news details |
|
|
| "Will Pakistan accept Sushma's sermons? | | | When India's external Affairs Min
ister, Sushma Swaraj, stated that
India was prepared to resume talks with Pakistan in an atmosphere free of terror and violence she had in her mind continued support to militants operating in Jammu and Kashmir.She had in mind the support Pakistani Army has been providing to groups of militants wishing to cross into Jammu and Kashmir. She had in mind repeated border violations being committed by Pakistani Army both on the LOC and on the IB in Jammu and Kashmir.. Sushma also wants Islamabad to initiate action against those who were involved in engineering Mumbai mayhem in 2008. This means action against Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi and Hafiz Saeed. On the basis of the experience India has had during the last five years or so Islamabad has no plans to initiate action against Saeed and Lakhvi. Already Pakistan has conveyed to India that the evidence against Saeed and Lakhvi, submitted by New Delhi, was not sufficient for initiating any legal or administrative against the two.In fact Islamabad did not file an appeal against the judgement of the court that set free Lakhvi which indicated, beyond any doubt, Islamabad's plan.
Sushma Swaraj has stated that dialogue with Pakistan is possible only in a peaceful atmosphere and this can be achieved only when the neighbouring country takes action against the people involved in terror activities in India, Ms Swaraj has said India has adhered to three principles regarding Pakistan. "We will try and solve every issue through talks, talks will be only between the two nations without any third party intervention and the talks will be held only in an environment free of terror," she said..When Sushma favoured talks without the intervention of any third party she must have it in mind how Islamabad has tried to seek mediation or intervention by the US and by the UN for forcing India to resume talks with Pakistan. At one stage Pakistan had pleaded for mediation from a third country.And Islamabad had to abandon its st and in support of mediation or intervention by a third country when the UN and the USA stated that since the issue of Kashmir was a bilateral problem there was no need for any third party or third country mediation. The UN and the USA told Islamabad in clear terms that talks for resolving all bilateral problems should be held between India and Pakistan without any mediation or intervention or participation from any third country.
The problem is Pakistan stems from one main factor. The establishment in Islamabad and the Army and the ISI are not on the same page. What the establishment proposes the Army disposes. It has been witnessed even during the time Pakistan was under a spell of military rule. Had Pakistan believed in resolving bilateral issues through talks it would have initiated measures for preventing its agencies for using the soil of Pakistan for exporting terror to India. Had Pakistan be interested in promoting cordial ties with India,a key to peace in the South Asian region, it would have asked the Army to avoid indulging in ceasefire violations on the border in Jammu and Kashmir. Had Pakistan been eager to mend fences with India it would have taken steps for halting its troops that were providing assistance to militants in crossing into Jammu and Kashmir. Had Pakistan been in favour of promoting friendly ties with India it would not have provided any political, moral and diplomatic support to Kashmiri separatists. India, under Narendra Modi, is clear.It does not want to resume talks under the shadow of violence, terror or conflict. Let peace precede the dialogue and that is the only condition from India for the resumption of talks with Pakistan. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
