If this story is to be believed, then Zardari might just become India's most loved Pakistani President. However, it seems rather odd that he would admit that "Pakistan nurtured terrorism." So far Pakistan has vehemently rejected supporting terrorists. India shouted itself hoarse, but no one seemed to believe that the Pakistani State had anything to do with terrorism in India. That Pakistan pursued it as a standard foreign policy decision.
While I am skeptical about the story, it does raise various questions. The first being, what is Zardari playing at? Following in Musharraf's footsteps? Or does he have a bigger game up his sleeve, one where admission of sponsoring terrorism is a small price to pay? Does this admission mean that Pakistan will be termed a State sponsor of terrorism? Or is it not an "official" enough admission? Will it mean fewer dollars to help Pakistan "fight the war on terror?" Will Western countries finally see Pakistan for what it is - a sponsor of terrorism? I seriously doubt anything of the sort will happen. At best Zardari will claim ignorance or out of context reporting. And things will go back to being as they were.
While the story was reported by the Indian media, I have been unable to find any traces of it anywhere else other than the Telegraph. Maybe they will pick it up tomorrow. Or maybe they will choose to ignore.
While I am skeptical about the story, it does raise various questions. The first being, what is Zardari playing at? Following in Musharraf's footsteps? Or does he have a bigger game up his sleeve, one where admission of sponsoring terrorism is a small price to pay? Does this admission mean that Pakistan will be termed a State sponsor of terrorism? Or is it not an "official" enough admission? Will it mean fewer dollars to help Pakistan "fight the war on terror?" Will Western countries finally see Pakistan for what it is - a sponsor of terrorism? I seriously doubt anything of the sort will happen. At best Zardari will claim ignorance or out of context reporting. And things will go back to being as they were.
While the story was reported by the Indian media, I have been unable to find any traces of it anywhere else other than the Telegraph. Maybe they will pick it up tomorrow. Or maybe they will choose to ignore.
Posts
2 comments:
It is actually quite interesting why this did not happen before. I am not talking of years before, but months. If you listen to any interview on Youtube that Late Benazir Bhhutto gave to international media including Indian media (ibn, ndtv), she was always outspoken and candid about these things. One could ask if she would have said the same after coming to power, but there is no reason to believe otherwise. I just wonder that why no one within Pak or International media never demanded or followed up on those statements from her. Or was there a disconnect between her and her husband on this?
I must say that the inference that Pakistan has been supporting terrorists is illogical.
Would Karnataka say, "Our state nurtured Veerappan"? Would an AIDS patient say, "My body supported and nurtured HIV"? I know a Telugu poet who once said, "A country is it's people, not its land." But when Zardari admitted that Pakistan nurtured and created terrorism, he didn't mean that the people of Pakistan did, but the lands of Pakistan were used and consumed by terrorists.
The only reason for his admission was that Pakistan has reached a point where it's helpless, and acceptance of gruesome reality is the best way to get external help. This is why Manmohan Singh, in his trumpet voice, is declaring that we should "trust but verify" Pakistan's commitment to fight terrorism.
Post a Comment