rediff.com
Skip to content


Shift in Pak attitude toward India

One striking feature of the shift in the Pakistani attitude toward India in the recent years is the ‘bipartisan consensus’ in that country over the imperative need for improving relations with India. The statement by the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif welcoming President Asif Zardari’s visit to India on Sunday underscores this amazing political reality. Sharif called the visit “a step in the right direction.” My mind went back to a not-too-distant past when the two mainstream political parties were locked in a zero-sum game over Pakistan’s relations with India. How much the India-Pakistan narrative has changed! 

The Pakistani discourse will increasingly make the hardliners in our country look moronic. I took part in a TV programme on the talks in Delhi on Sunday, and it turned out to be a comical experience. I wouldn’t be allowed to speak lest I probably rubbished what passes for informed discourse in our country regarding relations with Pakistan. The bewilderment is understandable — like when the train pulled out of the station and you’re left behind on the platform staring at its rear end. Watch the u-tube – Part 1 and Part 2.   

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with , , .


7 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. SK Anand says

    I think the Indian TV channels lack the maturity to cover sensitive aspects such as Foreign Affairs, Defence, and Economic Affairs. And that come from the fact that anchors would require a fair depth to inform the viewers and also involve in a discussion with the panelist.

    They are best equipped to cover a scam or an election or a political issue, where they get views and counter views and some background music effect.

  2. Saul says

    The Kashmir issue, the Durrand line, the Palestine issue, the Kurdish issue (placed between 3-4 countries) and numerous others- all these issues were left by the British with the intention of interfering in these countries in the future. Continuing the tradition of rivalries between nations of the same region serves the geopolitical interests of the West, and not Asia. This can be seen with the bounty which was put on Hafiz Saeeds head right before Pakistan and India had a meeting.

    If India was acting in its real interests, it would change its position on Afghanistan in order to develop good relations with the inevitable future government there (emphasis- it will not be Karzais). If Pakistan is acting in its true interest, then it will hold firm to closure of transit routes to NATO, and even go a step further, and cease all involvement in the NATO war in Afghanistan.

    This is assuming these nations are acting in their interest, and not the interest of the West.

    It is in the interest of regional nations to develop a common consensus against Western interference in the region whether that be by war in Afghanistan or steering others domestic, foreign, and economic policies.

  3. Johan says

    It would appear that, one, in the making is a very substantive improvement in relations between India and Pakistan and two, such an improvement is not pleasing to some vested interests*.

    BTW, concerning the unspeakably simple conduct of the supposed moderator of that TV discussion, one could not escape the impression that he was following instructions. Who funds that channel?

    *For those, in light of the world events, one may have to look even no further than 12047 kilometres away.

    http://distancecalculator.globefeed.com/World_Distance_Result.asp?fromplace=New%20Delhi%20%28Delhi,India%29

  4. Balaji says

    Sir, I saw your talk show. I remember when you were fighting for few secs and asking to be allowed to speak. Overall, I felt like egos were classing. May be you are over-judging the things and others are under-judging.

    One must remember, politicians (with their stupid plans and advice from IFS, IAS who were sitting in ACs/Delhi Darbar) devised various strategies, went for well known Accord and what not. It took 4-5 years for son of soil Late Mr. Beant Singh and KPS Gill to identify the root cause and crush the militancy.

    So, IFS and IAS may not be right every time. Such people mostly rely on secondary analysis (Reading newspapers and articles) etc.

    No offense meant !!!

    PS: I am regular reader of your blog.

  5. Balan Iyer says

    According to Aryn Baker,the famous columnist of Time Magazine,the Paki Civilian Govt is weak and spineless as nothing moves in Pakistan without the approval of Military.It is OK that the Civilian Govt wants to have a cosy and comfortable relationship with India;but does it meet the Military Approval?Remember Kargil Incident,post Nawaz Shariff-Vajpayee Samjotha Agreement.

  6. vimal singh says

    Never. All lies. Even if some want this in Pak, they can not bcos…. the forces in Pak are soo deply rooted in corruption and Terrorism they won;t allow.

  7. Ibne Ashfaque says

    Thanks Bhadrakumar. So long sane souls like yourself are around. I can at least dream of a day when Kashmir will be free of troops on either side of the line of control and will at least have autonomy to manage their local governments in peace and a person will casually take a bus from Delhi for Kabul via Lahore and Peshawar and hopefully the insanity at Siachen will have come to an end. God bless all.

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2014 Rediff.com India Limited. All rights Reserved.  
Terms of Use  |   Disclaimer  |   Feedback  |   Advertise with us