Prometheus
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,942
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
India-Pakistan Talks
- Thread starter Prometheus
- Start date
Prometheus
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,942
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
Reducing trust deficit main challenge: Krishna
ISLAMABAD: Tasked with the most important but unenviable job of resuming dialogue with Pakistan, Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna believes the challenge lies in reducing the trust deficit between the two countries.
Mr Krishna, who will visit Islamabad on July 15 for talks with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, said: “There is total distrust between the two countries. So we will have to attack the trust deficit first. The central theme of my visit is to make an effort to reduce the trust deficit and even eliminate it. I think if we succeed, something would be achieved.”
In an interview with The Tribune Editor-in-Chief Raj Chengappa, he said that during the recent Saarc summit in Thimphu, Prime Ministers Yousuf Raza Gilani and Dr Manmohan Singh had free and frank discussions.
They felt the only way forward to settle all outstanding issues was to get back to the negotiating table, he added.
When asked what made India change its position, Mr Krishna said: “When Mumbai was attacked, we had to respond to the popular sentiment, which was also the government’s sentiment. So we had to call off the composite dialogue. Now, a year has passed. Pakistan has arrested a few persons and their trial is going on.”
Commenting on the action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks, he said the argument put to India by Pakistan was that the executive did not have any control over the judicial process.
“We understand and respect that. Even in India, we cannot tell the courts what to do. And we have known that the judiciary in Pakistan has been fiercely independent in recent times.”
Mr Krishna said: “We also thought of alternatives. What were the alternatives open to India? Shall we wage a war, a limited war, localised war or go after those suspected of the Mumbai attacks? Then it would become a full-scale war. What will then happen to the subcontinent? Let us remember that we are two nuclear powers and this fact heavily weighed on Dr Manmohan Singh’s mind.”
During the Thimphu meeting, he said, the tone and tenor of Pakistan created enough confidence in India.
“So we felt it was necessary for us to resume the talks. We thought political-level talks were more effective, productive and convincing than the talks at the bureaucratic levels.”
Mr Krishna said the parameters of talks were very clear and obvious. “There is total distrust between our two countries. So the question arose as to what we can do to eliminate this distrust. That is the reason why Dr Singh and Mr Gilani said that we need to attack the trust deficit and they mandated that the foreign ministers would address this distrust, work out how to reduce it and eliminate it.”
When asked wouldn’t India be diluting the terror issue by agreeing to talks with Pakistan, he said: “No, terror will continue to be the core issue for us even when I go to Islamabad.”
Answering a question about the Kashmir issue, Mr Krishna said: “I will not certainly at this point of time go into the details as to how we are going to solve the Kashmir problem. The Kashmir problem has been marooning us for so long and it will rather be too simplistic on my part as foreign minister to say that we are going to solve it. We are going to discuss every issue which can be raised by Pakistan and which can be raised by India.”
On the water issue, the minister said: “We have the Indus Water Treaty and the Indus Water Commission. The experts met recently in Delhi. If Pakistan has any concerns, those can always be referred to the commission or to the committee of experts. So that is why we have said that on water, or anything else, we are willing to talk.”
About the BJP criticism of resumption of talks, Mr Krishna said: “We would like to have friendly relations with our neighbours. This is our twin approach towards Pakistan. One is that India’s national interest will be intact and secondly we will have friendly and cordial relations with Pakistan and with all neighbours of India.”
He said: “The larger perspective is how long are we going to keep on fighting? I think we will have to talk to Pakistan and come to an understanding with them because that will be in our interest and that will be in their interest and in the interest of all our neighbours.”
About India’s involvement in Balochistan, Mr Krishna said in the absence of proof, it would not be fair to accuse India. “The Indian government’s position is that we will not interfere in internal affairs of Pakistan,” he added.—APP
DAWN.COM | Front Page | Reducing trust deficit main challenge: Krishna
ISLAMABAD: Tasked with the most important but unenviable job of resuming dialogue with Pakistan, Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna believes the challenge lies in reducing the trust deficit between the two countries.
Mr Krishna, who will visit Islamabad on July 15 for talks with Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, said: “There is total distrust between the two countries. So we will have to attack the trust deficit first. The central theme of my visit is to make an effort to reduce the trust deficit and even eliminate it. I think if we succeed, something would be achieved.”
