President Zardari’s regional diagnosis
He stressed the need: 1) for strong parliaments to play a crucial role in ushering in reforms and ensuring efficiency and transparency of the governing structure; 2) to fight against drugs and terrorism; 3) to fight extremism of the sort rampant in Pakistan to which he made special reference; 4) to lead efforts for resolving complex issues by protecting political liberties, human freedoms and the rule of law to promote regional peace and security; 5) to work towards greater people-to-people contacts among countries in the region; and 6) to ensure food security in the region.
Specifically about Pakistan-India relations, the president said that Pakistan wanted “a constructive, sustained and result-oriented process of engagement with India” and reiterated his call “for the two countries to make determined efforts for friendly, cooperative and good neighbourly relations”, while expressing satisfaction that the resumed dialogue between the two countries was progressing. He then delivered the crux of the India-specific message: “finding amicable and just solutions to all outstanding issues is important for Pakistan and India to ensure lasting peace and stability in the region”.
The Saarc Charter to which President Zardari made reference to has been ignored by South Asian states since 1985 when it was first agreed upon. No one other than India and Pakistan are to blame for this missed opportunity of pushing the not-so-successful nation-state towards the more suitable market state as pledged in the “common market” concept in the Charter. Fighting proxy and asymmetrical wars has delayed the progress towards the “connectivities” promised by the various Saarc summits to lay the groundwork for the unified South Asian market to raise regional trade from a meagre two per cent to at least what Asean has managed in Southeast Asia: 20 per cent.
The onus of change is mostly on Pakistan. Sri Lanka has sorted out its decade-long trouble with terrorism by talking to India and reaching with it a mutually agreeable understanding of the problem. Bangladesh, while awaiting an acceptable solution of its water issues and border-enclave problems with India, has moved ahead and invited Indian investments and permitted road connectivity to India. Pakistan has lagged behind on the agreements it signed at Saarc and has made most of its progress conditional to progress on dispute-resolution, while achieving nothing in resolving outstanding bilateral problems.
In the past four years, thaw has occurred in the Indo-Pakistan equation, mainly through a convergence to the free trade pledged in the Saarc resolutions. More progress has been made in these years than ever before as marked by the agreement to allow cross-border investment instead of terrorism. There is also the softening of the visa regime. Cross-border mixing of people divests hostile nationalisms of their exaggerations and encourages the trust needed for bilateral trade.
Parliaments in India and Pakistan have enjoyed cordial relations and they remain — in addition to interaction among the apex Court judges on both sides — the most agreeable palliative to strained relations between the two armies. Before defusing extremism of action, one must cultivate the expression of tolerance at the verbal level. Parliamentarians have defied the negative imagery of the media in India and Pakistan to speak of peace and cooperation, while focusing on internal reform rather than on finger-pointing to the neighbour’s shortcomings.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 6th, 2012.
COMMENTS (26)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1731570357-0/elon-musk-(1)1731570357-0-165x106.webp "article")
-(1)1717678110-0/Kendrick-(1)-(1)1717678110-0-165x106.webp "article")
@Anjaan: because that is against ur own forefathers stated policy or is it another example of harping on something which you never intend to do,the famous Kashmir plebiscite agreed at yhe uno never to be staged by j. Nehru!
India is really good country if You minus the Brahamins / Brahaminism which even considers other hindus "impure" except Brahamin , that is hardluck for India and her neighbours. India is the country that occupied Illegitimately / by force hundered of sikhs and muslim states by force and threatening the rules/ rajas / and against the wishes of the people of these states. Hyderabad, junagarh, patiala, Kashmir are only few examples. Even India attacked Pakistans' internationally accepted borders in 1965 when was unable to withstand to Pakistani forces in Kashmir. In 1947 number of injustices were done to Pakistan. In 1971, he attached Pakistan to cut off the eatern wing. Brahamin may remember that one will soon come again that Sikhs, Kashmires, Christians, Dilts and other oppressed nations under Indian Occupation. I pray for Pakistan, India and other nations to have peace, properity and Sovereignty. But India should realize that Jummu & Kashmir is, by all means and pricipals, part of Pakistan and Khalistan is legitimate right of Sikhs as a Separate Nation by all definitions
God bless Pakistan, India and the whole World
Regards to All
Ali
@Asad Khan: Strange - someone from a country such as Pakistan is asking another country to get rid of ideas/ideologies (which btw are media created and an illusion for the most part)....I think you need to start the getting rid of rubbish drive from home pal
@Rakib: "What I quoted is limited to only couple of things: Both appear to be keen on improving matters within rather than in finger pointing & shouting each other down. Blame-game suspended. "
My point is that that your statement would be accurate if Indian parliament and Pakistani establishment (Which also controls media) were to suspend the blame game. The fact that Pakistani parliament suspends blame game while Pakistan establishment continues to provoke hatred towards India using wrong facts (India has 19 consulates in Afghanistan from which it instigates terror, TTP is a pawn of WAR, India is stealing our water), tells me that there is no real neeyat on the PAkistani side to have peace.
