Pakistani influential English daily, Dawn, could write: “The joint statement deviates sharply from the rhetoric of recent months, especially the hard line taken by New Delhi. Instead of describing this development as some kind of victory of Pakistan, we would do well to hail India’s timely recognition that terrorism and militancy should not be allowed to come in the way of improved relations”.
The paper’s conclusion is that “the politicians succeeded where the bureaucrats faltered”. It is only to hope that the terrorists will not spoil the good will of the two nations.
.png)