In an interview with The Tribune Editor-in-Chief Raj Chengappa, he said that during the recent Saarc summit in Thimphu, Prime Ministers Yousuf Raza Gilani and Dr Manmohan Singh had free and frank discussions.
They felt the only way forward to settle all outstanding issues was to get back to the negotiating table, he added.
When asked what made India change its position, Mr Krishna said: “When Mumbai was attacked, we had to respond to the popular sentiment, which was also the government’s sentiment. So we had to call off the composite dialogue. Now, a year has passed. Pakistan has arrested a few persons and their trial is going on.”
Commenting on the action against the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks, he said the argument put to India by Pakistan was that the executive did not have any control over the judicial process.
“We understand and respect that. Even in India, we cannot tell the courts what to do. And we have known that the judiciary in Pakistan has been fiercely independent in recent times.”
Mr Krishna said: “We also thought of alternatives. What were the alternatives open to India? Shall we wage a war, a limited war, localised war or go after those suspected of the Mumbai attacks? Then it would become a full-scale war. What will then happen to the subcontinent? Let us remember that we are two nuclear powers and this fact heavily weighed on Dr Manmohan Singh’s mind.”
During the Thimphu meeting, he said, the tone and tenor of Pakistan created enough confidence in India.
“So we felt it was necessary for us to resume the talks. We thought political-level talks were more effective, productive and convincing than the talks at the bureaucratic levels.”
Mr Krishna said the parameters of talks were very clear and obvious. “There is total distrust between our two countries. So the question arose as to what we can do to eliminate this distrust. That is the reason why Dr Singh and Mr Gilani said that we need to attack the trust deficit and they mandated that the foreign ministers would address this distrust, work out how to reduce it and eliminate it.”
When asked wouldn’t India be diluting the terror issue by agreeing to talks with Pakistan, he said: “No, terror will continue to be the core issue for us even when I go to Islamabad.”
Answering a question about the Kashmir issue, Mr Krishna said: “I will not certainly at this point of time go into the details as to how we are going to solve the Kashmir problem. The Kashmir problem has been marooning us for so long and it will rather be too simplistic on my part as foreign minister to say that we are going to solve it. We are going to discuss every issue which can be raised by Pakistan and which can be raised by India.”
On the water issue, the minister said: “We have the Indus Water Treaty and the Indus Water Commission. The experts met recently in Delhi. If Pakistan has any concerns, those can always be referred to the commission or to the committee of experts. So that is why we have said that on water, or anything else, we are willing to talk.”
About the BJP criticism of resumption of talks, Mr Krishna said: “We would like to have friendly relations with our neighbours. This is our twin approach towards Pakistan. One is that India’s national interest will be intact and secondly we will have friendly and cordial relations with Pakistan and with all neighbours of India.”
He said: “The larger perspective is how long are we going to keep on fighting? I think we will have to talk to Pakistan and come to an understanding with them because that will be in our interest and that will be in their interest and in the interest of all our neighbours.”
About India’s involvement in Balochistan, Mr Krishna said in the absence of proof, it would not be fair to accuse India. “The Indian government’s position is that we will not interfere in internal affairs of Pakistan,” he added.—APP
DAWN.COM | Front Page | Reducing trust deficit main challenge: Krishna
Prometheus
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,942
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
India ready to trust Pakistan: Krishna
NEW DELHI: In a significant softening of a posture that had stymied resumption of peace talks with Pakistan, Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna was quoted on Friday as saying that New Delhi was now ready to trust Islamabad in the battle against terrorism.
In an interview to Times of India, Mr Krishna said: “We feel Pakistan will not encourage terror-related activities anymore.”
Asked how Pakistan could be trusted given India’s suspicion of its “track record” of complicity in fomenting terrorism, Mr Krishna said: “We proceed on the basis that the Pakistanis are serious about fighting terror. Of late, there have been a number of terror attacks in Pakistan itself directed against the military establishment, like in Rawalpindi.”
The newspaper described Mr Krishna’s latest comments as “reflecting” India’s new confidence that the spate of terror attacks at home may have “finally woken Pakistan to the folly” of its policy towards terror groups.
However, Mr Krishna expressed disappointment at Pakistan’s apparently unyielding response to India’s demand for action against cleric Hafiz Mohammad Saeed who has been identified by New Delhi as one of the masterminds of the Mumbai terror plot.
