process.
attack alive. Indeed on this issue their reporting stands to the right of Fox news.
When I arrived at the New York Palace Hotel Sunday morning to cover the Foreign Minister’s meeting I made myself comfortable at the ‘media holding room’. Soon after an NDTV correspondent arrived who very bluntly told me that Pakistanis are not allowed in this Indian venue. Well, I waited patiently and other Pakistanis, Indians and Americans soon joined us.
No one was expecting any breakthroughs- and none were delivered. When I asked the Indian Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna if he would characterize his talks as ‘positive’, he responded that the meeting was ‘useful’, but did not elaborate on his dialogue with his Pakistani counterpart. He was abundantly clear that India continues to see ‘groups and individuals in Pakistan’ as a threat.
The Indian delegation was dismissive of the Pakistani media- no contact was allowed. Even the Foreign Secretary was not accessible.
When we came to Roosevelt Hotel to attend Pakistani Foreign Minister’s press conference Foreign Minister Qureshi reminded us that India confined the discussion “ to one issue, that is, terrorism in Mumbai.”
This ‘single issue’ negotiation is rather dangerous. India, it seems, is digging its heel deeper in the sand. Pakistan wants to be flexible but at the same time can’t appear to be losing ground. If not handled carefully this issue can soon become intractable.
The Indian media had made the ‘Mumbai attack’ an irreducible, high-stakes, win-lose issue that does not even have a zone of possible agreement. The Indian government had acceded to the pressure and painted themselves in a box; they see no "way out" because any "solution" would require giving up a perceived “value,” as defined by a jingoistic Indian media.
Indian negotiators understand that intractability of this conflict is doing substantial harm, yet they are unable to extricate themselves. This is because the media (specifically Indian TV) has made it such an emotional issue that any amount of flexibility will have political cost. Let us remind the Indian government that intractability is a perception, not a firm characteristic. They
have the power to change course: elected officials often need to take courageous, unpopular measures for the larger, long-term interests. If a conflict is seen to be moving beyond intractability, then more credibility is given to the peace builders, the people on both sides and in the middle who are trying to broker some kind of agreement.
We don’t need to deny that the “Mumbai attack” has the potential of becoming an intractable conflict, instead we need an image of a "way out," not necessarily substantive, but at least procedural. That is why I asked Pakistan Foreign Minister Qureshi what is the next
milestone. Instead of telling us anything concrete he launched into a lecture of how Pakistan wants peace and stability: wonderful rhetoric that is meaningless without a plan.
I was disappointed because I was hoping Krishna and Qureshi would at least identify the next few steps, even if a full resolution cannot soon be found. It is unfortunate that the two Foreign Ministers walked away from table without even setting up a procedural next step.
I am hoping that in November when the Indian and Pakistani Prime Ministers meet at the sidelines of the Commonwealth Head of States meeting in Trinidad, they will come with open mind. I am also hoping that India will demonstrate the magnanimity expected from a more powerful, more prosperous state, and will stop using the Mumbai attack to distract attention from issues like water, Kashmir, Indian involvement in Baluchistan, among others. Finally I am hoping that Pakistan will take action against characters like Hafiz Saeed and demonstrate to the world a clear strategic shift; a departure from a strategy that entailed using non-military
foot soldiers like LeT.
Ibrahim Sajid Malick is a Pakistani-American writer, technologist, and social entrepreneur. He has been writing on Pakistani society and politics since 1986. He has held several media, communications, and technology positions for organizations large and small. Mr. Malick graduated from New School for Social Research with a master’s degree in anthropology. He holds several technology and management certifications. He works for a leading technology firm and blogs at www.ibrahimsajidmalick.com
That is our stand point and honestly we feel there is no point in discusiing anything with u ppl.
We Indians should rather work on our own security rather than waste time talking to u.
I think love for peace should not be one-sided and should not cost one nation its dignity. If Indians really want peace too then why dont they come clean on Kashmir, Bangal (now Bangladesh), Indian Gujrat, running a terrorist outfit in guise of Embassy in Afghanistan, Balochistan, burning alive of innocent travellers in a civilian train by an on-duty indian army officer.
The list of “Indian peace efforts” is huge and our apologetic attitude is further isolating us in the world. We should have courage to highlight these indian peace efforts in the world instead of apologising for nothing.
I also think talks are useless and we should be prepared for anything that they throw on our way.
Mr. Malick… nice as it is to see a rational Pakistani voice as yours… see the comments of Abeer and Amit. Guess that defines the prevailing sentiment on either side. But believe me hardnosing is an art young India is getting adept at seeing that softness has got us nowhere till date… blaming Indian media alone would be questioning the thinking capacities of us Indians… which I can say with conviction is not so bad… I think the fact that Pakistan is always able to get away with anything and everything too has played its part. And inaction from both sides to move forward is only going to make it tougher.
The problem as I see it is that hawks on both sides have been able to get the better of rational moderate voices… and unless these voices begin to get more assertive in shaping the national policies of both nations, peaceful coexistence will remain an elusive dream for generations to come.
Mr Malick u seem to be losing out on one point that atleast we agreed to come down on a table in the aftermath of the attack and let me tell u that even the meeting between the two foreign ministers was a unpopular decision in India I don’t think anybody wants a conflict on the either side of border but don’t you think Indians be them Muslims or Hindus have had enough of this cross border terrorism, terrorizing all and maligning a religion just because of some idiot and nobody may deny that most of radical groups as you may like them to sound are operating from the Pak occupied land and if Pak is ready to hold the rights why aren’t they ready to take responsibility and act against these radical groups if you want peace at all what is the big deal all India asks is a crack down, why dont u guys take it up as an major opportunity to show your dedication against the hard-liners i actually feel that your views are out of context looking up at the present scenario had you said all that just a decade ago most of the Indians would have agreed but in today’s scenario we are ready to talk only if you are ready to show off your dedications outside the American scope of work
Kashmir, Bangal (now Bangladesh), Indian Gujrat, running a terrorist outfit in guise of Embassy in Afghanistan, Balochistan, burning alive of innocent travellers in a civilian train by an on-duty indian army officer
What?
How’s your family? buy nolvadex low cost http://www.stumbleupon.com/stumbler/med-brother/ buy clomid and nolvadex online Happy birthday to you!
How do you do? buy gerneric nolvadex buy cheap nolvadex online
buy nolvadex online Happy birthday to you!