Author: Editorial
Publication: The Indian Express
Date: June 25, 2005
URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/archive_full_story.php?content_id=73231
Introduction: With independent Pakistanis
corroborating the charges, the case against him appears convincing
The Government of India's decision
to deny Pakistan's Information Minister Sheikh Rashid a visa to travel
to India is entirely understandable. It is clear that Sheikh Rashid has
to answer some serious allegations that he ran terrorist camps aimed against
India once Yasin Malik blew his cover. The allegations against him acquire
even more plausibility in light of the fact that independent Pakistani
journalists, and no less a figure than General Aslam Beg, seem to be corroborating
the charges.
There is, however, a silver lining
in this affair. For once, Pakistani society seems to be having a candid
discussion of who exactly was involved in terrorist operations against
India. The fact that individuals are being named suggests that the issue
of terrorism can no longer be swept under foggy abstractions like support
for the Kashmiri people. Arguments can be raised against India's uncompromising
stand. Some fear that such a stand would risk jeopardising the gains of
the peace process. But this fear is overstated. Pakistan has routinely
denied Indian politicians visas, yet the process continues. On the contrary,
dealing with the issue forthrightly could help consolidate the peace process.
It could be argued that large sections of the Pakistani establishment,
including General Musharraf during Kargil, have been complicit in violent
activities in India. If, for the sake of the peace process, we are willing
to engage with them, why single out Sheikh Rashid? There are also serious
political difficulties that will stand in the way of Pakistan confronting
its own past. Also politically punishing those who abetted terrorism may
make hardline elements within the Pakistan government even less willing
to compromise for fear of being targeted.
But while these considerations are
important, they do not amount to a convincing case for granting Sheikh
Rashid a visa. His case is different in two respects. This is a case where
specific allegations rather than general innuendos have been brought forward.
Pakistan can do a lot more to clear the air on those allegations. But,
more importantly, Sheikh Rashid could himself have done more to convince
that Indian government that whatever his past record, he now genuinely
disavows support to terrorism in any shape or form. General Musharraf,
it must be noted, has claimed to have had a change of heart. If Sheikh
Rashid had demonstrated convincingly that he can contribute to the dismantling
of the terrorism machinery, there may have been some room for compromise.
Simply denying that he was involved is not good enough.
