Shri Rajnath Singh, President, Bharatiya Janata Party had responded immediately to the Joint Statement issued at Havana on 16.9.2006, after the meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Musharraf. Yesterday, Shri Arun Jaitley had elaborated upon it further. After the comments made by the Prime Minister to the media, the implications of this development were discussed further, in detail, yesterday evening at a meeting at Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s place. The meeting was attended by Party President Shri Rajnath Singh, Leaders of Opposition in Parliament Shri L K Advani and Shri Jaswant Singh, Shri Arun Shourie and Shri Yashwant Sinha. The BJP disagrees completely with the latest approach of the Government of India on the issue of the continuing menace of cross-border terrorism from Pakistan, and other issues of serious concern like Jammu and Kashmir and Siachin. The BJP feels that the Havana Joint Statement is an unprecedented capitulation of India before Pakistan on the issue of cross-border terrorism. It has wiped out in one stroke all that had been achieved by India in its war against terror through years of hard work with the international community, and bilaterally with Pakistan.
In the Joint Press Statement which had been issued after the meeting between Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf on 6th January, 2004 at Islamabad, Prime Minister Vajpayee had categorically stated “that in order to take forward and sustain the dialogue process, violence, hostility and terrorism must be prevented.” In response, President Musharraf “reassured Prime Minister Vajpayee that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan’s control to be used to support terrorism in any manner”. It was only after this unambiguous and categorical statement from President Musharraf that India agreed to recommence the process of composite dialogue. Inherent in this statement was also the warning that terrorism, violence, hostility and dialogue could not go on together.
The responsibility to hold Pakistan to the commitment President Musharraf made in this statement devolved on the present government which came to power in May, 2004. Unfortunately, the UPA Government soon began to adopt a soft approach towards the cross-border terrorism promoted by Pakistan. In a Joint Statement issued on 18.4.2005, after the meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Musharraf, “the two leaders pledged that they would not allow terrorism to impede the peace process.” We had pointed out then that this was like giving a carte blanche to the terrorists in Pakistan, supported by their mentors there, to carry on their activities merrily. Our worst fears unfortunately have come true. The road since then is littered with Pakistan’s broken promises, incessant terrorist attacks by Pakistani terrorists on Indian targets, increase in infiltration, the non-dismantling of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and the continued denial of Pakistan of its involvement in all these activities. It is in this background that the Foreign Secretary level talks between the two countries were called off in July 2006. The only development which has taken place between the Mumbai bomb blasts and the Havana Joint Statement is the bomb blasts at Malegaon. The fig leaf for the resumption of the dialogue process is the joint mechanism, suggested by India and accepted by Pakistan, to tackle the menace of terrorism.
The Prime Minister believes that it was the best that India could get under the circumstances. He would also like us to believe that it is a new beginning. We completely disagree with his analysis. The Prime Minister is happy that President Musharraf has promised to work together in future without going into the past. This is naiveté at its worst. According to the Prime Minister, President Musharraf had assured him that Pakistan had no hand in perpetuating terrorism. The Prime Minister has accepted this statement of Musharraf implicitly and without challenge. His statement that Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism is baffling, to say the least. The perpetrator of cross-border terrorism has been co-opted through this Joint Statement as a partner in the fight against terrorism. The distinction between the aggressor and the victim of aggression has been done away with. It will no doubt, as voices in Pakistan have already indicated, provide an excellent opportunity to Pakistan to raise such non-issues as India’s involvement in Baluchistan as a counter to any charge we may make against Pakistan.
Under the composite dialogue process, terrorism is one of the issues for discussion between the two countries. These discussions are held at the level of the Home Secretaries of the two countries. Important issues relating to terrorism could also be discussed by the Foreign Secretaries. There is, therefore, no lack of contact points between the two countries to discuss the issue of terrorism. We have also shared with Pakistan time and again hard evidence of Pakistani involvement in terrorists acts in India. The issue is not about sharing of information. The issue is about Pakistan’s sincerity and commitment to tackle this menace. With Pakistan still maintaining its terrorist infrastructure, still refusing to handover known terrorists to India and still refusing to stop arms, and financial and logistical support to terrorist networks in Pakistan, the joint mechanism is bound to fail even before it gets started.
The special mention of the issues of Jammu and Kashmir, Siachin and Sir Creek in the Joint Statement was uncalled for. These issues are already covered under the composite dialogue process and their importance need not have been elevated in this manner. We reiterate that the issue of Siachin must be tackled with great caution, and the concerns of the Army taken fully into account.
The Bharatiya Janata Party is of the firm view that President Musharraf must be held fully accountable to the commitment he had made on January 6, 2004. He cannot be allowed to look to the future every time he meets the Prime Minister of India, and forget the past. The Bharatiya Janata Party reiterates that cross-border terrorism and the dialogue process cannot go on simultaneously. The resumption of the Foreign Secretary level talks between the two countries in the background of increased violence from Pakistan is not acceptable to us.
On the basis of reports emanating from Pakistan from responsible quarters it appears that India has, through back channels, given a non-paper to Pakistan, making suggestions for the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir issue. The Government of India has not taken Parliament and the people of India into confidence on the contents of this non-paper. However, according to Pakistani sources this contains suggestions for joint control over Jammu and Kashmir. Is this joint mechanism suggested by India at Havana the first step towards that joint control? Are unseen powers pushing India towards a solution of Jammu and Kashmir that India has rejected all along? Is the Prime Minister of India acting under the pressure of the Left parties in India, who seem to have made common cause with these unseen powers on this issue? Or is it petty vote bank politics which has persuaded the Prime Minister to negate all that India, even under his own government, has said and stood for on the question of cross-border terrorism?
