NEW DELHI: Fortified by the approval unanimously given to it by the Congress to deal with the issue of ‘terrorism’ in Jammu & Kashmir, the government has decided for the time being to confine diplomatic measures and as a first measure asked Pakistani Ambassador Ashraf Jehangir Qazi to leave the country within a week.
The deputy high commissioner, Jaleel Abbas Jilani, who has been the medium of communication through whom the ministry of external affairs has been dealing, was summoned by the ministry and conveyed its decision to seek the withdrawal of Qazi as “a measure of parity with India.”
A spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs said that the action had been taken to convey India’s “disappointment” over Pakistan’s “continued lack of action” to cross-border terrorism as illustrated by the Jammu attack.
In the course of the debate on what India’s response should be on the hideous massacre in Jammu, there were many members who were highly critical of India’s response so far which had been ineffectual.
The leader of the opposition, Sonia Gandhi, while pledging her party’s support to the government, had been critical of its lack of being “comprehensive”. She was also of the view that “our diplomatic effort has been found wanting and the outrage has also exposed the weakness in our security apparatus.” She was forthright in her condemnation of Pakistan and described the Jammu incident as a “manifestation of the proxy war waged across the border”, and was clear that a large section of the Pakistani establishment did not want peace.
Many of the speakers were vocal in their condemnation of the wishy-washy attitude of the United States and urged the government not to rely on the US.
There were some members like the CPM leader Somnath Chatterjee, who cautioned against adopting a jingoistic overtone and wanted the government to weigh the consequences of all its actions in its response.
Home Minister L.K Advani refrained from spelling out the details of the strategy it proposed to adopt. He did, however, give facts and figures to demonstrate Pakistan’s complicity in the various incidents, and revealed that organizations such as the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Jaish-e-Mohammad had been allowed to be regroup by Pakistan.
Observers specializing in strategic affairs point out that by opting for diplomatic action, India wanted to convey its sensitivity to the United States to the ongoing struggle against ‘terrorism’ because it meant that India was anxious not to divide their attention by creating yet another war-like situation.
It remains yet to be seen what the next step would be in the nature of other diplomatic measures which may possibly include the abrogation of the Indus Water Treaty. Its going back on the Indus water treaty carries with it other international complications and might affect India’s relations with Bangladesh with whom also it has a treaty obligation of sharing Meghna river.
