Pakistan and India: Signposts in the Sinai

July 13, 2009

Even before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Asif Ali Zardari broke the ice by meeting on the sidelines of a regional summit in Yekaterinburg, Russia last month, the real question over talks between India and Pakistan has not been about the form but the substance.

After the bitterness of last year’s attacks on Mumbai by Pakistan-based militants, can India and Pakistan work their way back to a roadmap for an agreement on Kashmir reached two years ago? Although never finalised, the roadmap opened up the intellectual space for an eventual peace deal. This week’s meetings between India and Pakistan on the sidelines of a Non-Aligned Movement summit in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt could give some clues on whether it has any chance of being  revived.

India broke off the formal peace process, the so-called composite dialogue, with Pakistan after the three-day assault on Mumbai blamed on the Lashkar-e-Taiba, a militant group once nurtured by Pakistan to fight India in Kashmir.  But even before the attack, informal behind-the-scenes talks on Kashmir held under former president Pervez Musharraf had fallen victim to the political turbulence which led to his ouster last year, and any hope of reviving them under the new civilian government led by Zardari was dashed altogether by the Mumbai assault.

Ahead of the NAM summit in Sharm el-Sheikh — during which the foreign secretaries of both countries will meet on the sidelines, to be followed by talks between Singh and Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani – the two countries have been trying to put together the pieces of their shattered relationship.

In an unprecedented move, Pakistan has said it will put on trial five Pakistanis suspected of involvement in the Mumbai attacks, including senior Lashkar-e-Taiba commander Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, accused of masterminding the assault. Pakistan has traditionally refused to acknowledge in public the role of anti-India militant groups like the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and putting on trial a commander like Lakhvi is a major departure. India had insisted it would not resume formal peace talks until Pakistan took action against those behind the Mumbai attacks.

The Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan has also held talks with the head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), according to Prime Minister Singh,  a move that would have been unheard of — at least in public — in the past when India accused the ISI of driving a separatist revolt in Kashmir that erupted in Kashmir in 1989. Pakistan Army chief General Pervez Ashfaq Kayani also suggested this month that the internal threat facing Pakistan was greater than the external threat,  a comment seen as easing — albeit perhaps only marginally — the military’s traditional view of India as its primary enemy.

And acccording to Dawn newspaper, Gilani has been seeking political consensus in the country’s approach to India ahead of the meetings in Sharm el-Sheikh, including winning support from powerful opposition leader and former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. Singh on his part has said he is willing to meet Pakistan more than half way, while also insisting Pakistan must take action to dismantle militant groups which target India.

So on that basis, what can be expected from the meetings in Sharm el-Sheikh? Pakistan is keen to resume the composite dialogue, but it is unclear whether India would be ready to reopen the formal peace process despite much progress since Singh and Zardari met in Yakaterinburg.

According to the Hindu newspaper, the stage is set for a re-engagement between India and Pakistan but this could stop short of resuming the composite dialogue — primarily because India does not believe the civilian government alone can commit to acting against militant groups. Any decision to take on militant groups would have to be made by the Pakistan Army and the ISI rather than the civilian government.

“For that reason, the immediate resumption of the composite dialogue is not on the cards. The most likely outcome of Sharm-el-Shaikh is the two Foreign Secretaries being tasked with reviewing the overall structure of bilateral engagement,” it said.

To a large extent however, the focus on when and whether the composite dialogue is resumed is one of form rather than substance. While it is symbolically important, the formal peace process has rarely been as productive as back-channel diplomacy. One of the bigger breakthroughs in recent years – an agreement for a ceasefire on the Line of Control dividing Kashmir in 2003 — was agreed in behind-the-scenes talks.

On matters of substance, India and Pakistan have long road ahead.

While India is looking for an eventual dismantling of militant groups like the Laskkar-e-Taiba based in Pakistan’s heartland Punjab province, the Pakistan Army is fighting militants from the Pakistani Taliban on its western border with Afghanistan – and few believe it to be either capable of or willing to take on every group at once.  On top of that, any attempt to shut down the Laskhar-e-Taiba could make it even more dangerous if it were to drive it further underground or break it up into splinter groups.

