PM’s defence of Sharm-el-Sheikh Joint Statement lacks conviction

Though Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh made spirited defence of the Sharm-el-Sheikh Indo-Pak Joint statement in Parliament,which created the impression that India diluted stand on Pakistan especially in regard to terrorism. There was criticism from all quaters-media, opposition as well as ruling Congress party of the Joint statement. The Manmohan Singh-led UPA government had suspended the composite dialogue process with Pakistan immediately after 9/11 Mumbai attacks, which were planned, plotted, designed on Pakistani soil and carried out by 10 Pak-based terrorists that killed 170 inocent persons. It was apparently clear after the investigation that the attacks were carried out by Pak-based dreaded terrorisdt outfit Lashkar-e-Toiba under the supervision of its founder Hafiz Saeed. After the outfit was banned, he founded its front organisation Jamai-ud-Dawa. Hafiz Saeed masterminded the 9/11 Mumbai attacks. With the launching vigorous diplomatic offensive against Pakistan to bring the perpetrators of Mumbai attacks to justice, international pressure mounted on it and Hafiz Saeed was put under house arrest. But his detention was set aside by the law court of Pakistan and he was set free because of the absence concrete evidence about his involvement. Pakistan appeared to have deliberately failed to produce evidence against him in the court. India provided clear evidence of involvement of Pakistani terrorists and asked Pakistan to bring these terrorists to justice. It clearly told Pakistan that untill the perpetrators of Mumbai attacks were broght to justice, the resumption of composite dialogue process is out of question. Then question here arises what led to the softening of India’s stand that it issued joint statement with Pakistan delinking action on terror from composite dialogue process and mentioning of Balochistan. Prime Minister Mr. Singh though has assured the Parliament that dialogue process can not resume untill the Mumbai attackers are brought to justice and the use of Pakistani territory is stopped for terror acrtivities against India.Mr. Singh said one important thing that this is first time on the part of Pakistan that it has accepted the involvement of its nationals in Mumbai tererror attack (9/11) through the dossier it handed over to India before the PM’s visit to Egypt.And it is also the first time that reference to Balochistan has been made in Indo-Pak Joint Statement. Pakistan rightly sees it a victory because it has got opportunity to raise the question of India’s alleged interference in Balochistan whenever India would raise the question of cross border terrorism sponsored by Pakistan in the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Because of Balochistan blunder, the ruling Congress party does not stand with the government in its entierty on the issue of Sharm-el-Sheikh Joint Statement. Though the Congress party leadership has suported PM’s defence of joint statement in Parilament but with subdued voice. Pakistan is our neighbour and we can not change it. It is also eqipped with nuclear power. So, in the prevailing situation war is abosolutely no option. Therefore engaging Pakistan in talks if it genuinely acts against terror infrasructure on its terrirtory and bring the perpetrators of Mumbai attacks to justice is also a good idea. But as far as the question of acting against terror is concerned, Pak has shown no sincerity if the trial of the mastermind of Mumbai attacks Hafiz Saed is anything to go by. There is also contradiction in the statement of Prime Minister in Parliament when he reiterate India’s stated stand on Pakistan on one hand and asks it must act against terror before any dialogue process is set in motion on the other. But this is also a fact that without showing statesmanship by the leadership of both the countries-India and Pakistan, the amicable and friendly relations can not be established.Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilan has has lauded prime minister Dr. Manmohan Singh’s speech in Parliament by praising his statesmabship. The situation demands that he must reciprocate his counterpart's statesmanship.