The minister “brushed aside” Islamabad’s stated position that evidence gathered by India on Saeed was not strong enough. “We feel that the evidence in the dossier we have prepared makes for a foolproof case which can be used to bring Saeed to justice.”
Mr Krishna was said to have expressed doubts in the interview that Pakistan’s security and intelligence agencies had conducted any investigation at all on the basis of the evidence handed over by India. He wondered if the dossier on Saeed had been even shared with the judiciary. “I think there are certain grey areas,” he said.
In spite of a “backdrop of evidence of continued operation of 40-odd terror camps, rise in infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir and no let-up in the efforts by terror groups to attack mainland targets”, the Times said that Mr Krishna seemed to be willing to trust the intent of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.
Significantly, Mr Krishna avoided rejecting Pakistan’s standard argument that Mr Saeed’s prosecution was for the judiciary to decide. “They have their own judicial system. We know from the past that it can be very assertive. Twice he was taken into custody. Both the times he was let loose by the courts,” said the foreign minister.
He, however, stressed that India would not give up asking for Mr Saeed’s prosecution. “We are not taking our hands off him. We will continue to insist that Pakistan conduct further investigations based on the material we have given to them.”
Mr Krishna was asked whether he expected Pakistan would give up its supposedly selective approach to fighting terror and thereby stop differentiating between terrorists operating on its western border and its eastern border, the foreign minister said: “Terrorism cannot be fought selectively.
“It has to be fought across the board and we want Pakistan to realise this. It would help both countries if we together make up our minds.”
Mr Krishna’s conciliatory remarks followed a recent TV interview in which he had claimed there was a transformation in Pakistan’s approach to fighting terrorism.
“I found in Thimphu that the mindset of Pakistan is ready to accept a transformation and that was the reason why they invited me to go to Islamabad for pursuing our talks,” he told CNN-IBN.
Mr Krishna is scheduled to visit Pakistan on July 15. The visit will be preceded by a flurry of official talks and a Saarc-related visit to Islamabad by Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram.
DAWN.COM | Front Page | India ready to trust Pakistan: Krishna
NEW DELHI: In a significant softening of a posture that had stymied resumption of peace talks with Pakistan, Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna was quoted on Friday as saying that New Delhi was now ready to trust Islamabad in the battle against terrorism.
In an interview to Times of India, Mr Krishna said: “We feel Pakistan will not encourage terror-related activities anymore.”
Asked how Pakistan could be trusted given India’s suspicion of its “track record” of complicity in fomenting terrorism, Mr Krishna said: “We proceed on the basis that the Pakistanis are serious about fighting terror. Of late, there have been a number of terror attacks in Pakistan itself directed against the military establishment, like in Rawalpindi.”
The newspaper described Mr Krishna’s latest comments as “reflecting” India’s new confidence that the spate of terror attacks at home may have “finally woken Pakistan to the folly” of its policy towards terror groups.
However, Mr Krishna expressed disappointment at Pakistan’s apparently unyielding response to India’s demand for action against cleric Hafiz Mohammad Saeed who has been identified by New Delhi as one of the masterminds of the Mumbai terror plot.
The minister “brushed aside” Islamabad’s stated position that evidence gathered by India on Saeed was not strong enough. “We feel that the evidence in the dossier we have prepared makes for a foolproof case which can be used to bring Saeed to justice.”
Mr Krishna was said to have expressed doubts in the interview that Pakistan’s security and intelligence agencies had conducted any investigation at all on the basis of the evidence handed over by India. He wondered if the dossier on Saeed had been even shared with the judiciary. “I think there are certain grey areas,” he said.
In spite of a “backdrop of evidence of continued operation of 40-odd terror camps, rise in infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir and no let-up in the efforts by terror groups to attack mainland targets”, the Times said that Mr Krishna seemed to be willing to trust the intent of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani.
Significantly, Mr Krishna avoided rejecting Pakistan’s standard argument that Mr Saeed’s prosecution was for the judiciary to decide. “They have their own judicial system. We know from the past that it can be very assertive. Twice he was taken into custody. Both the times he was let loose by the courts,” said the foreign minister.
He, however, stressed that India would not give up asking for Mr Saeed’s prosecution. “We are not taking our hands off him. We will continue to insist that Pakistan conduct further investigations based on the material we have given to them.”
