Opinion The Urdu Press: Pak Action
This is a triumph for Indian diplomacy as it has forced Pakistan to act.
-
Share -
-
-
Roznama Khabrain, in an editorial on January 15, writes: “By taking strong action against the Jaish-e-Muhammad chief, Maulana Masood Azhar, and other suspicious elements, Pakistan has given an indication that it is not in a position to sustain its past attitude to terrorism… This is a triumph for Indian diplomacy as it has forced Pakistan to act. Indeed, the US too has played an important role in this context… Narendra Modi’s visit to Lahore, India’s extraordinary spirit of patience and perseverance following the Pathankot attack, and positive indications from Pakistan are signals that now the move towards dialogue and peace is not going to stop. No incident now can affect such a resolve. Both countries have to appreciate the wishes of the people and realise which way leads to their welfare… The Congress and other opposition parties have to read the writing on the wall. It’s not necessary to oppose every move of the government.”
Inquilab, in its January 16 editorial, writes: “Despite restrictions against elements like the JeM, these players are active. This is enough to conclude that Pakistan is not serious about putting an end to terrorism. We have to be cautious because, in Pakistan, there’s not a single centre of power and the army, too, is equally relevant in decisions made by the government, irrespective of Pakistani PM Nawaz Sharif’s indications of seriousness…”
Saudi-Iran Conflict
Siasat, in an editorial on January 8, writes: “The confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran… has caused great disappointment in Muslim countries, particularly in the poorer Muslim countries… It was the task of the Islamic coordination conference to call an emergency meeting and try to end the differences between the two big oil-rich countries. But it’s a silent spectator… Iran, which had shown the light and power of Islam through an Islamic revolution against the US, should not now weaken it by creating divisions between Arab and non-Arab compartments…”
The Jamaat-e-Islami’s Daawat, in its main frontpage commentary on January 10, writes: “The history of conflict between the Arabs and Persians is very old… Following the advent of Islam, this gulf had ended to a large extent. But as soon as there was the emergence of Shiaism, the gulf reappeared… and got widened… There’s now a danger of a civil war between the Shia and Sunni populations of the region, leading to the success of the strategy of the West and Israel to pit Muslims against each other and weaken them.”
Munsif, in its editorial on the same day, writes: “There’s a need to understand the motive of the enemies [of Islam] who want to break up the West Asian region… This would be beneficial only for Israel, ironically, at a time when there are signs of a change in world opinion regarding the Zionist country and most European countries, even the Vatican, have recognised the Palestinian state.”
Death of an Innocent
Inquilab, in its editorial on January 20, writes: “Reports so far suggest that the crime of the late Rohith Vemula… was simply that he had a sensitive mind, had the courage to raise his voice against tyranny… His suicide note is very painful… His statement that his birth was the biggest tragedy of his life can be treated as a preface to the long history of oppression of backward sections and Dalits… A struggle against the system along with a struggle for the punishment of those guilty of pushing him to suicide is necessary.”
Roznama Khabrain, in its editorial on the same day, writes: “Politics is being played with Rohith’s death… It seems Rohith’s name will be exploited for a long time and there will be pleas for getting him justice. The Central government will be called an enemy of Dalits. But the question is not of government but of mindset. Change of government does not change mindsets.”
-
Share
-
-
-
Share