And ultimately, Pakistan is seen as unlikely to dismantle a group like the Laskhar-e-Taiba without a peace deal with India, while New Delhi will not offer a peace deal until the militants are disarmed. That’s where the intellectual space opened up by the roadmap agreement tentatively reached between Musharraf and Singh’s government in 2007 becomes interesting.  Although there was to be no exchange of territory in divided Kashmir, the two countries did tentatively agree to try to make borders irrelevant by allowing trade and travel across the two parts of the former kingdom they each control. They were also trying to agree on some form of shared supervision on issues affecting Kashmir.

Can and should Pakistan and India try to work their way back to that roadmap and then build on it? Would Pakistan’s civilian government be willing to acknowledge a roadmap negotiated by Musharraf after fighting hard to drive him out of office? At what point will India be convinced that Pakistan has taken enough action against those involved in the Mumbai attacks before it is ready to talk about peace? How will Pakistan’s civilian government be able to convince India that it has the powerful Pakistan Army on board in any negotiations? And should both countries even be aiming for an over-arching peace deal, or rather trying to progress in small steps through trade and other confidence-building measures before tackling Kashmir?

Those are all big outstanding questions. The meetings in Sharm el-Sheikh, on the southern tip of the Sinai desert, might provide some signposts.

(Photos: Zardari and Singh in Yekaterinburg; Dal lake in Kashmir; Wagah border crossing)

Comments

A neutral country or set of neutral countries need to be involved. This way they can point out to each side any unfairness on their part. Otherwise, these bilateral talks only remain as talks. Both sides will dance around the issues and achieve nothing at the end. Always there will be some party derailing the whole thing. We have been there before and it has not worked. It is time neutral countries are brought in – Australia, Sweden, Japan etc would be worthy candidates to consider. They will not have any preference to either side and will mediate between both countries and the world will be the witness.

 

Having a third party in this discussion is useless. The reality is that for any movement to be made, India needs to have direct discussions with the Pakistani military. I would argue that India should even drop the charade of dealing with Pakistan’s politicians. Pakistani democracy is a sham as far as decision-making, policy formulation (particularly on defence and foreign policy), and (quite often) governance are concerned. Zardari and Gilani have no real power to sign any agreements with India. So why even bother chatting with them? If Kayani, and the Corps Commanders don’t care for peace with India, they’ll simply let another “non-state actor” slip through and bring the discussions to a halt again. So isn’t it better for India to actually deal with the power behind the throne? If New Delhi wants peace, then it should have Kayani and the Corps Commanders over for tea.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

MR.ANJUM writes———> “A neutral country or set of neutral countries need to be involved”Whenever I ask you some specific questions, you do not respond to me but litter the Reuters blog with generalities.Before India signs another agreement with “Pakistan” we need to clarify what is the worth of additional agreements if the past agreements are not adhered to.———————————————————Here is the text of Simla agreement signed between the then leaders of India and Pakistan in 1972.http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/? p=74{{(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through BILATERAL negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.}}}——————————————————-Whether you agree to adhere to Simla agreement or not, the point of the matter is mediators can come in ONLY IF all the parties agree for mediation.Since India says an emphatic no for outside mediation, your suggestion is irrelevant unless you say these things out of sheer habit or to pass time.

