Zardari has stated that India poses no threat to Pakistan and that Islamabad was not intimidated by its international influence. Its very and only thruth which zardari mentioned as, its obvious that India may not need now to direct interven to poses threat as her tradition, while A-A zardari is there enough to be initiated on india's agenda "deal"
During the same interview to a leading US magazine, Zadari has described militants operating in Kashmir as
'terrorists'. Till now, every Pakistani leader has described these people as
'freedom fighters'. In yet another diversion from the past.
If these words mean a change in Pakistan's policies vis-a-vis its neighbour to the east, they could be immensely significant (not least the fact that in all likelihood it runs counter to the thinking still in currency at GHQ). For the past many decades, indeed since 1947 and the violent birth of the country, Pakistan's strategy in Kashmir has revolved around backing the freedom struggle in the Indian-held territory. A number of
'jihadi' groups have taken centre stage in this. The Pakistani establishment has always distinguished these forces from
militants engaged in
terrorism, although the line of distinction has become increasingly hazy over time. Certainly,
Zardari seems to be lumping Al Qaeda, the Taliban and the 'jihadis' all together when he uses the term 'terrorist'. Although these organizations have maintained a lower profile since 2003, following a pact between Islamabad and New Delhi, the outfits themselves have been allowed largely to remain intact. Indeed, India has recently complained militants are again being sent across the LoC.
It has yet to be seen how Zardari and the new government handle relations with India. Judging from his most recent remarks (and developments such as a reported move to review alleged Indian spy Sarabjit Singh's death-row case), the president seems eager to build new, closer bonds with India and put behind the acrimony of the past. He has, in previous comments, also stated the democratic government is eager to resolve the issue of Kashmir. This of course, as former president Musharraf found, is a task fraught with very many difficulties. The latest storm of protests in Indian-held Kashmir against oppression by the army is ample evidence of this. Kashmiris, denied their right to determine their own destiny for over six decades, have a right to feel aggrieved.
But if the Pakistan government can overcome the odds and move towards some kind of settlement, or even towards a more stable relationship with India, this will be a huge service to both countries and their people. To achieve this, dealing with militancy is a pre-requisite. The bomb blasts across India, most recently in the small town of Gauhati, have only added to the deep sense of mistrust which has periodically marred relations.
If Mr Zardari is to follow up on his words, he must indeed work towards developing closer links with India, tackling cross-border militancy, urging India to end repression in Kashmir and stop backing & funding for creating chaos in Baluchistan and FATA, setting in place the stones on which to build a new relationship.
These are all huge tasks, but with will and commitment they can be attained.
We must then hope the president means what he says.
