Showing posts with label 26/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 26/11. Show all posts

India says CBMs will be a success only if Pakistan creates right atmosphere by taking prompt 26/11 action; Fai's arrest a "very important development"

New Delhi
23 July 2011

The "climate" for confidence building measures (CBMs) and people-to-people contacts across the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir would be best served if Pakistan creates the "right atmosphere" for a dialogue by bringing the 26/11 trial to a transparent and expeditious conclusion, an Indian government source said.

The observation should be seen in the context of the forthcoming talks between external affairs minister SM Krishna and his Pakistan counterpart, Ms Hina Rabbani Khar, to be held in New Delhi on July 27.

India was expected to announce some CBMs, some unilateral, others bilateral on a reciprocal basis, after the Krishna-Khar meeting, the agenda of which would be firmed up on July 26 when foreign secretary Nirupama Rao meets with her counterpart, Salman Bashir.

The CBMs could extend to increases in the number of days for cross-LoC trade and duration of entry permits, improvement in the Srinagar - Muzaffarabad and Poonch - Rawalakot bus services, and facilities such as telephone fortraders. Islamabad was hesitant about introducing banking services for traders.

By October, Pakistan was likely to shift from a positive list of items that can be imported from India to a system of trade based on negative list of items. In other words, Pakistan would effectively be implementing Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status for India.

Some items on the agenda of the India - Pakistan Joint Commission, such as agriculture, education and telecommunications, could fall in the purview of future discussions.

The source maintained that no dramatic, big-bang announcements should be anticipated. Even if the bilateral relations were to improve incrementally, India would at least be satisfied at having pulled the dialogue out of life support, post-26/11, and draw confidence from the fact that the sequence of bilateral meetings was sustained despite the odds.

It was pointed out that India would be willing to talk on "all" issues, including, but not limited to, Jammu and Kashmir. However, the source noted, it takes two hands to clap,
and Pakistan needs to take a call on that.

Meanwhile, New Delhi has described the arrest of Ghulam Nabi Fai as a "very significant development". Fai is accused of having links to a decades-long effort that allegedly funnelled millions of dollars from the Inter Services Intelligence (IS), Pakistan's external intelligence agency, to fan anti-India sentiments and push Pakistan's subversive agenda over the issue of Jammu and Kashmir.

New Delhi did not discount the possibility that Fai's arrest could have something to do with the recent tensions in the US - Pakistan relations, but from India's point of view the "die has been cast".

The source said it was a "good thing" that enlightenment has finally come to the US, and it will hopefully come to other countries such as Britain and Belgium, too. Certain individuals and groups are known to be carrying out anti-India activities from London and Brussels.

Fai's arrest also validates India's position that the separatists' agenda in Jammu and Kashmir receives most of its sustenance from Pakistan. In the same breath, the source said that Pakistan's foreign minister should seek to impress upon the separatists she would be meeting in New Delhi to speak the language of peace and reconciliation.


Stapled visas by China upsets India, again

India has expressed disappointment over the issue of stapled visas by China to five sportspersons from Arunachal Pradesh in spite of a recent understanding reached between their officials.

"We are still searching for a de-stapler. We are obviously not amused" by the fact that they continue to issue stapled visas for our nationals, a government source said.

Recently, the Chinese embassy in New Delhi issued stapled visas to five karate players from Arunachal Pradesh, a step that ensured that they could not take part in an international championship in China as these documents were not valid for travel.

The action by China came close on the heels of the claims made by officials here that the issue has been resolved and was also reflected in the resumption of the Indo-China defence exchanges.

'26/11 was the low point of my stay in India'


The battle against terrorism will require concerted international action of all likeminded countries as it is a battle that we cannot afford to lose, says MARK SOFER, Israel's outgoing ambassador in New Delhi, as he prepares to leave India soon after spending four years here. In an interview to RAMESH RAMACHANDRAN, he talks of how the “dynamic“ relationship between the two countries “is now going places“. Excerpts:

Q: How would you describe the Israel-India relations today, and what are some of the high and low points of your tenure?

A: It is a relationship in motion, which started before I came of course, but clearly, it has an enormous dynamic of its own. If you look at the basic facts and figures, the bilateral civilian trade has reached $5 billion. We are working on a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Next year will be the 20th anniversary of the establishment of India-Israel relations, and, hopefully around that time we will be able to conclude the (FTA) negotiations. Some experts estimate that bilateral civilian trade will triple in the next three or four years, so we are talking $15 billion worth of civilian trade. And the trade is finely balanced in terms of imports and exports, and it will include such things as investment, services, and goods. In agriculture, a centre of excellence is already up and running in Karnal, Haryana; a second centre will open in Sirsa, also in Haryana; and a third probably will be in Nagpur in Maharashtra. We are also looking at Tamil Nadu. I mean — the sky is the limit. And, now we are embarking on a new negotiation process for an MoU (memorandum of understanding) in dairy farming, etc.

