Harsh response

India’s reaction to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s speech before the UN General Assembly, seeking measures to reduce tensions between the two nations has been a harsh one – even harsher than expected. Nawaz Sharif’s four points suggesting a ceasefire along the LoC, an end to threats by either country, and the demilitarisation of Kashmir and Siachen have all been rejected by Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj who addressed the General Assembly. She insisted, using the strongest of language, that only one point was necessary: the end of militancy and terrorism. This is something we have heard before. The accusation has come again and again from India. It is counterproductive in so many ways. Nobody wants terrorism to progress, but it would be much easier to bring it under control if New Delhi agreed to enter into meaningful dialogue with Islamabad. Its refusal to do so and its deliberately antagonistic stance are simply making things worse. The Prime Minister’s adviser on National Security, Sartaj Aziz, has responded in kind saying that India’s refusal to talk means the dossier highlighting India’s alleged involvement in Pakistan would now not be handed over to it.
PM Nawaz Sharif has said that the dossier has already been shared with the world, and the response from other world leaders will be extremely important to Pakistan. It is becoming obvious we need some kind of intervention, from the UN or from allies to help break a deadlock with India which grows uglier and uglier by the day, with Sushma Swaraj also using language that would be interpreted as offensive by almost all neutral onlookers. It is also clear that India has many problems on its home front. Protests staged in New York during the General Assembly session by Kashmiris, Sikhs and Gujratis all highlighted this. They called for a redressal of their own varying grievances and raised slogans against the Indian state and its actions. It is clear then that India faces

considerable unrest at home. Pakistan cannot be held responsible for all of this or for fuelling the displeasure with the Modi government. It had been hoped that the UN forum would prove a place for Pakistan and India to move towards greater friendship and also a rational look at their problems. There had even been talk of a meeting on the sidelines between the two prime ministers. This of course did not happen. Modi did not show up to address the General Assembly at all and there was no meeting to discuss the many mutual issues that can only be settled through dialogue. The fact that there is no other solution except talks is something New Delhi needs to recognise. It is clear from Swaraj’s address that India is nowhere near comprehending this; this lack of understanding of course raises further concerns about the future of the region. Nawaz Sharif’s four suggestions were logical. They were certainly worth considering. It is unfortunate they were given no thought at all but simply thrust aside amidst a flurry of words which can only add to the animosity that has already ruined relations between the two South Asian neighbours.