 

Interesting comment by Mr Anjum but I’m afraid he is either either misguided or self-serving. The UN, which can be thought of as a “neutral” party, passed a series of resolutions on J&K back when the problem first started. Pakistan has steadfastly refused to abide by those resolutions as well as any subsequent bilateral agreements with India (eg, the Simla Accord) … or even International agreements for that matter (ie, using terrorism as a state policy). So, any “agreement” with Pakistan is utterly useless … a complete waste of effort. You need to look at the WHY behind the WHAT. Why doesn’t Pakistan allow resolution of the issue? Because without the India bogeyman, the Pakistani Army would not be able to demand total control/ownership over the entire resources of the country. It is said, quite correctly, that while most countries have an army, Pakistan is unique in that it is an army that owns a country. Any analysis that ignores this fact is likely to be flawed.Warm regards,Ravi

Posted by Ravi | Report as abusive
 

I hope the world continues this tradition and stays aloof from the talks this time around as well:From “The Back Channel”During the Bush Administration, American and British officials monitored the secret negotiations. British officials contributed a few ideas based on their experience with the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland, but neither they nor the Americans became directly involved. Ultimately, any peace settlement between India and Pakistan would have to attract support in both countries’ parliaments; if it were seen as a product of American or British meddling, its prospects would be dim. “One of the best pieces of advice we gave the State Department when I was in Delhi– and I remember writing about four cables on this subject–was to keep hands off,” Ashley Tellis, a former political adviser in the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, recalled. “We stayed away, and unless the Obama-ites choose to change this I doubt we will intervene. They’ve managed quite well without us–they’ve ended up in a place we’d like to see them end up.” Direct negotiations, without mediators, had forced the two sides to confront the hard issues, the senior Indian official told me. “Ultimately, we need to screw up our courage and do the deal, and anybody else getting involved actually gives both of us a crutch,” the official said. “We grandstand.”

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

India needs to talk directly to the Pakistani Military Junta in bilateral talks.Zardari and Gilani should tag along for some free chai, mutthe, barfi and attend if they wish.Before any discussion even happen with the Sunni Punjabi military junta, who are seeking to build, expand and establish a Pak Sunni Islamic Empire fueled by its bruised ego and a falsely politicized notion of Religious Ummah.The Outlaw Pak Junta must also uniform their proxy armies and legitimize them as a part of the Pak army, before any meaningful biltateral talks can occur.When bilateral talks occur, then both countries have dealt with their respective security issues. India will not hold bilateral talks, while Pakistan holds a grenade like a terrorist in the hand hidden behind its back and a beggar bowl in the other hand.Both parties can talk on even terms when Pakistan’s hands are clean. If anybody refutes that and claims that India is causing terrorism of any kind, kindly please send a detailed dossier with proof and all gathered details to Mr. Manmohan Singh and Mr. Obama for their reading pleasure, otherwise, please keep shut.If Pakistan is sincere and truthful and stops its terrorism and camps, “India will not be lacking and give more than 50%”, according to Manhoman Singh.

Posted by Global Watcher | Report as abusive
 

Pakistan Military, whose bread, butter and whisky depends on animosity towards India, will never finish any issues forever. For a considerable long time, they have been projecting India as enemy number one, and told their people about how they will win “Dehli” one day. Anything less than it will not be acceptable to awam.Kashmir or any pending issues should be discussed Bilateral and issues should be resolved. International Community or “Third Parties” should interfere only if one of the parties breaks the agreement.

Posted by singh | Report as abusive
 

@It is time neutral countries are brought in – Australia, Sweden, Japan etc would be worthy candidates to consider. They will not have any preference to either side and will mediate between both countries and the world will be the witness.”- Posted by mohammed Anjum–Very naive comments. The international theatre will spoil it not solve the problem. It will give rise to secondary problems. The extent to which the support can be given is the back channel talks. Do not give 2 countries any crutches-just play the part to keep them in the ring and let them deal with it.