So, basically, in every field of human endeavour, this relationship is in a dynamic mode. It didn’t start with me and it won’t end with me; I am just in the middle of it. So this is a relationship that is going places. One of the real high points in my four years here has been the opening of the agricultural centre in Haryana. A vast population of India is dependent on farming. At the end of the day, embassies and countries interact to better the lives of their peoples, and if we can cooperate on the main issue which faces the Indian economy and social world, which is agriculture of course, this gives me the greatest pleasure. There is nothing more inspiring or heart-warming than seeing farmers from far and wide coming to look at Israeli technologies and incorporating them into their own smallholdings. We all like to deal with geostrategic issues, but, sometimes, it is these things, the nitty-gritty, that make a term of duty the beauty that it is.

If you ask me, it has been the most wonderful four years of my life working with the Indian government and people on not just issues related to West Asia but related to the welfare of people, such as water, alternative energy, agriculture, technology and industry. I think that there is no doubt in my mind that the low point of my stay here was the Mumbai attacks; of that there is no doubt. Our prayers are with the families of those Indians that were killed, but the Jewish people also were specifically targeted in that atrocity.

Q: How will the killing of Osama bin Laden affect the war on terrorism in general, and the situation in West Asia in particular?

A: The world is a better place now that Osama bin Laden is no longer with us. But does it mean the end of terrorism? Of course it does not. Other such fanatics will come out of the woodwork, they are already coming out of the woodwork, already planning new attacks. The way to tackle it is concerted unified international action of all like-minded countries. This is a battle that we cannot afford to lose.

Q: US President Barack Obama’s speeches on the West Asia peace process have not gone down well with the Israeli government. How do you see the Israel-Palestine peace process going forward?

A: This relationship is rock-solid. There is no rift. There are differences of opinion, which are natural; there are differences of opinion between friends and even inside a family. That is a normal process; so one should be careful not to over-dramatise it. If someone is trying to find fissures (between the United States and Israel), it will be very hard to find them, but that is not to suggest that we agree on everything. But, yes, we are at a crossroads. We do believe strongly in Israel that we urgently need to get back to the negotiating table. There is no point in putting preconditions down because if we all start doing that, then we are predetermining the outcome of the negotiations before they actually have taken off in any seriousness. So we really have a great deal of difficulty in understanding in all honesty why all of a sudden the Palestinian Authority has placed this condition or that condition. Second, this agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas is something that places us backwards. Hamas, in a way, is West Asia’s Al Qaeda. It is an extremist organisation dedicated to the eradication of the State of Israel and is anti-Semitic by its own charter and it has not moved one iota from the demands of the international community that it accept Israel’s existence, that it accept previous agreements reached between Israelis and Palestinians, and stop massacring people. I must stress that these are not conditions placed by Israel; these are placed by the Quartet, by the international community, on Hamas, and they have not met them. We do see in Mahmoud Abbas a serious and pragmatic partner, we do see in the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organisation) an institution with which we can achieve peace, but we do not at this stage at all (visualise) the Hamas entering into that arena.

Q: How does Israel view the Palestinians’ move to seek a vote in the United Nations recognising Palestine as a sovereign country?

A: We, of course, disagree with it entirely. We don’t have dozens of countries that will support us. A former foreign minister of Israel, Abba Eban, has said that if Israel were to propose in the UN that the world was round, the UN will vote that it was flat. Anything [that is done] in the UN is a priori geared against Israel. We believe the way for the establishment of a Palestinian state should be through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, that is the way to move forward. Actually we are not that far apart: we both agree on a two-state solution. But, of course, the devil is in the details. A lot of discussion is necessary, and it is not going to be easy, but scoring points is not going to move forward any type of peace process in West Asia.

Q: How do you see the emergence of representative governments following the popular uprisings in Israel’s neighbourhood?

A: I think a moving away from authoritarian leadership towards democracy is almost automatically positive. It cannot be negative when people are able to find an expression of their views and freedoms that were denied to them. This has to be positive and I think there will be positive spinoffs as well.

Q: The US and the European Union have imposed further sanctions on Iran. How would you describe the current thinking in Israel on Iran?

A: There is a difference between the people of Iran and the regime, and one must make this distinction. It is so tragic that they have at the helm a leadership of hate, a regime dedicated to the destruction of Israel, denying the Holocaust, striving for nuclear arms in order to carry out the destruction of the world’s only Jewish country. Why should we sit idly by when this is happening? And we won’t. The Jewish people have suffered throughout history at attempts to annihilate. Our supposed annihilators have always been annihilated. We will never lose in this struggle against those who would do us ill. When we say never again after the Holocaust, we mean never again. And when (Iran talks about) killing and murdering Israelis, it is something that we cannot of course take, and watch idly as it does this.

No Geronimo-like operation for India

New Delhi
4 May 2011

India has sought to put a lid on the debate about whether it can or should copy American-style surgical strikes or Israeli targeted assassinations to eliminate targets inside Pakistan by saying that it is an idea whose time may never come.

An official source says India would not want to emulate the US or Israel because one, India is not US, and two, India's relations with Pakistan are historically and qualitatively different from Washington's ties with Islamabad.

