How India lets itself slide down a slippery slope – Sheikh Rashid edition

Assymmetric apologism

Pakistan is on the offensive.

Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, unscrupulous-businessman/refugee-protector/terrorist-trainer/all the above, and of course, cabinet minister, has called it a test of India’s commitment to the peace process (linkthanks Manu). General Musharraf is expected to take up the matter on Sheikh Rashid’s behalf. All this after Pakistan brazenly violated the terms of the agreement that launched the ‘historic’ bus service.

India is treading softly, almost apologetically, signalling that it is unlikely to allow the controversial Kashmiri to make the bus journey across.

One will be forgiven for believing that it is India that has something to be apologetic about. Dr Manmohan Singh admitted that Pakistan had violated the terms of the Kashmir bus service agreement — but did nothing to indicate how his government would react. It will be crying shame if, so soon after one transgression, he allows another one.

Insisting on moral, legal and constitutional proprieties is not bureaucratic ‘babuspeak’ as some have come to criticize it. India is defined by its adherence to a constitutional system where rule-of-law is expected to prevail; Pakistan, by doctrines that are dreamt up whenever the necessity arises. In its bid to make peace with its troublesome neighbour, committing and tolerating flagrant violations of India’s own core values is self-defeating.

Related Link: Secular-Right on the Hurriyat’s visit.

3 thoughts on “How India lets itself slide down a slippery slope – Sheikh Rashid edition”

  1. And let us not forget that the idiots that rule India are planning on putting a vital gas pipeline through this sorry apology of a country. In the end, it is all Karma neh? India is ruled by morons and it is not surprising that a tin-pot dictatorship next door can make India look silly.

  2. India will go only so far before political compulsions stop the slide, rudely if necessary.

    If Pakistan could’ve been genuinely opened up for trade and cultural exchanges (like allowing in Indian films and TV channels for e.g.) then we could’ve shown this diplomatic ballyhoo to be some sorta success. As of now, we’ve nohting of note to show for this brouhaha.

  3. I am sorry for posting the comment here, but I recall reading on this blog about how economic forces forced India from protecting its National interests as it should. I guess this story (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1153141.cms) further adds to that theory.

    From the attacks to the Indian parliament to the Christmas day hijacking to Kandahar (and the subsequent release of some of the worst Kashmiri militants who were caught at great expense to the Indian army), India’s actions (or inaction) often betray a softness that defies any sensibility.

Comments are closed.