The Bharatiya Janata Party will not be a mute spectator to the surrender of vital national interests by this government, which has neither the authority nor the mandate of the people of India to do so.
In the Joint Press Statement which had been issued after the meeting between Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf on 6th January, 2004 at Islamabad, Prime Minister Vajpayee had categorically stated “that in order to take forward and sustain the dialogue process, violence, hostility and terrorism must be prevented.” In response, President Musharraf “reassured Prime Minister Vajpayee that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan’s control to be used to support terrorism in any manner”. It was only after this unambiguous and categorical statement from President Musharraf that India agreed to recommence the process of composite dialogue. Inherent in this statement was also the warning that terrorism, violence, hostility and dialogue could not go on together.
The responsibility to hold Pakistan to the commitment President Musharraf made in this statement devolved on the present government which came to power in May, 2004. Unfortunately, the UPA Government soon began to adopt a soft approach towards the cross-border terrorism promoted by Pakistan. In a Joint Statement issued on 18.4.2005, after the meeting between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Musharraf, “the two leaders pledged that they would not allow terrorism to impede the peace process.” We had pointed out then that this was like giving a carte blanche to the terrorists in Pakistan, supported by their mentors there, to carry on their activities merrily. Our worst fears unfortunately have come true. The road since then is littered with Pakistan’s broken promises, incessant terrorist attacks by Pakistani terrorists on Indian targets, increase in infiltration, the non-dismantling of terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and the continued denial of Pakistan of its involvement in all these activities. It is in this background that the Foreign Secretary level talks between the two countries were called off in July 2006. The only development which has taken place between the Mumbai bomb blasts and the Havana Joint Statement is the bomb blasts at Malegaon. The fig leaf for the resumption of the dialogue process is the joint mechanism, suggested by India and accepted by Pakistan, to tackle the menace of terrorism.
The Prime Minister believes that it was the best that India could get under the circumstances. He would also like us to believe that it is a new beginning. We completely disagree with his analysis. The Prime Minister is happy that President Musharraf has promised to work together in future without going into the past. This is naiveté at its worst. According to the Prime Minister, President Musharraf had assured him that Pakistan had no hand in perpetuating terrorism. The Prime Minister has accepted this statement of Musharraf implicitly and without challenge. His statement that Pakistan is also a victim of terrorism is baffling, to say the least. The perpetrator of cross-border terrorism has been co-opted through this Joint Statement as a partner in the fight against terrorism. The distinction between the aggressor and the victim of aggression has been done away with. It will no doubt, as voices in Pakistan have already indicated, provide an excellent opportunity to Pakistan to raise such non-issues as India’s involvement in Baluchistan as a counter to any charge we may make against Pakistan.
Under the composite dialogue process, terrorism is one of the issues for discussion between the two countries. These discussions are held at the level of the Home Secretaries of the two countries. Important issues relating to terrorism could also be discussed by the Foreign Secretaries. There is, therefore, no lack of contact points between the two countries to discuss the issue of terrorism. We have also shared with Pakistan time and again hard evidence of Pakistani involvement in terrorists acts in India. The issue is not about sharing of information. The issue is about Pakistan’s sincerity and commitment to tackle this menace. With Pakistan still maintaining its terrorist infrastructure, still refusing to handover known terrorists to India and still refusing to stop arms, and financial and logistical support to terrorist networks in Pakistan, the joint mechanism is bound to fail even before it gets started.
The special mention of the issues of Jammu and Kashmir, Siachin and Sir Creek in the Joint Statement was uncalled for. These issues are already covered under the composite dialogue process and their importance need not have been elevated in this manner. We reiterate that the issue of Siachin must be tackled with great caution, and the concerns of the Army taken fully into account.
The Bharatiya Janata Party is of the firm view that President Musharraf must be held fully accountable to the commitment he had made on January 6, 2004. He cannot be allowed to look to the future every time he meets the Prime Minister of India, and forget the past. The Bharatiya Janata Party reiterates that cross-border terrorism and the dialogue process cannot go on simultaneously. The resumption of the Foreign Secretary level talks between the two countries in the background of increased violence from Pakistan is not acceptable to us.
On the basis of reports emanating from Pakistan from responsible quarters it appears that India has, through back channels, given a non-paper to Pakistan, making suggestions for the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir issue. The Government of India has not taken Parliament and the people of India into confidence on the contents of this non-paper. However, according to Pakistani sources this contains suggestions for joint control over Jammu and Kashmir. Is this joint mechanism suggested by India at Havana the first step towards that joint control? Are unseen powers pushing India towards a solution of Jammu and Kashmir that India has rejected all along? Is the Prime Minister of India acting under the pressure of the Left parties in India, who seem to have made common cause with these unseen powers on this issue? Or is it petty vote bank politics which has persuaded the Prime Minister to negate all that India, even under his own government, has said and stood for on the question of cross-border terrorism?
The Bharatiya Janata Party will not be a mute spectator to the surrender of vital national interests by this government, which has neither the authority nor the mandate of the people of India to do so.
To Write Comment Please Login
.gif)