The source pointed out that India is conscious of the fact that while Pakistan may be a "foreign" country in the strict sense of the word, it was a "part of us", and it behoves India to take a sober and reasoned view of the relationship.

"It is easy to be hawkish on Pakistan but the story won't end [with the] capture of one or two [individuals]," the source said, before going on to emphasise that dismantling of the infrastructure of terrorism will require a change in Pakistan's mindset.

Further, the source noted, "[The] idea is not to bring Pakistan to its knees[.] It is not an exercise [in] retribution, [to] humiliate [Pakistan.]"

The remarks come at a time when some Indians, analysts and retired military officers included, are wondering why their country must not emulate the Americans and liquidate some of the most wanted fugitives from Indian law.

The chiefs of the Indian army and air force, too, have commented saying that the Indian armed forces were competent to carry out an Abbottabad-like operation, and that India was capable of taking out the 26/11 perpetrators inside Pakistan.

The source said that it was "logical to deduce" that many of the terrorists wanted in India for acts of terrorism were inside Pakistan, and acknowledged the "frustration" of many Indians at not seeing them brought to justice.

While India has "drawn a blank" insofar as the terrorists hiding in Pakistan were concerned, it has had some success in getting 16 or 17 persons deported from Dubai, it was pointed out.

India tells US: The "war on terror" cannot end with Osama's killing


New Delhi
4 May 2011

India has reminded the US, flush from its success in liquidating Osama bin Laden, that the war on terror cannot end without the elimination of terrorist safe havens inside Pakistan.

India was categorical that Osama's death was "not an end of what remains an ongoing war" against terrorism. More so because Al Qaeda's affiliates such as the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT) remain formidable and continue to espouse violent ideology.

At the same time, Osama's killing had brought home the cold reality that India was "alone" in its fight against terrorism: That Washington could not be expected to fight Delhi's battles, and that Pakistan's strategic value to the US will likely remain.

Another reality was that while Osama's killing would have brought closure for the 9/11 victims in the US, there could not be any for the 26/11 victims till the terrorist camps in Pakistan or Pakistani-held territory were dismantled.

An official source explained away the difficulties by saying that there will always come moments in the US' relations with Pakistan when certain decisions that will be taken will not be palatable to India.

However, the source was quick to point out that there were reasons for India to be "satisfied" with how its ties with the US had "matured" over the years, and that both sides were collaborating on issues of mutual interest or concern.

For instance, New Delhi would be looking to Washington for its views about whether and how "Operation Geronimo" would affect the balance of power between civilian government and the military in Pakistan.

New Delhi was assessing the impact of Osama's killing on the role of the "larger than life" institutions in Pakistan such as the army and the ISI as it could have a bearing on Pakistan's disposition towards India, and tied to it would be the fate of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Pakistan initiative and the resumed peace process.

Another issue that will engage the attention of India going forward is Afghanistan, as the US prepares to draw down its forces there. New Delhi was against allowing Islamabad a veto over India's role in Afghanistan.

These, and other issues, were expected to come up in the second round of the India-US strategic dialogue, to be held in July, when US secretary of state Hillary Clinton will arrive here for talks with external affairs minister SM Krishna.

India's Af-Pak policy comes under strain

New Delhi
3 May 2011

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's disengagement-is-not-an-option line came under increased strain Tuesday following Pakistan's unhelpful attitude on the issue of bringing the 26/11 perpetrators to justice.

Salman Bashir, Pakistan's foreign secretary, dismissed New Delhi's demand for action against the 26/11 terrorists, reiterated mos
t recently by home minister P Chidambaram on Monday, as "outdated".

"It is a familiar line (and) outdated. It is some part of the old system repeating itself[.] This line of thinking is mired in a mindset that is neither realistic nor productive. Such statements are not very helpful [to the peace process]," Bashir said.

However, indications are that Prime Minister Singh was likely to stay the course in spite of pressure on him to reappraise his Pakistan initiative and to craft an appropriate Afghanistan strategy in the post-Osama bin Laden era.

There was a view in official circles that India must persist with the dialogue, if it does not want to fritter away the gains made in official and unofficial (track-two) talks with Islamabad, and if it wants the 'Mohali spirit' to survive.

The prime ministers of India and Pakistan would get at least two opportunities to re-engage each other, on the margins of the Saarc summit in Maldives in November this year, and on the sidelines of the July 2012 NAM summit in Iran.

A section of the official circles said that it became even imperative that New Delhi brought diplomatic pressure to bear upon Islamabad, given its inability or reluctance to mount covert operations inside Pakistan.

Also, it was pointed out that Prime Minister Singh need only take a cue from his British counterpart, David Cameron, who said that the world must remain engaged with Pakistan if only to strengthen the hands of the civilian government there.

Cameron had accused Pakistan of looking "both ways" on terrorism in July 2010, and his words were only now finding a resonance in Washington and other world capitals following Pakistan's alleged complicity in harbouring Osama bin Laden.