Mr Krishna was asked whether he expected Pakistan would give up its supposedly selective approach to fighting terror and thereby stop differentiating between terrorists operating on its western border and its eastern border, the foreign minister said: “Terrorism cannot be fought selectively.
“It has to be fought across the board and we want Pakistan to realise this. It would help both countries if we together make up our minds.”
Mr Krishna’s conciliatory remarks followed a recent TV interview in which he had claimed there was a transformation in Pakistan’s approach to fighting terrorism.
“I found in Thimphu that the mindset of Pakistan is ready to accept a transformation and that was the reason why they invited me to go to Islamabad for pursuing our talks,” he told CNN-IBN.
Mr Krishna is scheduled to visit Pakistan on July 15. The visit will be preceded by a flurry of official talks and a Saarc-related visit to Islamabad by Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram.
DAWN.COM | Front Page | India ready to trust Pakistan: Krishna
thinkingcap81
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2010
- Messages
- 399
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : Rebooting India-Pakistan relations
Rebooting India-Pakistan relations
by Happymon Jacob
It is important for both India and Pakistan to continue the positive movement in bilateral relations. They should rebuild mutual trust and resume dialogue.
The ongoing normalisation of India-Pakistan relations is a serious and mature step towards ensuring greater peace and stability in the South Asian region. While the specifics of the dialogue ahead are not yet known, the efforts at reengagement and the statements from official quarters in India and Pakistan are being made in an atmosphere of mutual trust and cordiality. This conducive atmosphere has been created by a host of factors.
The Mumbai Special Court's verdict sentencing 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab to death did not generate adverse reactions from Pakistan; it failed even to upset the Pakistani media. Indeed, more Indians have spoken up against hanging Kasab than Pakistanis. Pakistan's Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit merely said: Pakistan has strongly condemned the horrific attack. It's important that the culprits are brought to justice. Similarly, India did not blame Pakistan when a staff member of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad was caught allegedly spying for Pakistan; that too despite the obvious involvement of the Pakistani intelligence agencies in honey-trapping Madhuri Gupta. In fact, soon afterwards came the decision to talk to Pakistan.
This sort of diplomatic maturity is rare in the subcontinent. Moreover, unlike after the July 2009 meeting between Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Yusuf Raza Gilani in Sharm-el Sheikh, the media on both sides of the border reacted positively to the decision to talk. There was also no post-discussion triumphalist posturing by either side. Perhaps most important, Indian security establishment hardliners have understood that a no-talk policy towards Pakistan will do more harm than good and make strategic gains impossible to achieve. Indeed, by refusing to enter into a broad-based dialogue with Pakistan for such a long time, India risked isolating itself from the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan at the insistence of Pakistan. If India cannot prove itself to be a regional team player, it is likely that the U.S. will not ask it to play ball.
Dialogue pays
Even as it is busy crafting a new strategy of engagement with Islamabad, New Delhi needs to remain cognisant of some important facts, discard certain myths and think outside the box as to what should constitute a renewed Indo-Pakistan dialogue. First, it needs to abandon the myth that nothing was achieved during the 2004-08 peace process. Even a cursory look at the host of significant Confidence Building Measures ranging from the Agreement on Advance Notification of Ballistic Missile Tests (signed in 2005) to the establishment of a communication link between Pakistan's Maritime Security Agency and the Indian Coast Guard, to legalising the screening of Indian films in Pakistan in 2008 shows that tangible, positive progress was made. This is as well as, and aside from, the much-hyped near-deal' on Kashmir achieved through back-channel discussions: it was not inked only owing to the unexpected turmoil in Pakistan's domestic politics (beginning with the 2006 judiciary-executive row). The former Pakistani Foreign Minister, Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri, recently said the Kashmir deal was to be characterised by loose autonomy that stopped short of the azadi (freedom) and self-governance aspirations... to be introduced on both sides of the disputed frontier, which was understood to be between complete independence and autonomy.
The very fact that the two governments, albeit through the back-channel, had closely and seriously examined potential solutions to Kashmir demonstrates that there are now sane minds within the two establishments who can think outside the box.
Secondly, it needs to be realised that though Pervez Musharraf did add drive to the Kashmir dialogue, his exit from the Pakistani presidency does not in any way mean that the process of conflict resolution there will not survive. Reconciliation in Jammu and Kashmir has gained a dynamic of its own that is likely to continue despite the political uncertainty of the last two years. There are a number of proposals from within Kashmir (both from the mainstream and non-mainstream leaders) suggesting ways to go forward. Most of them propose solutions that are broadly akin to what the two countries have previously discussed.
