India, as the largest country in South Asia, has a stake in its viability. And for all the hostility in India-Pakistan rhetoric, which is aimed at domestic politics in the two countries in the backdrop of the protests in Kashmir, his visit underlined the attempt to separate the SAARC ministerial from bilateral relations with the hosts. This was, in fact, emphasized in advance with the clarification that Mr. Rajnath Singh would not have a bilateral meeting with his Pakistani counterpart on the sidelines. Rajnath desisted from playing to the gallery by maintaining the SAARC protocol of not referring to specific countries while talking of states that equate “terrorists to martyrs”.
Mr. Rajnath Singh played to a domestic constituency, keen on highlighting Pakistani snubs, by acknowledging in the Rajya Sabha on Friday reports of a “media blackout” during his visit. His explanation about returning to India without attending the lunch hosted by the Pakistani government because their minister gave it a miss was, “I did not go to Pakistan to have lunch.” This may, of course, be read variously, as a rebuff or as an indication that the lunch was immaterial to the larger purpose of the visit, but by not embedding his remarks, which included an aside on India’s tradition of hospitality, in a more nuanced road map for SAARC cooperation, the Minister has unnecessarily given play to pointless nitpicking. This tendency of matching Pakistani provocation with Indian retort is not always necessary. It can undermine India’s diplomatic effort to build a greater constituency for regional cooperation, not just in Pakistan but also in the other member countries. Having said this, the Pakistani establishment showed scant regard for bilateral relations by allowing terrorists wanted in this country to organise unchecked anti-India protests during Mr. Rajanth Singh’s visit. It is one thing to condemn this act of provocation but New Delhi should not allow such pettiness to defeat its larger objectives in the region.
Chaudhry Nisar called for respecting the fundamental rights of people and stressed that legitimate freedom struggles should not be suppressed in the name of the fight against terrorism. He called upon the countries from the region to differentiate between terrorism and freedom movements, sanctified by the UN Security Council, and observed that violence against freedom fighters in a disputed territory under Indian occupation was state-sponsored. He highlighted how Pakistan itself was one of the biggest victims of terrorism. “Instead of engaging in a blame-game and taking swipes at each other, we should take time out to reflect and sit together to try to work out the problems and reservations that we might harbour towards each other,” he remarked.
To conclude, I did find the chest-beating by the so-called “national” TV channels, unwarranted; some out did the other while describing “unbecoming” treatment meted out to Home Minister Rajnath Singh by his Pakistani hosts. The allegation that Indian media had been barred from attending the SAARC preparatory meeting too sounded more like someone going for the kill.
Having covered number of international conferences I have rarely seen the media being invited to sessions not declared open. Such conferences are routinely followed by
(a) A conference briefing by a designated official, and
(b) Delegation briefings conducted by respective spokesmen of the attending nations.
Since I wasn’t there, I am just curious. Was it the grouse that Indian media was barred while others were allowed to sit in at the closed-door session? Or, just that the Indians were singled out. In any case, in a surcharged atmosphere, with two countries, India and Bangladesh, accusing the host country of sponsoring terrorism, not much would have been missed.
By: Kuldeep Singh