Posted by rajeev | Report as abusive
 

Peaceful Islam taught in Pak’s Madrassas ..Quoran explodes in innocent peace loving students ..http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid =20601091&sid=aOuNqXWaHvsw

Posted by James - Toronto | Report as abusive
 

Zardari’s last begging before he goes ..World must help us otherwise no one will be safe: Zardarihttp://www.dailytimes.com.pk/defa ult.asp?page=20097\14\story_14-7-2009_pg 7_1

Posted by James | Report as abusive
 

All this is just empty talk; I donot think anything willcome out of negotiations except waste of time. What hasbeen taken by force can be recovered only by force. But use of force in the days of nukes makes it impossible.So the logical conclusion is the status quote will continue and infact that is defact agreement except thatforces will need to continue being employed and militaryequipment continued to be upgraded both in case of chinaand pakistant that means expenses will continue to beincurred even to maintain status quo. So choose betweenstatus quo or nukes. Whatever these politicians are doingtelling and attempting SEEMS just to keep the public busyand keep themselves in jobs to line up their pockets. Idonot think any politician is honest be it indian,pak,chinese,american or whoever but that is onlymy personal opinion; you people draw your own thinking

Posted by jjmk4546 | Report as abusive
 

Mr mohammed AnjumI support your suggestion.Lets use neutral countries to mediate on the issues of Balochistan, Pakhtunkhwa and the expired Durand line agreement with Afghanistan and see how well they are resolved.This expereince will set the precedence along with proving the effectiveness of involving neutral countries and we can apply the process to discuss Kashmir (POK included).Pakistanis like you should take the initiative and petition the government (or the Army) to start the discussion with neutral country.The would is more than eager to witness!

Posted by indian1127 | Report as abusive
 

Unfortunately, nothing will come of the meeting at Sharm-al-sheikh for several reasons. For starters, NAM always was an irrelevant flaccid organization – with the end of the cold war and the election of a black president in the US the idea of combating racism, imperialism etc (NAM’s stated goals) is ante-diluvian.Secondly, as has been stated often including in this article, no real agreement can take place without the willing consent of the Pakistani army. That is unlikely to take place under Kiyani’s leadership as he is largely a soldier and not a leader unlike Musharraf. Further, despite his statement that the proximate threat is internal, he is unlikely to embark on a move that would ultimately emaciate the only truly functional institution that Pakistan has ever known; an institution whose raison d’etre is the notion that India represents a visceral threat.Peace on the Indian sub-continent can only come when the Pakistani army is defanged. That won’t happen till a catastrophic terrorist incident of an exponentially greater magnitude than 26/11 or even 9/11 happens either in India or in the West.

Posted by Vijay D | Report as abusive
 

Pakistan Army is a disciplined organization and follows a certain doctrine. Islam says enemies need not to be permanent and that honourable negotiations leading to peace should be given a chance. If the Indians would like Pakistan Army will definitely come to party. Pakistan has an elected democratic government which is backed along with the people by the Pakistan Army. I am sure if there is sincerety on India’s part, negotiations will bear fruit. It doesnt have to be fight fight fight all the time. But if fight is necessary to defend Pakistan and preserve the honour, Pakistan Army will fight.Any notion that Pakistan civil leadership doent have say in national matters that Army generals run the entire show are incorrect. Pakistan Army needs political support and politicians need a strong Army to be able to negotiate honourable agreements with enemies. India should come onboard and not snub Pakistani leaders thinking its the generals who are superior. Generals dont negotiate peace, its the leaders and politicians that do.

Posted by Umair | Report as abusive
 

One day the people of Pakistan will wake up and realize that they have been lied to and cheated and they will mass revolt against their own Army.