In other words, the many initiatives on Kashmir, including the multiple tracks of dialogue that began during the peace process, will continue to impact future negotiations between the two countries. The time is right for New Delhi to strengthen the groundswell and the various socio-political processes of conflict resolution within J&K. Moreover, India should not hesitate to talk Kashmir with Pakistan, and the latter is unlikely to go back on whatever has been achieved by the two countries on Kashmir.
Include Afghanistan
Thirdly, it is now clearly understood that New Delhi's interests in Afghanistan will be served better in cooperation with a friendly Pakistan. If India and Pakistan remain at loggerheads, the latter will continue with its efforts to exclude India from Afghanistan, possibly rendering New Delhi a mere spectator of the turmoil in its neighbourhood. More so, India's valuable reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan will be further frustrated. The U.S. has recognised that India's work in Afghanistan is indispensable: Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer recently stated that the long term war in Afghanistan will be won on [the] sub-national level with development and diplomacy. What India is doing on development and diplomacy is critically important for the long-term winning of the battle. For India and Pakistan to continue bickering over Afghanistan would be irresponsible and short-sighted. Afghanistan must be included in the list of items the two countries need to address in upcoming discussions.
Talk to the Army
Fourthly, New Delhi should engage the Pakistan Army. It is widely considered to play an important role in influencing Pakistan's India policy. By restricting itself to discussion with the civilian establishment, India may not achieve its desired aims. Pakistani participants of recent Track-2 meetings, including retired defence personnel, have made it clear that India should explore the possibility of engaging the Pakistani military, directly or indirectly. The U.S. has already done so, with Pakistan's Chief of the Army Staff Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and ISI Director-General Shuja Pasha participating in the U.S.-Pakistan strategic dialogue held in March. While it is true that the recently passed 18th Amendment to the Pakistani Constitution strengthens the civilian government, there is no guarantee that the Army will recede to the background.
Water issues
Finally, talking to Pakistan about water-related issues is vital. This is not because there is any basis to Pakistan's argument that India is depriving it of water but because water is likely to become a flashpoint. Many anti-India organisations, such as the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, have taken up the water issue to attack India and garner domestic popular support. As Sherry Rehman, Pakistan People's Party leader and former Cabinet Minister, has asserted, water deficits in Pakistan have become the new force multiplier of nationalist dogma.
To make matters worse, various political parties from J&K are dissatisfied with current water-sharing arrangements: they claim that the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) puts them at a disadvantage. J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah recently remarked: I have always said that the agreement of water-sharing between India and Pakistan is absolutely wrong. However, the IWT, inked in 1960, remains the only agreement that has been faithfully implemented and upheld by both India and Pakistan.
It is important to continue this trend as the two countries seek to rebuild trust, resume dialogue and reboot relations.
Rebooting India-Pakistan relations
by Happymon Jacob
It is important for both India and Pakistan to continue the positive movement in bilateral relations. They should rebuild mutual trust and resume dialogue.
The ongoing normalisation of India-Pakistan relations is a serious and mature step towards ensuring greater peace and stability in the South Asian region. While the specifics of the dialogue ahead are not yet known, the efforts at reengagement and the statements from official quarters in India and Pakistan are being made in an atmosphere of mutual trust and cordiality. This conducive atmosphere has been created by a host of factors.
The Mumbai Special Court's verdict sentencing 26/11 terrorist Ajmal Amir Kasab to death did not generate adverse reactions from Pakistan; it failed even to upset the Pakistani media. Indeed, more Indians have spoken up against hanging Kasab than Pakistanis. Pakistan's Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit merely said: Pakistan has strongly condemned the horrific attack. It's important that the culprits are brought to justice. Similarly, India did not blame Pakistan when a staff member of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad was caught allegedly spying for Pakistan; that too despite the obvious involvement of the Pakistani intelligence agencies in honey-trapping Madhuri Gupta. In fact, soon afterwards came the decision to talk to Pakistan.
