Balochistan blunder: Indo-Pak talks in a spot
Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi told CNN-IBNs sister channel - IBN 7 - that while the issue of Balochistan was raised during last weeks Indo-Pak talks in Sharm-al-Sheikh he had no knowledge of any dossier being handed on the issue.
On Wednesday, Pakistan newspaper Dawn had carried a report saying that a full dossier showing that India is carrying out terrorist activities in Pakistan had been handed over to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Sharm-al-Sheikh.
According to the report, Manmohan Singh had agreed to include the anti-India reference.
And that brings us to the question of the day asked on CNN-IBN show Face the Nation: Did India make a diplomatic blunder by including Balochistan in the joint statement?
On the panel of experts to debate the issue were leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley, senior Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar and former diplomat KC Singh.
We have nothing to hide: India
India says it has nothing to hide and its foreign policies are an open book. The Government has said that the Indo-Pak joint statement is simply a way to reconcile differences with Pakistan.
Opening the debate Jaitley said, I think the joint statement was also about give. There was no take in it. That is because Balochistan is not the only objectionable reference in the statement. Also, this reference to Balochistan cannot be out of context. In any document of this kind only agreed statements can be put in. Now in the context of Balochistan, obviously an invisible finger is being pointed at India. Pakistan PM Gilanis statement two days later substantiates the fact that the whole suggestion is to insinuate that India is fermenting trouble in Balochistan and it is India that is indulging in cross-border terrorism rather than Pakistan. And the incorrect news in Dawn further substantiates this.
The Opposition has argued that the Government has downgraded Indias concerns on the nature of terrorism. It is more like one countrys word against the other. So has Indias moral high ground on terrorism been diminished?
It is not about high ground. I dont see any anti-Indian statement in the document. I want to quote from the statement. PM Gilani mentioned that Pakistan had some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas. It does not say threats from India, Aiyar clarified.
He however said, What the Opposition is doing is one of the most anti-Indian things that I can think of.
To which Jaitley said, Where is the question of being anti-Indian? There is something that is compromising Indias position by this Government document. The entire country is outraged by this.
But Aiyar argued that it is a discredited report in Dawn newspaper and just because it has been printed in Dawn does not make it true. Let me make it completely clear that no dossier was handed over to us and to the best of my knowledge no government of India has been upto any funny business in Balochistan. Therefore, if the PM of Pakistan wishes to mention to our PM that there are unnamed threats from unnamed sources in Balochistan and other areas of Pakistan then he is free to say so.
Experts say there are thousands of NATO troops there and they wouldnt even let India do anything even if they wanted to, so what is the issue about?
And that is precisely the reason why there should have been no reference to Balochistan, said Jaitley.
If there is nothing to hide or do there then there should have been no reference to it in the statement, not even a unilateral reference from Pakistans point of view. This has never been referred to any joint statement in the past, he added.
So what? asked Aiyar and then added, I object to BJP unnecessarily twisting this line for the benefit of Pakistanis.
The other objection that many are bringing up is why call it a joint statement. It could just have been a summary of the discussions between the two countries. By calling it a joint statement it seems that India is endorsing Pakistans statement.
The difficulty in dealing with Pakistan is when you introduce these words they come back to haunt you. In 65 we handed over the Haji Pir Pass despite the military objections. It was a critical pass to dominate the Line of Control. In 72 Shimla Summit we allowed two words to be retained in the document outstanding issues. That became the reentry of issues and Pakistan used that as a ledge to put things on. Here also if you read the document then this is not how joint declarations come out. If you disagree on something then you dont include it there. This point sticks out like a sore thumb. So why is it there? KC Singh asked.
Another contentious issue about the statement was the delinking of terror from the composite dialogue. Does it means the composite dialogue will continue irrespective of whether terror continues or not?
Quoting from the statement, Aiyar said, Action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process.
We are saying action on terrorism must continue. Pakistan cannot say that because the composite dialogue process is still to arrive at a conclusion they need to take action on terrorism only then, he added.
Not satisfied with Aiyars stance Jaitley said, The whole country has understood it one way, forget the Pakistani media. The Foreign Secretary has said that it is a case of bad drafting. Now I dont know whether it is bad drafting or bad policy.
Was there a lack of a political judgement on the part of the Prime Minister in this particular joint statement?
There are enough words in English to simply say that we will have a caliberated dialogue. We shall restart the talks but we will not go to the composite dialogue till we have satisfaction on 26/11, which is what the PM said later. Why doesnt that reflected in the document? KC Singh asked.
To which Aiyar said, The larger objective is to arrive at a viable relationship with Pakistan. And in that process there are hiccups.
But KC Singh said that it is a problem of tactics. Twice it happened to the NDA and now it happened with the UPA. How do you continue a dialogue with terrorism becoming graver and it is being traced back to the Pakistani government, He said.
As the debate neared conclusion, Jaitley said, Pakistan has taken some steps but it has to go all the way to take action against terror. I agree with Mani that the larger objective is to have a composite dialogue but we have to finish terrorism too. We must have dialogue without terror rather than having dialogue with terror.
And closing the debate, Aiyar said, I request all to understand that there is a tremendous forward movement. A huge number of outstanding issues have been resolved in principle and are waiting to be brought to the front-burner.
Link-
FTN: Balochistan blunder: Indo-Pak talks in a spot : Single Page View
