In pure numbers, Indian troops easily outnumber those Pakistan have amassed on the border.
Diplomacy and foreign relations, however, don’t always play out as a reflection of the numbers on paper – or even on the ground – and here Pakistan has managed to outclass India at almost every turn.
While Indian leaders were making statements about defusing tension, Pakistan foreign secretary Jalil Abbas Jilani mounted a diplomatic offensive by going straight to US and European envoys to discuss the situation along the Line of Control.
In a direct attack on India’s position that border issues can only be solved through bilateral dialogue, Mr Jilani insisted that involving the envoys would help “de-escalate” tensions.
As if that weren’t enough, he summoned the Indian High Commissioner to demand a probe into what he claimed were “repeated violations” of the LoC ceasefire by Indian troops and reiterated an offer to have a UN observer group independently examine the situation.
The offer, and the claims of India’s ‘repeated’ violations, are deliberate attempts from Pakistan to turn their own provocation – the killing of two Indian jawans, and the decapitation of one of them – into a position of strength by internationalising the issue.
While this is to be expected, the more troubling situation has been the way India’s diplomatic corps have been forced into simply reacting to a series of proactive Pakistani moves.
Foreign minister Salman Khurshid, who has remained busy on his trip to France, insisted that the deaths of the jawans “must be explained.”
Meanwhile, foreign secretary Ranjan Mathai advised officials not to respond with “passion.”
While the practice of restraint is usually commendable on an explosive border, the foreign office must not allow this to turn into an invitation for the other side to do as they please under a shield of deniability – a situation that has become all too familiar for the Indian public over the last few years.
Fawning over Modi with an eye on the future
Four words might not have been uttered, but they appeared to be on the minds of everyone at yet another ‘Vibrant Gujarat’ summit – ‘New Delhi’ and ‘Prime Minister.’
Previous editions of the summit have, in fact, included allusions to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s potential to turn his statebased success into a nationwide venture.
This time, India Inc’s honchos chose to take a route that is more familiar to workers in the Congress party – sycophancy.
Anand Mahindra spoke of China one day aping the “Gujarat model of growth,” and Anil Ambani put Mr Modi as the fourth illustrious son of the state after Mahatma Gandhi, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Dhirubhai Ambani.
While this fawning has, in the past, been explained by the need for members of industry to appropriately appreciate a chief minister who has rolled out the red carpet for big business, the ‘Vibrant Gujarat’ stage is also the ideal place for India top executives to send an unambiguous message.
Although the path from Gandhinagar to New Delhi might have plenty of obstacles – both within his own party and within the overall polity – Mr Modi can rest assured that India Inc will do its part in clearing the way.
Steps taken for safety of women are inadequate
The Supreme Court’s observation that women continue to be unsafe in the capital despite the outrage that the recent gangrape incident had evoked needs to be taken with utmost seriousness by the authorities.
For, few days go by without a serious crime against a woman being reported in the capital.
This makes it clear that the steps initiated in the wake of the crime that shook the nation have been inadequate. In this context, the suggestions outlined in the public interest litigation which the apex court was hearing are worthy of consideration.
The court has also done well to issue a notice to the government on the propriety of the invasive ‘two-finger test’ conducted on rape victims.
With the law already barring questions regarding the character of a rape victim, there is a need to prohibit any practice that seeks to determine her sexual history.
Further, the petitioners have sought guidelines for provision of immediate ‘medico-legal assistance’ to rape victims.
As they pointed out, notwithstanding the SC’s 1995 order directing the establishment of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for immediate monetary relief to rape victims, little has changed at the ground level.