This sort of diplomatic maturity is rare in the subcontinent. Moreover, unlike after the July 2009 meeting between Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh and Yusuf Raza Gilani in Sharm-el Sheikh, the media on both sides of the border reacted positively to the decision to talk. There was also no post-discussion triumphalist posturing by either side. Perhaps most important, Indian security establishment hardliners have understood that a no-talk policy towards Pakistan will do more harm than good and make strategic gains impossible to achieve. Indeed, by refusing to enter into a broad-based dialogue with Pakistan for such a long time, India risked isolating itself from the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan at the insistence of Pakistan. If India cannot prove itself to be a regional team player, it is likely that the U.S. will not ask it to play ball.
Dialogue pays
Even as it is busy crafting a new strategy of engagement with Islamabad, New Delhi needs to remain cognisant of some important facts, discard certain myths and think outside the box as to what should constitute a renewed Indo-Pakistan dialogue. First, it needs to abandon the myth that nothing was achieved during the 2004-08 peace process. Even a cursory look at the host of significant Confidence Building Measures ranging from the Agreement on Advance Notification of Ballistic Missile Tests (signed in 2005) to the establishment of a communication link between Pakistan's Maritime Security Agency and the Indian Coast Guard, to legalising the screening of Indian films in Pakistan in 2008 shows that tangible, positive progress was made. This is as well as, and aside from, the much-hyped near-deal' on Kashmir achieved through back-channel discussions: it was not inked only owing to the unexpected turmoil in Pakistan's domestic politics (beginning with the 2006 judiciary-executive row). The former Pakistani Foreign Minister, Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri, recently said the Kashmir deal was to be characterised by loose autonomy that stopped short of the azadi (freedom) and self-governance aspirations... to be introduced on both sides of the disputed frontier, which was understood to be between complete independence and autonomy.
The very fact that the two governments, albeit through the back-channel, had closely and seriously examined potential solutions to Kashmir demonstrates that there are now sane minds within the two establishments who can think outside the box.
Secondly, it needs to be realised that though Pervez Musharraf did add drive to the Kashmir dialogue, his exit from the Pakistani presidency does not in any way mean that the process of conflict resolution there will not survive. Reconciliation in Jammu and Kashmir has gained a dynamic of its own that is likely to continue despite the political uncertainty of the last two years. There are a number of proposals from within Kashmir (both from the mainstream and non-mainstream leaders) suggesting ways to go forward. Most of them propose solutions that are broadly akin to what the two countries have previously discussed.
In other words, the many initiatives on Kashmir, including the multiple tracks of dialogue that began during the peace process, will continue to impact future negotiations between the two countries. The time is right for New Delhi to strengthen the groundswell and the various socio-political processes of conflict resolution within J&K. Moreover, India should not hesitate to talk Kashmir with Pakistan, and the latter is unlikely to go back on whatever has been achieved by the two countries on Kashmir.
Include Afghanistan
Thirdly, it is now clearly understood that New Delhi's interests in Afghanistan will be served better in cooperation with a friendly Pakistan. If India and Pakistan remain at loggerheads, the latter will continue with its efforts to exclude India from Afghanistan, possibly rendering New Delhi a mere spectator of the turmoil in its neighbourhood. More so, India's valuable reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan will be further frustrated. The U.S. has recognised that India's work in Afghanistan is indispensable: Ambassador to India Timothy Roemer recently stated that the long term war in Afghanistan will be won on [the] sub-national level with development and diplomacy. What India is doing on development and diplomacy is critically important for the long-term winning of the battle. For India and Pakistan to continue bickering over Afghanistan would be irresponsible and short-sighted. Afghanistan must be included in the list of items the two countries need to address in upcoming discussions.
Talk to the Army
Fourthly, New Delhi should engage the Pakistan Army. It is widely considered to play an important role in influencing Pakistan's India policy. By restricting itself to discussion with the civilian establishment, India may not achieve its desired aims. Pakistani participants of recent Track-2 meetings, including retired defence personnel, have made it clear that India should explore the possibility of engaging the Pakistani military, directly or indirectly. The U.S. has already done so, with Pakistan's Chief of the Army Staff Ashfaq Pervez Kayani and ISI Director-General Shuja Pasha participating in the U.S.-Pakistan strategic dialogue held in March. While it is true that the recently passed 18th Amendment to the Pakistani Constitution strengthens the civilian government, there is no guarantee that the Army will recede to the background.
Water issues
Finally, talking to Pakistan about water-related issues is vital. This is not because there is any basis to Pakistan's argument that India is depriving it of water but because water is likely to become a flashpoint. Many anti-India organisations, such as the Jamaat-ud-Dawa, have taken up the water issue to attack India and garner domestic popular support. As Sherry Rehman, Pakistan People's Party leader and former Cabinet Minister, has asserted, water deficits in Pakistan have become the new force multiplier of nationalist dogma.
To make matters worse, various political parties from J&K are dissatisfied with current water-sharing arrangements: they claim that the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) puts them at a disadvantage. J&K Chief Minister Omar Abdullah recently remarked: I have always said that the agreement of water-sharing between India and Pakistan is absolutely wrong. However, the IWT, inked in 1960, remains the only agreement that has been faithfully implemented and upheld by both India and Pakistan.
It is important to continue this trend as the two countries seek to rebuild trust, resume dialogue and reboot relations.
Nononsense
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- May 23, 2010
- Messages
- 85
- Reaction score
- 0
ek sawal! yeh log ..ja ja ke kyon milte hai? same cheez discuss karne ke liye? e-mail mein send kar de aur T-con se baat kar le. India toll free/ US/ Pak toll free number mein de doonga.
IndianArmy
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- May 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,777
- Reaction score
- 1
The more the better..... Talk talk talk untill You start to hate talking and start Shaking hands Instead....
IndianArmy
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- May 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,777
- Reaction score
- 1
Prometheus
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,942
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
DAWN.COM | World | Pakistan calls for talks with India to build trustPakistan calls for talks with India to build trust
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan called on Monday for “sustained and meaningful” dialogue with India after Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said a trust deficit was the main obstacle in ties between the two countries.
Speaking at a news conference in New Delhi, Singh said India was willing to discuss all outstanding issues with Pakistan but “the trust gap is (the) biggest problem”.
“Prime Minister (Yousuf Raza) Gilani and I agreed that trust deficit was the problem blocking progress,” Singh told reporters, referring to recent discussions between the two men in the Bhutanese capital Thimphu.
“Pakistan is our neighbour. It is my firm belief that India cannot realise its full development potential till we have best relations with our neighbours,” he said, as he reviewed his year in power since re-election.
Pakistan's Shah Mehmood Qureshi invited his Indian counterpart S.M. Krishna to Islamabad on July 15.
“We are going to make a beginning. The composite dialogue was suspended soon after attack on Mumbai,” Singh told reporters in New Delhi.
“This is the first major effort to deal with underlying cause which is lack of adequate amount of trust,” he said. “I am hopeful that this process can move forward.”
Pakistan said it agreed that mistrust should be dispelled.
“Obviously, there is a mutual trust deficit and we need to build trust between our two countries on solid foundations so that our two countries and our people can live in peace and prosperity,” said Pakistani foreign ministry spokesman Abdul Basit.
“To this end, Pakistan looks forward to a sustained and meaningful engagement with India with a view to free our relations from all disputes and conflicts.”
Relations between the neighbours went into a freeze after Pakistan-based militants attacked the Indian city of Mumbai in 2008, killing 166 people.
But Singh and Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani met on the sidelines of a regional conference last month and agreed to get talks going again to tackle their disputes.
For India, the main issue in its relations with Pakistan is security, with militants, who India says are backed by Pakistan, attacking Indian security forces in the disputed Kashmir region and launching attacks in Indian cities.
Pakistan says the core dispute is over Kashmir, which both countries claim in full but rule in part.
Talking to leaders of Pakistan-ruled Kashmir, Gilani said his government remained committed to a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Kashmir dispute.
“There is an imperative need to end the long legacy of hostility and distrust and to work towards a peaceful solution of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir,” from prime minister's office quoted him as saying in a statment.
Pakistan would continue to support the “just cause” of Kashmiri people, he said
TATA
BANNED
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 517
- Reaction score
- 0
Jab USA ka hukum hota hai to aisa hi hota hai.
What have we gained by 60 years of talk?????? What else is left to discuses ?? USA ka fayeda, pakistan ka fayeda India ka kya ??????
Prometheus
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,942
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
No certainty talks will succeed, says Singh
NEW DELHI: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Monday he would make every effort to improve ties with Pakistan but he also cautioned that there was no certainty his bid would be successful.
Dr Singh, who was addressing a press conference to mark the beginning of his seventh year in power, was asked why he believed he would succeed in bridging a yawning trust deficit with Pakistan.