@Rakib: One more point. The Pak establishment (which controls Pakistani foreign policy) has strong influence over Pakistani media and si often the source of anti-India statements. People in charge of Indian foreign poicy do not have a similar hold over the people issuing anti-Pakistani statements.
One should also examine the anti-Inida/anti-Pakistani statements for factual validity. After all all statements are not the same in terms of factual accuracy
anti-India statement - Inida is stealing our water - India has 19 consulates/embassies in Afghanistan - TTP are not Muslims, they are uncircumcised Hindus funded by RAW
anti-Pakistan statement - the 10 people responsible for 26/11 came from Pakistan - Pakistan government is not making a srious effort to unravel the 26/11 plot nor trying to seriously prosecute 26/11 accused - Abu Hamza had Pakisatni passport - Daood Gilani who was part of planing the 26/11 has been convicted in US court admits to receiving direction from LeT and some colonel. - Pakistan is trying to infiltrate people across the LoC.
@G. Din
"Sajda Khaaliq ko bhi, iblees say yarana bhi"
This verse sums up the duplicitous nature of Pakistan.
@gp65:
Everybody knows the way Indian institutions have developed and how Army in Pak was ( may be still is) involved in almost every policy including Foreign Policy (FP).How does it matter really in terms of both groups appealing to a peace constituency? If Indian parliamentarians appear to be more effective with their govt, it is so expected of them. All countries in SAARC region have not developed the institutions of equal efficacy. What I quoted is limited to only couple of things: Both appear to be keen on improving matters within rather than in finger pointing & shouting each other down. Blame-game suspended. That is progress for me.. All that the participating parliamentarians of the countries concerned can do is to tone down jingoism, ask media to aid the peace process wherever possible & to encourage internal reforms be it Hindu issue in Pak,immigration issue with BD or Tamil matters with Sri Lanka & common issues like Drugs & trafficking & arms running & problems that they all may have with India . There are always different priorities. Some are concerned with Sindhi Hindus, some with Gujarati Muslims, some with Assam tribal.Sadly many,including Indians north of Godavari, are so preoccupied with Pakistan or with immigrants from BD that they don't even know about thousands of civilian Tamils killed in Jaffna & miserable conditions in which refugees are living there. One hopes Indian parliamentarians will discuss that too with their Sri Lankan counterparts just as the views on how to ameliorate the plight of others may have been shared
@Ali: "Finally, I would like to request that we must not associate an individual’s deeds to his religion and / or all followers of the reliogion. Because every individual is himself/herself answerable to Allah for the deeds he do/did" Not true! If anyone commits barbarous deeds in the name of his religion, then those who will not rise up to shout him down and stop him are equally responsible for his deeds because they acquiesced. Here is something from your icon, Allama Iqbal: “Ishq qaatil say bhi, maqtool say hamdardi bhi, Yeh bta kis say muhabbat ki jaza mangay ga. Sajda Khaaliq ko bhi, iblees say yarana bhi, Hashr mein kis say aqeedat ka sila mangay ga” In other words, do not continue this duplicity and deceipt of running with the hare and hounding with the hounds! Regards to you, too!
@Asad Khan: "But Until you get rid of Rubbish Hindutva crap, You can hardly establish real good relationship with anyone. " Please read my rejoinder to Mir Agha below. Wake up. We have good relationships with everyone, bar one. And, that one is a pariah in every circle. In case you have not noticed, people are now embarrassed to be in your company. @Mir Agha: " That effort will have to come from indians themselves, they need to purge themselves of their hindutva ideologies. " Take a good hard look at yourself. Can you honestly say that you are in any position to demand anything? Sir, you are used to scraps thrown your way. There isn't much less coming your way!
@gp65: "@hari: India is a status quo country and has never coveted an inch of another land. " Gilgit-Baltistan is a part of Jammu and Kashmir, an integral part of India. It is not "another land". A lasting peace cannot come at the cost of appeasement of unlawful demands of an overly aggressive adversary. "Separately, the territory comes with the people. Are you sure India wants to import the ethnic strife in Gilgit?" We have ethnic strife in various parts of the country, say Northeast. Are you suggesting we let go of those territories?
Dear All
please, have prayers to God for peace, prosperity and love for all the Humanity and the World. We must respect eachothers views and discuss the matters with rationality and politiness to reach at the Truth. Because desires are endless, and false desires, perceptions and imaginations have much painfull impact on human history and Life.
In short, Islam has nothing to do with race, origion, culture, language and colour etc. Islam gives equal rights to all citizens of an Islamic State irrespective of their religion and no person have superiority on others, even the Caliph / King /President are answerable to Court for their injustice against a citizen of any religion and /or race. Each individual has full freedom to practice his own religion and enjoys all the basic human rights as other muslims citizens enjoys freedom and rights.
Finally, I would like to request that we must not associate an individual's deeds to his religion and / or all followers of the reliogion. Because every individual is himself/herself answerable to Allah for the deeds he do/did
Regards
to All
@Cynical:
you seem to have sub-consciously accepted the fact that Pakistan is doomed to perish some time in the future
@Rakib: The editorial tries to establish false equivalence betwee the statements coming from Indian parliament and Pakistani parliament when it says "Parliamentarians have defied the negative imagery of the media in India and Pakistan to speak of peace and cooperation, while focusing on internal reform rather than on finger-pointing to the neighbour’s shortcomings. (". You seem to endorse that.