Posted by Global Watcher | Report as abusive
 

UMAIR writes—–> “Pakistan Army is a disciplined organization and follows a certain doctrine.”DISCIPLINED? The historical evidence, and contemporary evidence proves otherwise.Just a couple of samples….. Operation Gibraltar in 1965 and Kargil adventure in 1999.International community including Indians are commenting on Pakistan army based on what the Pak commentators have written about the Pakistan army. Gen Kayani himself has said since Pakistan army has got into real estate, soy bean, fertilizer businesses and various sundry other business, people are not respecting the army any more.Here is a Pakistani newspaper column “Nur Khan reminisces ’65 war” for the reading pleasure of the fans of the ReutersBlog:http://www.dawn.com/2005/09/ 06/nat2.htmEXCERPTS:“The performance of the Army did not match that of the PAF mainly because the leadership was not as professional. They had planned the ‘Operation Gibraltar’ for self-glory rather than in the national interest. It was a wrong war. And they misled the nation with a big lie that India rather than Pakistan had provoked the war and that we were the victims of Indian aggression”, Air Marshal Khan said.“This would have held the hands of the adventurers who followed Gen Ayub. Since the 1965 war was based on a big lie and was presented to the nation a great victory, the Army came to believe its own fiction and has used since, Ayub as its role model and therefore has continued to fight unwanted wars — the 1971 war and the Kargil fiasco in 1999, he said.”p.s – On a different note, you don’t have a monopoly on honour. India and its people also have “honour”.

 

Umair says:Pakistan Army is a disciplined organization and follows a certain doctrine.Pakistan has an elected democratic government which is backed along with the people by the Pakistan Army.But if fight is necessary to defend Pakistan and preserve the honour, Pakistan Army will fight.Any notion that Pakistan civil leadership doent have say in national matters that Army generals run the entire show are incorrectI fell of the chair laughing.

Posted by indian1127 | Report as abusive
 

@Umair,Let the Pakistani Generals and ISI come forward, sit with India, put their cards on the table, ALL the cards and India will do the same and not be lacking.If the Pakistani’s are honest and true, peace WILL happen. If you lie, tell half truths and lies, the current state will continue.Peace will happne when Pakistan decides to tell the truth and be honest. It takes two hands to clap.May peace and good will befall both nations, but honesty and integrity are the basis of any relationship anywhere, without those two things, it is all hollow talk, only for political means.

Posted by Global Watcher | Report as abusive
 

I believe that the Pakistani civilian Govt & especially Zardari (despite his well publicized character flaws), is sincere towards making peace with India & eradicating terrorism from Pakistan’s soil. Zardari’s numerous comments & his recent admittance of Pakistan having used ‘non-state actors’ to advance it’s foreign agenda, certainly indicate that. But the problem, as mentioned by the author & pointed out by many others on this blog, is that Zardari & his Govt are merely poodles on leash, controlled by heir owner i.e the Pakistani army. The meeting in Egypt between Dr. Singh & Gilani will be futile unless Kiyani is also on board. Many Pakistani civilian Govts of the past have made overtures towards India only to be nixed by one Pakistani General or the other, time & again.The real question to be asked is: Are the power-hungry & corrupt Pakistani Generals, ready to project India as a non-enemy & in the process, lose their grip on power & the monetary resources which they have commanded since Pakistan’s independence?

Posted by Mortal | Report as abusive
 

Any notion that Pakistan civil leadership doent have say in national matters that Army generals run the entire show are incorrect.- Posted by UmairCare to explain Kargil and the removal of Nawaz Sharif from power? Can you imagine any real democracy removing a Prime Minister and installing a military dictator when the PM dismisses the Chief of Army Staff? In any real democracy, the military is absolutely subordinate and defers to the civilian leadership, and they maintain that stance even if they vehemently disagree with the policies of the civilian leadership. That’s democracy. What Pakistan practices is far from it. The fact that Pakistan has spent more years under a uniformed leader than one in a business suit speaks volumes about who really runs Pakistan.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