He replied: “Well, I can’t say that I know the answer. It is our obligation to make every effort to normalise relations with India’s neighbours. That is essential, I have always believed, to realise development potential of our country. We will make every effort; whether we succeed or not, that only the future can tell.”
The way the prime minister used the “trust deficit” to explain his Pakistan policy left it open to interpretation. “The trust deficit is the biggest problem and unless we tackle the trust deficit, we cannot move to substantive negotiations,” he told a questioner at the start of the press conference.
To that end, he said, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had “agreed that trust deficit is a major problem blocking progress in the direction of moving forward and that it should be our common endeavour to bridge or to reduce this trust deficit. That is why we have agreed that the foreign ministers and the foreign secretaries would meet”.
Ties with Pakistan were not part of Dr Singh’s written statement. However, it became a dominant theme with the media. “We are going to make a beginning,” he said.
“The composite dialogue had been suspended soon after the attack on Mumbai. Subsequently, the process has not moved forward and this will be the first major effort to deal with the underlined cause, that is, lack of adequate amount of trust between our two countries. I am hopeful that this process can move forward. That was, at least, the message I got from talking to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.”DAWN.COM | Front Page | No certainty talks will succeed, says Singh
NEW DELHI: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Monday he would make every effort to improve ties with Pakistan but he also cautioned that there was no certainty his bid would be successful.
Dr Singh, who was addressing a press conference to mark the beginning of his seventh year in power, was asked why he believed he would succeed in bridging a yawning trust deficit with Pakistan.
He replied: “Well, I can’t say that I know the answer. It is our obligation to make every effort to normalise relations with India’s neighbours. That is essential, I have always believed, to realise development potential of our country. We will make every effort; whether we succeed or not, that only the future can tell.”
The way the prime minister used the “trust deficit” to explain his Pakistan policy left it open to interpretation. “The trust deficit is the biggest problem and unless we tackle the trust deficit, we cannot move to substantive negotiations,” he told a questioner at the start of the press conference.
To that end, he said, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had “agreed that trust deficit is a major problem blocking progress in the direction of moving forward and that it should be our common endeavour to bridge or to reduce this trust deficit. That is why we have agreed that the foreign ministers and the foreign secretaries would meet”.
Ties with Pakistan were not part of Dr Singh’s written statement. However, it became a dominant theme with the media. “We are going to make a beginning,” he said.
“The composite dialogue had been suspended soon after the attack on Mumbai. Subsequently, the process has not moved forward and this will be the first major effort to deal with the underlined cause, that is, lack of adequate amount of trust between our two countries. I am hopeful that this process can move forward. That was, at least, the message I got from talking to the Prime Minister of Pakistan.”DAWN.COM | Front Page | No certainty talks will succeed, says Singh
Quaid-i-Azam
BANNED
- Joined
- May 21, 2010
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 0
How can Pakistan trust India, if India continues to carry out atrocities in Kashmir?
Now India says it is ready to trust Pakistan. Such B.S. to make themselves look better on the world stage, and then behind closed doors they continue to do the samething. All talk by India and NO ACTION.
Now India says it is ready to trust Pakistan. Such B.S. to make themselves look better on the world stage, and then behind closed doors they continue to do the samething. All talk by India and NO ACTION.
Prometheus
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2010
- Messages
- 4,942
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
Whatever we are doing in kashmir........is a saparate thing that some non-state actors' of pakistan are doing from past many decades in India.
Mumbai attacks is a example when attack was launched from Pakistan..............and pakistan dont even know about it???????
Now tell me how we can trust Pakistan???
Quaid-i-Azam
BANNED
- Joined
- May 21, 2010
- Messages
- 117
- Reaction score
- 0
Whatever we are doing in kashmir........is a saparate thing that some non-state actors' of pakistan are doing from past many decades in India.
Mumbai attacks is a example when attack was launched from Pakistan..............and pakistan dont even know about it???????
Now tell me how we can trust Pakistan???
And attacks that occur in Pakistan, the suicide bombings are not at all supported by India?
This why I hate India so much..for all their cunning deceptive deeds they try to manipulate the world by saying stupid things like "We are ready to trust Pakistan," in an attempt to make Pakistan look bad and make India look innocent. I hope Qureshi slaps Krishna in the face.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
- Article
