Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Another former bureaucrat voices illogical opinions on Indo-Pak resolution at Sharm el Sheikh

Reading Chindu's "independent" opinion pieces by former bureaucrats leads one to the conclusion that insanity or dementia is probably a pre-requisite to writing articles in Chindu. Case in point is this article, Sharm el Sheikh revisited by Salman Haidar who is a former Foreign Secretary. His defense of the Indian Government's capitulation at the Sharm el Sheikh discussions with Pak is akin to the lawyer defending the actions of Kasab.
For example the addition of Baluchistan into the final release is pooh-poohed by Salman stating,
But the mere mention of Baluchistan is regarded by some as a blunder and an unwarranted concession. As so often in India-Pakistan affairs, all sorts of implications are attached to relatively straightforward propositions; there is constant second-guessing and excessive analysis, so that we tend to advance further and further into the trees, often losing sight altogether of the wood.

There has been little evidence if any to link India to this issue and adding it to the resolution creates a new railing for Pak to cry about.
More importantly though after the Mumbai attacks Pak has spoken a lot but done little in managing its own little shop of horrors called the ISI and apprehending the culprits. But this is defended by Salman,
At Sharm el Sheikh it was also decided not to bracket composite dialogue with action on terrorism...It is true that Pakistan’s response on this crucial matter has been contradictory and uncertain, at times more open than in the past, at other times rhetorical and unfriendly....The only available modality is dialogue, which can now usefully be resumed, for to remain indefinitely disengaged would yield little and could mean that opportunity would be lost.

What opportunity is lost here if India does not have a dialogue with a Pak envoy who represents a Govt. which cannot control either the ISI or the Army?
India has in the past given Pak enough rope to hang itself and it has done that. Repeating past mistakes of forgiveness and holding pointless discussions with an enemy out to harm its citizens is foolish to say the least. But then again who am I but a mere blogger, in front of opinions of a former Foreign Secretary ;).

1 comment:

I, Me, Myself ! said...

I have even written to them asking a question multiple times. If Pak PM's reference to Balochistan was fit enough to be included in the Joint Statement, then why not our PM's response that India has nothing to fear? Hindu is the only newspaper (perhaps the only insitution) in the entire country that thinks Sharm-el Sheikh was not a failure. Even the MEA thinks it messed up; the Home Minister virtually disowns the stmt these days by lashing out at Pak at every available opportunity, all political parties think the summit was messed; but not The Hindu.

Hence their massive search for people who can conjure up some verbal rhetoric, so that readers will be led to believe that this esteemed newspaper actually has some logic behind its stance.

My understanding of their stance is this - If not now, sometime in the near future, Indo-Pak fulltime dialogue process will resume. At that point of time, this newspaper will write an editorial saying - see, we were right when Sharm-el-Sheikh happened, dialogue is the only way forward! It wants to take future credit for a present failing! That is the only sense I can make out from this defense.

Also, has anyone else observed this: Just before any dialogue anywhere in the world, Pakistan arrests Haifz Saeed? Only to release him afterwards? They did it before Zardari met MMS, they released a dossier before Gilani met MMS and now again they "arrested" Saeed before New York. Does this skip the attention of the rulers? If "mere bloggers" ;-), like us can see through the plan, why not them?

- Sudhir