Daily Times - 17-07-2010

Indo-Pak: out of sync?

The dialogue process between India and Pakistan has always been a tricky business. The Indian foreign secretary came to Islamabad last month to pave the way for foreign minister-level talks this month. Indian Foreign Minister S M Krishna came to Pakistan on a three-day visit this week to meet his counterpart, Shah Mehmood Qureshi. There was a burden of expectation that the talks might deliver something concrete, but realism suggested there would be no breakthrough and that this was just the restart of the peace process. The dialogue process had been stalled after the Mumbai attacks in 2008, thus a resumption of dialogue in itself may be considered an achievement.

India and Pakistan have disputes on many issues, with Kashmir being the oldest and possibly the most intractable. The other issues include Siachen, Sir Creek, terrorism and water, among other bilateral issues. 

When Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao met her counterpart Salman Bashir in June, it was decided that no issue or subject is taboo and a comprehensive dialogue will be carried out at the foreign ministerial level but what we saw at the joint press conference in Islamabad on Thursday gave a different impression altogether. It seemed as if Mr Qureshi had a different viewpoint from that of Mr Krishna. The body language at the press conference was equally cold. On the issue of Kashmir, Mr Krishna maintained that infiltration into Indian-Held Kashmir (IHK) was high but Mr Qureshi denied ‘infiltration’ as the state’s policy or that of its intelligence agencies. To add more fuel to the fire, Mr Qureshi made another statement yesterday that Pakistan cannot remain indifferent when there is a curfew in IHK and innocent people are dying. It seems that Kashmir is once again on the front burner. 

Siachen has its strategic and tactical importance. Both militaries have an interest in occupying the heights, from where they can cut off the other’s lines of communication. This advantage, however, can only come into play in the event of a war. India and Pakistan on the other hand are both embarked currently on taking a turn from the possibility of war to the possibility of peace. On the issue of Sir Creek, both countries are tantalisingly close to an agreement, but it continues to elude their grasp for lack of the requisite political will. On the terrorism front, the whole South Asian region is affected by this menace, particularly Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. These three are afflicted with the same disease in differing degrees. Since terrorists do not respect any borders, there is a pressing need to agree a joint anti-terrorist strategy. As for David Headley’s confession and the alleged involvement of the ISI in 26/11, Pakistan must carry out a thorough investigation and if the accusation is found to be true, take the perpetrators to task. Indo-Pak water disputes can also be settled if a concerted effort is made according to the terms of the Indus Water Treaty.

Mr Krishna made it clear that Pakistan has not provided even “a shred of evidence” of India’s involvement in Balochistan. This should settle the issue once and for all. Both sides should refrain from political point scoring.

In an inherently difficult negotiating process between these long-time adversaries, one has to be very careful not to say or do anything that puts the process in reverse gear. Thus Mr Qureshi’s remarks about Mr Krishna constantly taking calls from Delhi during the meeting were regrettable. Mr Krishna has denied being on the telephone to Delhi and called Mr Qureshi’s remarks “an extraordinary statement”. It will now require even more effort and diplomacy in order to sustain the dialogue process. It is hoped that this temporary hiccup would not let the process be derailed and better sense would prevail after a cooling off period.

SECOND EDITORIAL: 

Suicide attack in Iran

No place seems free from the scourge of terrorism. On Thursday, the Zahedan Shiite Grand Mosque in the Sistan-Balochistan province of Iran was attacked by two suicide bombers who left devastation and destruction in their wake. More than 27 worshippers were killed, including a significant number of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard. No group has claimed responsibility — and it does not seem likely that any will considering Iran’s brutal policy towards dissidents — but the attack bore all the hallmarks of a Jundullah-style assault.

This is the first time since Jundullah leader Abdolmalek Rigi’s execution last month that such a terrorist attack has occurred on Iranian soil. The fact that the victims included members of the Revolutionary Guard also reeks of Jundullah’s involvement. It was this Sunni militant group that killed about 11 members of the elite force in October 2009. 

Jundullah, although a murky outfit whose sponsors have yet to be identified, is a Sunni group fighting for the rights of the Sunni Baloch minority in Sistan-Balochistan province of Shia-dominated Iran. The Iranian government dismisses this aspiration and responds with repression.

The execution of a militant leader like Rigi only serves to promote increasingly violent reactions and a desire for revenge. It was naïve to assume that Jundullah would not retaliate for his hanging. Iran’s refusal to recognise its ethnic and denominational minorities has aroused such militants to seek revenge through indiscriminate attacks on civilians and the security agencies.

The Iranian regime needs to soften its stance on its minorities. It needs to grant autonomy and rights to all those living within the state if it is to remain consolidated and not fall prey to fissiparous tendencies. State repression is not a dependable tool in today’s era of awareness, freedom and vengeful terrorism. We in Pakistan could learn a few lessons too. Our own persecution of and intolerance towards minorities has seen us devoured by an all-consuming cycle of violence and hate. 

Source : http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\07\17\story_17-7-2010_pg3_1