The fact is that while Indian parliament has a strong influence on Indian foreign policy, Pakistan parliament has practically no influence on Pakistan's foreign policy which is entirely controlled by the army. IT is also not a hidden fact that DPC has been activated by the army. Thus the degree of sincerity shown by both countries towards peace is not comparable.
Last year in order to get India to waive its legitimate objections to EU trade concesssions o Pakistan which were ot WTO compliant, Pakistan promised MFN status to India. India fulfilled its part, Pakistan is yet to do so. Ofcourse this overlooks the fact that MFN should not even have been a negotiating tool since it was mandatory for Pakistan to give under WTO rules. Even when Indian home secretary had come to Pakistan to sign the visa agreement, he was sent back by Rehman Malik in May. India had scheduled a meeting to discuss Sir Creek which was seen as low hanging fruit. It was cancelled by Pakistan saying either Sir Creek and Siachen both be addressed simultaneously or none at all.
Indian government continues to ignire the persecution of Hindus in Pakistanincludig forced rape and conversion of minor girls though Pakistanis will not stop talking about Gujarat that happened 10 years back though so many of the perpetrators are behind bars.
Actions speak louder than words. India's actions speak one story and Pakistan's action another. While peace would be wonderful and highly desirable, I would gladly settle for absence of terrorism originating from PAkistan.
Parliamentarians have defied the negative imagery of the media in India and Pakistan to speak of peace and cooperation, while focusing on internal reform rather than on finger-pointing to the neighbour’s shortcomings. (Editorial)
Pertinent observation. Internal reforms will lead to confidence instead of conceit and that will lead to adult-adult relationship between two countries. Many comments here however continue to display the same old attitude: imperfect men expecting perfection, only from neighbours.
@Asad Khan: " ... We will never be brothers. ... "
Go through comments Indians have posted. 99% have said no to increased contacts. It is you guys who are harping on more people to people contact, liberalized visas etc.
It is very funny that people who wanted a separate country for muslims and to some extend muslims only, thereby confirming the majority being muslims, talk of hindutva idealogy supposedly present in India, I am yet to find this in the main stream politics except in RSS
@hari: The division of Indo-Pak was based on Majority areas of Muslims will become Pakistan and Majority Hindu area will become India. With that priniciple looks like to me your your desire makes little sense because all majority areas bordering Pakistan will resist your illegal occupation for centuries to come if such scenario ever occurs although I don't see it in your lifetime. Kashmir's example is before you. And you don't want to be next to Pakistan's Tribal areas if you have read your own History of Centuries of Muslim rule over India. Dreams are good, Avoid dreaming them during the days though. @pankaj: You are not our Brothers either, So, You seek brotherly relations or not , It simply doesn't matter . We will never be brothers. Peace is a good thing. But Until you get rid of Rubbish Hindutva crap, You can hardly establish real good relationship with anyone.
The "assault on Parliament" is mainly for President Zardari's quarters. Out go the Parliamentary resolutions on relations with the US (drones, supply-routes). No wonder the people of Pakistan can't take the parliament seriously. They see the president himself undermining at every turn.
Regarding Pak-India, India will have let go of their hate and unsurprising and failed pressure (dossiers). That effort will have to come from indians themselves, they need to purge themselves of their hindutva ideologies. Not likely, but that shouldn't stop Pak from gaining where possible.
@hari: India is a status quo country and has never coveted an inch of another land. Even in 1971, no attempt was made to annex Bangladesh. Not sure where your idea is coming from.
Separately, the territory comes with the people. Are you sure India wants to import the ethnic strife in Gilgit?
@hari
'... we will annex gilgit and baltistan in future.'
May be, but you wiil not see in your lifetime, that's for sure.
we need to sort out our terrorism problem first...
Bottomline: India will continue to have Pakistan (or successor states) as neighbors, and we will need to find a middle ground to live in relative peace. One way that can happen is if Pakistan gains some measure of control in its own territory, thus being able to deliver on any negotiated settlement. Another way is Pakistan failing and things getting much worse before it gets better.
Hope it is the first way.
We don't seek any brotherly or loving relationship with pakistan.. we just want a peaceful relationship with Pakistan.
All these measures - greater people-to-people contact, free trade, easier access to business and personal visas, bonhomie among parliamentarians - none of these can actually deliver results because they do not address the root cause for the hatred that Pakistanis feel for India. If you want to get better, you need to take the medicine. India may have its own demons to sort out, but there is no ideological barrier - we seem to have good relationships with most muslim-majority nations bar one. Pakistanis need to take tough and courageous decisions to let go of some of their 'core' issues and retire some of their founding principles to start afresh. This approach needs to be communicated and agreed by people at the highest level - only then will it gradually enrich the thinking at ground level where new relationships can take root. (I know that there is a very slim chance of this happening, and so my first sentence stands).