http://it.corporatemanagementsolution.com
http://it.corporatemanagementsolution.com
|
|
Pakistan Social Justice Group |
|
|
RESPECT OTHERS' RIGHTS AND DO JUSTICE |
|
It could be conveniently said that Pakistani leadership has been following unknown ideology and vision for a long time therefore Pakistan is still in an infancy phase where she has yet to define her goals and targets as a nation. The harsh fact is that internal and foreign policies are made that suit the ruling elites of the country without taking into confidence masses of this country. How affairs have been handled with India is an epitome of short sightedness of political vision, which the nation has been experiencing since independence.
At the early stages of independence, we joined American Block in opposition of India and had two wars on Kashmir issue, which did not pay us much. Now some of the analysts are optimistic that we might find resolution to Kashmir because both the countries are friends to America. If this optimism is due to the reason that both countries are ally of USA then the argument should lead us to consider that we might have found the solution to the core problem a long time ago if our leaders had shown foresightedness and joined the block of USSR.
Coming to more recent history of India-Pakistan’s relationship, it is surprising that the same people who opposed the Lahore Accord and arrival of Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee in 1999 now welcoming him with resplendent visages. They are taking credit of starting process of normalizing relationship with India and amplifying it as a result of their successful foreign policy. The writer is not in opposition of good bilateral relationship with India but of the opinion that differences between two boundaries could have been settled a long time ago if the leadership had shown political vision. However, in the current high sprits of friendship and love with India, the nation retains the right to know the actual reasons from those people who opposed the Lahore accord and arrival of Vajpayee in Lahore in 1999, which regressed our mutual relationships. It will be a great learning point for the nation if somebody could unveil the agenda behind the opposition.
It is on the record that Gen. Musharraf was hesitant to welcome Prime Minister in Lahore and master-minded the Karagil adventure. The debacle in Kargil has not only embarrassed the whole nation but also wasted a lot of human and financial resources. Moreover, it had put us on the defensive position before the world. However, since he took the power, he had been very keen to normalize and friendly relationships with India and took many U-turn steps including unilateral ceasefire in Kashmir to make sure that Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee attend the South Asian Association of Regional Corporation (SAARC) conference in Islamabad. Under the umbrella of SAARC, the Indian suggestion of trade-first is also accepted. Although, the government has succeeded in the short term goal and Indian PM is in Islamabad, the important question is still unanswered if Gen. Musharraf took these steps due to change in vision and perception or to improve his personal image in the eyes of the West. Perhaps, Musharraf also took keen interest in normalizing relationship with India as he wanted to remove stigma of spoiling Lahore Accord. Whether one likes it or not, Gen. Musharraf accepted explicitly and implicitly Indian demands, which were conveyed to him through the American administration. The country might have experienced a great uproar if the same steps were taken by a civilian leader and the person would be declared a security risk.
Like Gen Musharraf, the leadership of MMA (alliance of religious parties) must explain as to why they had gone berserk and zealously demonstrated upon arrival of Indian Prime Minister but content with Vajapayee’s visit this time. MMA leadership gladly met with the Indian premier in Islamabad and discussed issues of mutual interests. Earlier a major leader of MMA Fazal-ur-Rehman happily went to India and met the Indian PM whose visit he vigorously opposed in Pakistan. The reports are that Indian PM expressed appreciation for his efforts that he rendered for normalizing relationships with India. However, it is yet to be explained why they had opposed normalization of relationship with India under civil leadership. The would-be reason to this shift in their policy could be that earlier the bevy of religious parties was not as strong as today and it was just a political stunt and gimmick to get popularity in the masses or they acted upon the instruction of someone else. Ruling and political elites, one day, pull people on the streets to demonstrate against India, and the other day, they asked them to shower Patel of flowers on the Indian leadership. Interestingly, innocent people participate zealously at both occasions without knowing the actual situation. Analyzing history of Pakistan shows that the establishment and religious parties have been the core hurdles in establishing good bilateral relationships in the past because their interests are at stake if good relationships with India are revived.
In short today, we are standing at the stage in relation to India where we had left off in 1999. Ex- foreign secretary, Mr. Naiz Naik, in a discussion on a private TV channel confirmed that Vajpayee agreed to discuss Kashmir issue in 1999 as he did prior to the arrival in Islamabad. So, whatsoever Gen. Musharraf has achieved till today with India is nothing but going back to Lahore accord and reviving the bilateral relationships that were broken down due to Kargil debacle and the event of 9/11.
In short, good relationship between Pakistan and India is inevitable but the fundamental question is still open whether we are developing these cordial relationships as a shift in our thoughts and attitudes or due to some internal and international pressures; or for gaining some personal political benefits. The relationship will not strengthen if any of the parties are heading towards peace for ulterior motives such as hoping noble prize for peace or winning elections. No solution will be lasting if leaders keep on taking ad-hoc decisions for selfish reasons or for reducing international pressure temporarily.
Tuesday, January 06, 2004
|
|
