Serving up peace

Both prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Manmohan Singh have proven themselves to be men of peace.


Editorial September 30, 2013
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (R) meets with his Pakistani counterpart Muhammad Nawaz Sharif at the New York Palace Hotel on September 29, 2013. PHOTO: AFP

The breakfast meeting between prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Manmohan Singh, at the Palace Hotel in New York on September 29 has gone well. This was reflected in the fact that the talks continued beyond schedule, for over an hour, and the tone adopted by Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary, Jalil Abbas Jillani, and India’s National Security Adviser, Shiv Shankar Menon, in their briefings to the media were both positive and gave more or less an identical account of events.

The fact that the first-ever face-to-face dialogue between the two leaders took place at all was a major achievement. Firing incidents at the Line of Control (LoC), dividing the two parts of Kashmir, some weeks ago, and more recent militant attacks on an army camp within Indian-held Kashmir had led to fervent cries from hawks, most notably on the Indian side of the border, to call off the meeting. The commitment shown by Prime Minister Singh in this respect is commendable, given the pressures he had been placed under. It is also a positive sign that at their New York discussions, both sides agreed to call a ceasefire on the LoC. This is a welcome development and may prevent problems such as the ones we saw recently arising again.

Of course, there are issues and some of these were brought up at the discussion. The Indian side sought swifter action against the Jamaatud Dawa, which New Delhi has consistently alleged was involved in the 2008 siege of Mumbai. The Pakistani side made an assurance that the Punjab government was handling this. Terrorism is, of course, a key concern for both nations and while ahead of the September 29 meeting, in a somewhat terse statement, the Indian prime minister had described Pakistan as an ‘epicentre’ of terrorism, it should of course be noted the problem in part stems from issues with militancy within India itself and its own policies in Kashmir. If issues between the two nations are ever to be sorted out satisfactorily, this matter will need to be addressed.

But of course, progress can only come step by step. The meeting in New York in this sense represents a huge step forward. The evidence that both leaders struck a good rapport and the expressions of goodwill we heard are good signs too. We welcome the meeting in the strongest terms and hope it will help put a stalled peace process back on the road again. This is what is required most of all for the region and for the people of both countries. It is obvious that better relations between the two nations are vital if there is to be development in these nations and an establishment of greater stability across South Asia as a whole. The issue of Afghanistan, of course, also comes up in this respect; it is another area over which New Delhi and Islamabad have had differences.

Such differences can, of course, only be resolved if the peace process continues. The indications we have had over the years that certain elements may not want this is disturbing. But right now, the main concern for the future revolves around what is to happen in India following the 2014 election. Both prime ministers Nawaz Sharif and Manmohan Singh have proven themselves to be men of peace. Both have expressed positive views on more than one occasion in favour of peace and indeed, the urgent need for it. Without this resolve, the New York meeting would not have happened. But with the possibility that a set-up less committed to good ties with Pakistan may be elected into power in India, a degree of uncertainty lies ahead. We can only hope though that the vision painted in New York will indeed be carried through and that we will continue to see efforts to unravel the issues which have held us back for so very long, damaging the welfare of both nations.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 1st, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

COMMENTS (5)

V. C. Bhutani | 11 years ago | Reply

The Express Tribune rarely publishes my comments. I am writing in the hope that this time my submission may be lucky. If we have not succeeded in conveying to Pakistan that Kashmir is a non-negotiable matter, then it is high time this were done. Dr Manmohan Singh has gone as far as he could in his address at the UNGA. He could hardly have been more forthright in saying that there is nothing to talk about as far as Kashmir is concerned. As Mr Vajpayee said in the end, the only negotiable part is return of POK and Northern Areas to India. If that kind of an intimation were now to be made, say by the PM or the FM or even by a junior MEA spokesperson at one of the periodic press briefings, the message would go home that India was not prepared to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan and that nothing that Pakistan can do shall suffice to compel India to open Kashmir for grabs, as doubtless Gen Kayani and Mr Nawaz Sharif expect. I see no breakthrough in the PMs’ meeting. DGMOs have met in the past. They will meet now again and perhaps from time to time. But can they supersede the actions and decisions of Pakistan’s COAS and DG-ISI? When professedly there are several channels dealing with the Kashmir question in Pakistan, we in India cannot hope to bring all of them on the same page and expect that they will start responding to DGMOs’ directions. This is just one more diversion and a time serving tactic. I see no significance in it. In my view, DGMOs shall fail to produce results that could be valued by their principals. Pakistan may be inclined to resort to regular or irregular wars with India but even their COAS would know that he cannot hope to try military conclusions with India. Besides, nuclear weapons are a non-factor because they are unusable under any conditions – by either side, because of the certainty of retaliation in kind by the other. That will make the cost unacceptable. It is only fashionable for Pakistani and Western newspapers and analysts and for Pakistan’s apologists to refer to Pakistan and India as nuclear rivals or nuclear-armed neighbours. The point is no one in the wide world gives a damn whether Pakistan and India will break each other’s head over Kashmir or over any other matter. The rest of the world couldn’t care less. The rest of the world is thoroughly bored with Kashmir. Pakistan khaansi ka mariz hai, phir khaanse ga. That is, further terrorist attacks on India shall come, emanating without doubt from Pakistan. Leading world figures have said that 70 to 80 percent of global terror is traceable to Pakistan. Rather than wait for the US Department of State to move in the matter, the Indian MEA should declare that Pakistan is s state sponsor of terror and proceed to deal with it on that basis. There should be no business as usual. India should refuse talks with Pakistan on any subject and at any level or dealings with Pakistan on any subject. India should treat Pakistan as a pariah and a cancer which no Indian should want to touch. Far from limiting or reducing Indian defence expenditure, India should go ahead with further building up of India’s military and economic sinews. Let Pakistan join that race, if it wants. The more Pakistan tries to catch up with India, the closer it will be to national bankruptcy and breakdown as a State. After a while even IMF will cease its subventions. Remember how the Former Soviet Union sought to keep pace with USA in the matter of nuclear weapons and missiles but forgot to attend to economic development of the people in all the years from 1917 to 1991 – a period of 75 years. That was the primary cause of the FSU’s eventual collapse, although of course Afghanistan was a contributory factor. Pakistan–India relations shall never be good because in Pakistan there is no constituency for good relations with India. You give them Kashmir today, they will find something else to fight for tomorrow. We should not be taken in by Mr Nawaz Sharif’s pleasant words and flowery expressions about good neighbourly relations with all neighbours. As far as relations with India are concerned, Mr Sharif is in no position to take an initiative or to deliver if he were to make a commitment on Pakistan’s behalf. He knows he has a vocal political class to consider which will not allow him to proceed to any solution of the Kashmir question. Before India can do business with Mr Sharif, he has to demonstrate that he is in control and that he can deliver. At present he cannot. After the Indian general election of 2014 there will still be a government in New Delhi and a prime minister, whichever party wins the election. India is a continuing State. Change of government does not mean much. The show goes on. Even in difficult times India’s stability was not in doubt. V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, 1 Oct 2013, 1535 IST

Californian Desi | 11 years ago | Reply

I was enjoying the neutral read until that Kashmir remark. I believe that part of the militancy problem lies in the manner Indian Government (not it's people) have handled Kashmir issue so far. What they should have done is

Nehru shouldn't have taken Kashmir issue to UN Never introduce article 370 Fully integrate Kashmir to mainstream India and allow both Kashmiris and Non Kashmiris to invest and buy properties in Kashmir or anywhere in rest of India. Pakistan in this context has set a very good example which India should have followed. Look at the progressive Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. After all Punjabis and Sindhis got in, how prosperous the state is. Should not have returned 13000 square km of captured lands in 1971 war back to Pakistan. should not have pardoned over 200 Pakistani Officers who were War criminals in 1971 war.

So yes. If above mistakes were not done by Indian Government there wouldn't have been any militancy in Kashmir.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