I really dont know what disciplined organization this umair is talks about with respect to Pakistan army…It has a history of toppling the democratically elected govt million times.All the generals have never thought of political leadership as their bosses.They dont even believe in democracy as an institution….You can judge this from the fact that musharaf removed chief justice of pakistan…so it means PA do not believe in judiciary as well.It has lost all the battles it has fought –> 1948,1965,1971,kargil even when they were getting military and moral support from US and china(You sould remember that photo of pak general surrendering to indian army) …they have not been able to do a single decent thing for their country other than generating millions of refugees inside its own country coz of their misdeeds.They don’t even have the guts to fight themselves for their country and send soldiers as proxies(In case of kargil).They do not even claim the bodies of thier soldiers thinking they might get embarrassed and the world will know whose misdeed it was.What sincerity from indian side is he talking about…when AB vajpayee(then Indian PM) was talking peace with Nawaz sharif,their democratically elected PM while their bravest general musharraf was cutting the feet of its own govt and sending soldiers to fight in kashmir and was planning a coup…what an embarresment….Even Nawaz sharif was seen weeping about this on PAK TV as he was giving a speech in a rally about musharraf backstabbed him.No need to mention the bangladesh episode of gangraping 90000 odd girls and women and executing them.So kindly not try defending your bravest army…international community know what they are worth of.One thing is good though that they convince or how shall i put it ..ORDER your PM and Prez to go begging all around the world.They have not been able to save the sovergnity of your country from america as US drones whiz past thier heads every day.Painful as it may be but this is truth.

 

PAKISTAN COLLAPSE!!Oh sorry, its the cricket I’m reading.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

Umair wrote:Any notion that Pakistan civil leadership doent have say in national matters that Army generals run the entire show are incorrect.If what you say is true, then how come Pakistan has been under military dictators for most of its 62 years? Didn’t General Zia ul Haq execute Zulfikur Bhutto and take over?Pakistan is not in any position to ask and/or demand anything of India. Pakistan can ask for all the sincerity it wants, but after the Mumbai attacks, the cycle of denials, the Sri Lankan cricket team attacks, the 5-star hotel bombings, the kidnapping and beheading of foreigners, the creation and nurturing of terrorist organizations against India…the list can go on and on.On top of this…money, or to be more exact the lack of:Pakistan seeks additional $4bn IMF loan (Dawn, 15/07/2009). However, Pakistan STILL wants previous loans written off.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

Pakistan will unlikely dimantle and go against any anti-India group that has been created and/or nurtured on its soil. However, it is not just LeT, JuD or any other terrorist organization hiding in a futile fashion under a charity banner that Pakistan has on its soil. We must not forget Jundallah.The talks in Egypt will be nothing more than the routine ‘hand shakes and smiles’ for the cameras.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

Sorry to go off topic for a second, but I came across this article on the BBC website:English football champions Manchester United are to open their first cafe in the western Indian city of Mumbai (Bombay) later this year.So, even less than a year after the Mumbai attacks, the city is attracting foreign business.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

Suggestion to Myra, Sanjeev others,As you are all committed India Pak enthusiasts (sorry my english isn’t the best) I would highly recommend the Bangladesh independence history chapter to be brought into the picture.Lot of Paks have misgivings about the 2nd partition and the struggle that lead to it and politics behind it. They were brainwashed that its all Indias brainchild and Bangladeshis and Paks were separated against their will.Time to bring in a fresh angle to the stale IndoPak bickering going on here.Especially now Hasinas administration is planning to start a commission on war crimes and Pak is doing everything to stop it.

 

Pakistan cannot and will not progress on its own merit, on any front, unless it comes to terms with its past misdeeds and demostrates itself to be a responsible and unwarlike nation.As the rest of Pakistan is in shambles, they continue to make Nxkes with U.S. taxpayer money and IMF funds, while keeping a beggar bowl out for free handouts. Sorry being blunt, but that is the sheer truth of it all. The manufacture of those ordinances alone is a topic all its own that should be addressed here in these blogs, but is not being entertained at all.

