Opinion - Editorials

Spiting the law-abiding visitor

NOT CONTENT WITH the pursuing of a Pakistan policy that leads to nothing other than a dead-end, New Delhi has taken a step that will only serve to defeat India's longer term objectives. In deciding to restrict the movements of Pakistani visitors to a mere three cities, the Central Government has unnecessarily caused offence to people who are otherwise considered eligible for visas and who are likely to be the more keen that the relations between the two countries should be normal. If the reasons cited in justification of the step are set aside for the moment, it would appear that this measure is a part of the design to have Pakistan labelled a state sponsor of terrorism and its citizens as being intrinsically inclined to act against India's interests. Such an interpretation of New Delhi's decision appears to be not unsustainable when it has been taken in the course of several efforts to convince the global community to look at Pakistan through Indian glasses. The most recent effort in this regard was the statement by the Deputy Prime Minister, L. K. Advani, wherein he had asked the rest of the world to realise that the epicentre of terrorism had shifted from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Officials and intellectuals from other parts of the world — who are by no means ill-disposed towards India — had warned several times over the year during which the anti-Pakistan tirade has been conducted that India would do itself a disservice if it went for a maximalist approach. From the deafening silence with which India's rhetoric has been met in world capitals it would appear that the forebodings were accurate.

New Delhi gives the impression that it is not interested even in thinking of ways to resolve the stalemate with Pakistan — an impasse that is not without costs to India as well. But even if New Delhi's argument, that no talks can be held with Pakistan till cross-border terrorism is brought to an end, were to be accepted it is difficult to understand why the latest measure directed at the citizens of that country has been taken. Terrorists do not apply for visas to cross the border nor will such of them as come on false claims have any compunctions about violating the conditions of their entry permits. The vast majority of those who will suffer on account of the latest restrictions will be genuine travellers who for the most part cross the border to meet their relatives. It is not just the Pakistani visitors but their Indian relatives as well who will see these restrictions as an imposition they resent. As regards the Mohajirs (those who migrated from India and their descendants) in Pakistan, who will be the main if not sole victims of this imposition, can an argument be made that India does not require their goodwill. If it is the Indian argument — and it is not an argument without any basis — that hostility towards India is cultivated and nourished by a military dominated Pakistani establishment for its own purposes, then it surely stands to reason that effort must be made to show the citizens of Pakistan that Indians do not bear any intrinsic ill will towards them.

It is specious to argue that the decision to limit Pakistani visitors to three Indian cities is merely by way of reverting to the strict terms of the agreement between the two countries in respect of the issuance of passports. If India had unilaterally decided to expand the number of cities that could be visited to twelve it was surely done with a regard to the context. Indians visiting relatives in Pakistan will not, for the most part, have to go anywhere other than Karachi, Hyderabad or some other town in Sindh. On the other hand, the Mohajirs have migrated to Pakistan from all parts of India and have ties to their old homes. It is surely pointless to make law-abiding Pakistani visitors (and it is the job of state police forces to track down visa violators) and their relatives the victims of the political differences between the two countries.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu