The fig leaf to resume the talks was the setting up of a joint anti-terror mechanism. It remains to be seen if it will work. A DNA Analysis
NEW DELHI: After the Havanna agreement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf it was inevitable that the peace talks are back on track.
Both countries realise the importance of being engaged, mainly because the US and the international community want to make sure that the two nuclear neighbours keep talking. After the Mumbai blasts and the public anger it evoked, Prime Minister Singh had no option but to call off the foreign secretary level talks.
The BJP was out to make capital of the UPA’s “soft” stand on terror and with the Mumbai police crying from the roof tops of Lashkar-e-Toiba’s involvement in the triple railway bombings, Singh had to act.
The fig leaf to resume the talks was the setting up of a joint anti-terror mechanism. Now that this is in place, it remains to be seen if it will work. With state elections in UP, which has a large Muslim base, scheduled for early next year, the government urgently needed to get back to the table. The Congress party is trying to woo Muslims back to the fold, and peace between India and Pakistan is essential to large sections of Muslims with divided families.
Hardliners on Pakistan have slammed the decision. “The setting up of a joint anti-terror mechanism is a very very bad idea,” says G Parthasarathy, former Indian ambassador to Pakistan. “The earlier leverage India had of going to the international community is now lost. Every time we complain we will be told to take our complaints to the right forum,” he adds.
Parthasarathy believes that the government is merely duplicating the existing home secretary level talks. The home ministry is also upset at this. His points out why India has not highlighted the terror attacks in Kashmir. “While Varanai, Delhi, Mysore have all been talked about, Kashmir had been left out,” he says.
Can President Musharraf, with the best of intentions deliver on his promise? He will not be in a position politically to hand over any Kashmiri militant, simply because he cannot afford to further alienate the hardliners in Pakistan, who believe that by siding with the US, he had betrayed Islam. The President cannot be seen to act against Kashmiris, regarded as freedom fighters in Pakistan.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}