Posted by Global Watcher | Report as abusive
 

There is no doubt in my mind that India and the civilian administration of Pakistan want peace. But I don’t think the military is quite there yet. When Zardari offers a no first use nuclear policy, he is forced to retract his statement. When he offers to place the ISI under the Ministry of the Interior, he is forced to retract his statement. Clearly, he is not in the driver’s seat when it comes to foreign policy. And from those retractions, it’s clear that the Generals behind the throne are not quite willing to make any concessions to move negotiations forward.However, I believe the fact that Pakistan is rather quickly going to the dogs (sorry to my Pakistani friends, but that’s what it looks like from the outside), is likely to bring about a slow change in mindset. I really do think that the Generals are starting to understand that the ‘thousand cuts’ strategy has failed, and worse, it’s alienating the very people they purportedly seek to liberate. The growing economic disparity between India and Pakistan is surely bound to be a big concern. If it comes to blows again, it is doubtful that Pakistan will be able to recover and the economic challenges that follow any India-Pakistan conflict could very well destroy the federation. Unfortunately for Pakistan, short of employing nuclear weapons, there is nothing they could do that would halt India’s economic rise to a point of threatening its unity. Among the Pakistani officials I’ve met, I do believe that realization is setting in. The problem I believe is that they don’t know how to turn the ship around.How are they supposed to sell peace with India (that will most certainly not include a return of Jammu and Kashmir) to a Pakistani public that has largely been raised and rallied on anti-India sentiments? And how can they protect the Army (the only truly effective institution in the country) without having a supposedly existential threat that they need the Army to guard against?For this reason, I believe that peace will come slow. Pakistan will largely determine the pace of the rapprochement, not India. Only as Pakistani institutions are built up and the population focused on Pakistan’s own economic rise will the conflict de-escalate and peace be made possible. Sharm-el-sheikh is one of the first steps on a very, very long road.

Posted by Keith | Report as abusive
 

From Dawn (15/09/2009)Mr Gilani proposed an eight-point programme for the cause of peace and development:(1) strict adherence to principles enshrined in the UN charter.(2) strengthening multilateral system to curb unilateralist impulses and to advance the interests of all states in an equitable manner.(3) re-designing the global institutional architecture on the basis of democracy, accountability and transparency.(4) promoting the pacific settlements of disputes.(5) developing a new global consensus covering arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation as well as access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.(6) deepening South-South cooperation.(7) paying urgent attention to the issue of climate change.(8) promoting inter-faith dialogue.Since when do state’s suffering internally from: homegrown terrorism, economic problems and debts up to there eyeballs get to call the shots? Besides, most of these points are gibberish.

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

Sorry, that should read:From Dawn (15/07/2009)

Posted by bulletfish | Report as abusive
 

Pakistan is a failed nation. If such nation is sending trained and armed militants to create terror, what should India be doing? The approach should be many fold, like blocking the infiltration (which is difficult), secondly, should strengthen the internal police setup, thirdly, should attack the training camps covertly. Attack is the best defence. The terror war venue should not be in India but should be in Pakistan! Our Indian political leaders were never good in diplomacy, its time that the political leadership takes tough decisions in these matters to resolve quickly, rather than prolong and try to pass on the issue to next leader!!!

Posted by Vijay Kumbham | Report as abusive
 

Indian are dam busy these days to portray Pakistan as a failed state. I want to show some frectures in india to indians who think that their country is shining. Just go and visit ASSAM where u fing a hoisted flag of PAKISTAN. Just go and analyse the rebellion of KHALISTAN where SIKH r ready to fight against indian ARMY but muted due to the lacking of weapons. Just go and analyse the NAXALITE REBELLION is burning. Just go and visit GUJRAT where thousands of MUSLIMS r ready to take revenge of MUSLIMS GENOCIDE by extremist hindus. Incredible india is on a edge of collapse and going to incredibly break, but biassed American and British Media in not highlighting these issues but the truth can never be hide.

Posted by Proud to be pakistani | Report as abusive
 

Pakistan is a not only a failed state but also a foolish country which does not work on its betterment of country they are always begger in state and creating the tensions around the world by selling th nuclear arsnel to all tom dick and harry it is suriving on americas blessing they start always blaming others they dont concentrate on the terriosm with their own state they keep on blaming india and they dont look at the Baluchistan liberation , NWPF and local terrorist state they have not made any thing on their life not even a single invention from their country had come out

 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •