You don`t say!
Darius Nakhoonwala
Last week was one of those weeks, no single event of any great importance which meant that the leader writers were stretched to the full, looking for topics to write on. As always happens on such occasions, the edits were a miscellany.
But after a great deal of surfing, I did find one common subject, a hardy perennial - Indo-Pak relations. The prime minister had flagged off a new bus service from Amritsar to Lahore, a distance of around 35 miles. Under pressure to match President Musharraf ideating, he came up with a few of his own.
Our leader writers were cautiously ecstatic, like daughters-in-law when told the mother-in-law has just arrived for a longish stay.
The Hindu said the "suggestions on the practical steps needed to move towards a resolution of the Kashmir dispute represent a major new political and diplomatic initiative by New Delhi." Note, however, it did not say `bold`. That adjective is reserved for Musharraf. But even `new` seemed a bit over the top considering Dr Singh repeated India`s old stand that progress on other issues had to be linked to Kashmir.
He made two suggestions. "The first was that both sides should begin a dialogue with the people in their areas of control "to improve the quality of governance" and give people on both sides "a greater chance of leading a life of dignity and self-respect." The second was that the governments of India and Pakistan should encourage the "two parts of Jammu and Kashmir" to "work out cooperative, consultative mechanisms so as to maximise the gains of cooperation in solving problems of social and economic development of the region."
The paper said this was the first time India had spoken officially of the need for such cross-border institutional and administrative mechanisms for linking Kashmiris across the Line of Control.
The Telegraph was laconic, which was just as well as it didn`t quite know what to say.. "Although unassumingly put, this is a vision of peace akin to his earlier image of the Siachen glacier as a mountain of peace. Metaphors for the prime minister are not empty words; they are words with a specific political purpose. By gently reminding Mr Musharraf that although he has done much, he still needs to do more about cross-border terrorism, Mr Singh has emphasized the practical purpose of his treaty of peace."
The Deccan Herald used an old trick. It said the Prime Minister had "injected dynamism into the Indo-Pak Composite Dialogue." What I have to say about this is not printable.
The Hindustan Times had a better handle on it. "There seems to be a new kind of one-upmanship being displayed by Islamabad and New Delhi. Essentially, this involves taking credit for pushing for sub-continental peace." It forbore to mention that it was all to please Uncle Sam. It did suggest, however, that Pakistan would not respond positively.
It was left to the Pioneer, as ever opposed to anything that the UPA government does or says, to go overboard in being critical. Indeed, it sounded so apoplectic that it would have been better off ignoring the whole thing. "There was no reason for the Prime Minister to offer such a treaty to Pakistan while flagging off a new bus service between Amritsar and Nankana Sahib… all this was offered to Pakistan without taking the people of India into confidence… the Congress does not have the mandate to so radically alter India`s Pakistan policy, nor does the UPA Government have the authority to bulldoze the country into accepting "out-of-the-box" solutions" and so on and on.
Maybe there was something in the offer at all if it angered the BJP sympathizers so much!
Contact: Darius.Nakhoonwala@gmail.com