Business Standard Editorial
We noted here
the forceful editorials which came from the leading English language media. Now it is the turn of the leading Indian business magazine Business Standard
, which starts
with some serious plain-speaking:
The government is being needlessly tolerant of Pakistan and its role in the continuing war of terror against India and innocent civilians in this country.
With an obscure Islamic outfit linked to Pakistan and the infamous Jaish-e-Mohammed having claimed ownership of the latest blasts in India, including the one in Srinagar on Wednesday, it is abundantly clear that Pakistan-based and probably ISI-abetted organisations have not given up on their long-term activities. But after recognising this, and indeed telling the Pakistan President in clear terms that the current situation is unacceptable, the government is strangely not willing to take the next logical step.
The editorial does a great service by recalling the incidents which led to the current 'peace' process, albeit a one-sided one.
It’s worth recalling that the talks on settling outstanding issues with Pakistan began with Mr Musharraf promising nearly four years ago (in the wake of intense international pressure and indeed an Indian military build-up on the border, following the attack on Parliament) to stop the sponsorship of terrorist activities directed against India, and also to dismantle the terror infrastructure that had spread and flourished in Pakistan, under state tutelage. That presidential promise has been honoured only in the breach. For a while there was evidence of a reduced flow of terrorists from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir into the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, and even of the dismantling of some camps run by terrorist organisations in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
We would to add though that the reduced 'flow' of terrorists across the LoC can be strongly attributed to the excellent fencing work
done by the Indian Armed Forces rather than due to any closure of terrorist camps operating in Pakistani-occupied Kashmir. But as the Army notes in this
BBC report, terrorists have managed to find other methods to infiltrate even though overall infiltration level reduced considerably.
If the government recognises this somewhat obvious and painful reality, its responses to Pakistan must reflect this recognition. It is not enough for the Prime Minister to speak his mind, his actions must be in consonance with his words. Mr Musharraf makes a great show of sincerity in his many public utterances, when in fact he and his government are adept at denying the obvious (like the continued hosting of Dawood Ibrahim)
Right on - 'denying the obvious' like we saw during the Chinook episode
It may suit the United States to wink at Pakistani duplicity because of its need for frontline support for its operations in Afghanistan, but there is no need for India to ignore what is patently obvious and pursue a “peace process” with a warmonger that has not given up on either its objectives or its chosen methods. Peace can be achieved only with those who have it as a goal. With Mr Musharraf, that is far from clear and he must therefore be put on notice.
Like we described in this
careless Wall Street Journal
editorial as 'terrible', since it argued for India's participation in the Global Offensive Against Terrorism
(henceforth referred to as G.O.A.T.) against the enemies of the U.S. such as Iran and Syria while asking India to maintain peace with the primary sponsor of terror against Indian people (add Bangladesh and Nepal to the newcomers list). So it makes no sense for India to align with the U.S. in this issue in going after Iran or Syria.
India has every right to recall President Musharraf’s January 2002 speech and say that it will not take the peace process any further forward, until there is credible evidence of a change of stance by Pakistan, and evidence that can be demonstrated on the ground, so that the country can see that Mr Musharraf meant what he said. To not take this minimal step is to encourage Pakistan to continue playing its cynical double game of waging war while talking peace, at the cost of many more innocent civilian lives in India.
Indeed, as we commented about this Times of London
editorial which cared more about the 'peace' process than the lost Indian lives. Let's say: 'No to Peace At All Cost'