Pakistan: Now or Never?
Perspectives on Pakistan
India-Pakistan – cricket, spooks and peace
Email 
Print
“Cricket diplomacy” has always been one of the great staples of the relationship between India and Pakistan. The two countries have tried and failed before to use their shared enthusiasm for cricket to build bridges, right back to the days of Pakistan President Zia ul-Haq, if not earlier.
So when Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced last week that he was inviting Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani and President Asif Ali Zardari to watch the semi-finals of the Cricket World Cup in Mohali, India, the temptation was to dismiss it as an old idea.
Yes, it would be the first visit by a leader of either country to the other since the November 2008 attack on Mumbai. Yes, the invitation came at a time when relations between the two countries were already thawing. And yes, the Middle East is changing so fast that you would expect – in the way that warring siblings do — that India and Pakistan would bury their differences at a time when the outside world has become so unpredictable.
But the instinct for cynicism is unerring. India and Pakistan have tried and failed to make peace for so long that it is easy, lazily easy, to predict that this latest initiative will also come to nothing. Former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf, himself a participant in cricket diplomacy in 2005, wrote it off in 2000:
`”We have been trying all kinds of bus diplomacy and cricket diplomacy and everything. Why has all of it failed? It has failed because the core issue was not being addressed … because there is only one dispute, the Kashmir dispute … others are just aberrations, minor differences of opinion which can be resolved,” he told The Hindu in an interview in 2000.
Yet even after Mumbai, even after years of fighting over Kashmir, even after all the failed diplomatic initiatives of the past, I still found myself regularly checking on Google and Twitter to see whether Pakistan had accepted the invitation to the cricket match. When Zardari’s spokeswoman Farahnaz Ispahani announced on her Twitter feed that Gilani would be going to Mohali, the news was retweeted with the speed once reserved by traditional media for attendance at U.S.-Soviet summits.
Over the years, each time something like this has happened, enthusiasm about a breakthrough in India-Pakistan relations has been swiftly disabused.
Yet cynicism, lazy or otherwise, notwithstanding, there are a few reasons why we should allow for the possibility that this time might be different.
The first is Pakistan’s reassessment of its relationship with the United States. For years Pakistan has looked to America to bolster its defences against India. Yet America will never give Pakistan what it wants in terms of absolute loyalty. By definition, if you are in a “strategic relationship”, you expect your ally to take your side against your enemy. The United States, trying to straddle its alliance with Pakistan with its strategic and economic interests in India, can, and never will, do that.
And Pakistan, increasingly unwilling to put up with what it sees as bullying by the United States in return for financial aid, is arguably growing out of an unhealthy dependency. Nowadays, you hear arguments that Pakistan is a big country of some 170 million people which no longer wishes to be a supplicant to the United States, and which, as described by Pakistani journalist Mosharraf Zaidi, is discovering a new kind of nationalism. For Pakistan, achieving that independence from the United States is easier done if it is not also at loggerheads with India.
The second reason to think that this time might be different comes from an increasing understanding of the need to improve relations between the intelligence agencies of the two countries. Both the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency and the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW) are ultimately inheritors of a system set up by the British to maintain colonial rule and as such remain secretive and somewhat apart from the countries they serve.
Their ways of challenging each other, whether in Kashmir or Afghanistan, are so rarely debated in the media that we have little idea about what is going on in the behind-the-scenes battles between the ISI and R&AW.
In an interview earlier this year, Musharraf, speaking from his own experience of running Pakistan, was clear that an improvement in relations between the ISI and R&AW was needed.
“ISI and R&AW have always been confrontational, since 1948, since our inception,” he said. “This tit-for-tat has been going on over the last 60 years; both are to blame or not to blame; both should share responsibility for all that is happening.” Adding that it should not just be Pakistan that is blamed, he said, “It’s mutual. I think India and Pakistan need to sit down and stop this confrontation.”
B. Raman, formerly at R&AW, has made a not too dissimilar argument. Calling for the revival of past contacts between the ISI and R&AW, he wrote that, ”it has always been my view that such liaison contacts on a sustained basis may not lead to any substantive results, but will enable the officers of the two organisations to assess each other in flesh and blood instead of relying on source and media reports.”
The Times of India has meanwhile reported that India is keen to open a dialogue with the Pakistan Army and the ISI to ”open up new possibilities of deepening Indo-Pak engagement”. That would be a major departure for India, which has been very uncomfortable in the past about the idea of talking to the Pakistan Army during periods of democratic government. In a country where the military has always been subvervient to the civilian government, India has traditionally had strong reservations about acknowledging the power of the Pakistan Army in setting foreign and security policy. The Times of India report, if confirmed, and reciprocated, would represent a significant change in the ground rules of India-Pakistan dialogue.
All in all, given the many disappointments of the India-Pakistan peace process over the decades, I would assume that much work has already been done behind-the-scenes to prepare for the ”Mohali thaw”. So I’m not going to write it off as mere cricket diplomacy. It may be bigger than it looks.
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
-
Author Profile
-
If you read carefully, what B Raman said and what Musharaff said are not one and the same. B Raman agreeing with the idea of having real contacts between ISI and RAW is not the same as Musharaff spin (i.e lie) that ISI and RAW are to be equally blamed.
Indians should not get carried away by silly, meaningless pleasantries..Lahore Bus Yatra mentality should not lead to false sense of faith on Pak motives.
In the meantime there are 2 news items related to Pakistan floating around:
1) According to Musharraf, India is existential threat to Pakistan.
2) According to Interpol, Pakistan has issued an existential threat to Mushaaraf.
The difference between the past and now is that for this cricket match, a democratic leader from Pakistan is arriving. In the past it was a military dictator. I think if Pakistan continues with democratic government for another 25 years, things will change there. What has been lacking there is continuation of democratic exercise. They have never been allowed to play a long innings. Pakistani national politics resembles a 20/20 match whereas civilian rule is like a five day test match. It will be relatively boring and slow. But democratic innings is needed there. Tensions will come down slowly.
If Pakistan wins the match, I’d like them to hug their Indian counterparts and thank them for a great match. Likewise, I’d like the Indian cricketers to do the same if they win the game. The message from that gesture will bring a lot of goodwill that is badly needed. Both teams have to realize that friction has to be avoided and brotherly gestures have to be displayed. They are not only playing cricket there, diplomacy between the two countries and its future relies on how they handle the whole game. This is not a war. People should go out from the game with warm feelings, no matter who wins. It can be a turning point in the relationship between the people of the two countries if the right kind of gesture is shown by both teams.
Thanks for Mr. Geelani for accepting the invitation.
There is a third reason why there could be a real thaw. There could be a growing realisation in the Pakistani establishment that they have already lost to India. It may not be as obvious as in 1971, but it is conclusive and irreversible. Gen Kayani lamented a few months ago that true strategic depth is not Afghanistan but a strong economy. It’s a bit late to be fixing that. India is larger and growing faster. Anyone can now see that Pakistan is headed on the same trajectory that the USSR was on when it took on the US in an arms race. The country is on a fast track to bankruptcy.
Looking at the history of the subcontinent dispassionately, I must say the Pakistanis have been remarkably pigheaded about Kashmir, and have done nothing less than ruin their country in this hopeless quest. For all their ingenuity and dogged persistence, they have not succeeded in moving the Kashmir border an inch in 63 years, but have instead brought their country to the brink of economic and civil disaster in this time. They could have achieved so much more for themselves by cooperating with India than by being hostile. I think some realisation is finally dawning that Pakistan itself is more important than Kashmir, and if Pakistan disintegrates, then the Kashmir issue becomes academic.
So I’m sure they will start talking again, with increasing humility as time goes on. They’re pigheaded, but they’re not fools. Staring at reality for a prolonged period will surely bring about pragmatism.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
It is just for showing to international community that they are putting effort for peace. Nothing is going to happen. Go back to sleep.
India thinks that Pakistan is going to fall apart in short order and then they will rearrange things to their liking.
Good Luck.
The real question is where American stands on this?
Well, I appreciate Dr. Singh’s invitation to their counterparts in Pakistan, not in the hope of further peace process between two nations but at least they can sit and enjoy something together instead of playing blame game all the time. Both countries face threat from internal insurgency, corruption, price hike,poverty, unemployment, child labor, women exploitation and many more problems more severely than the conflicts between the two and both seems helpless against these issues. So in the wake of cricket i wish both countries forget their enmities for some time and share some lighter moments of joy.
One nation, One passion, Green team and a dream! Go Pakistan.
Well, Myra may have her hopes alive regarding relations between two countries. But Indians are mostly pessimistic about the new Initiative taken by PrimeMinister Manmohan singh to invite Pakistan’s Heads (seemingly political heads) to the Cricket match.
But if you go through the weak leaks or any independent sources, it is clear that Mr.Singh is completely isolated from other Political class and Foreign policy experts regarding the detente with pakistan.
For one, There is an understanding in the security establishment in India that even after two years after mumbai attacks pakistan is still in state of denial regarding source of attacks. Even though Pak Government may offer some explainations and reassurances that it will investigate the matter. we are still waiting to see anything solid on this count.
Secondly, with large part of popular media,politicians and military generals not reconciling to the fact that attacks were perpetrated from pakistan and popular beliefs against any movement forward, it is likely that this invitation may well fail to offer anything new.
Also, India’s security establishment is cautious to talk to pakistan at a time when the country has gone even more
radical with the murder of moderate politicians and offering any unilateral concession by India will only embolden those elements and encourage them for more attacks.
Finally, It is clear that any detente with pakistan is subject of extreme hostility for some elements in pakistan that any normal relations with the country may resume the attacks on India.
Although talking to the Army is a good begginning, Author’s belief that both Intelligence agencies are equally to blame is imprudent as RAW is completely under civilian control and has limited Human Intelligence operations whereas the ISI clearly works independent of Civil or military policies which was realized by even americans to their dismay.
“India thinks that Pakistan is going to fall apart”
—
For one article in Indian media about potential of Pakistan falling apart, there are 10 articles in Western media, and 20 articles in Pakistani media about Pakistan potentially falling apart.
The REAL question is not “where Americans stand on this”, but WHERE PAK ARMY/ISI STAND ON THIS!
It is interesting to observe a trend here. Indian posters have wished for a thaw in the relations and some kind of a miraculous change for good. Pakistanis have either expressed hopelessness or utter disregard for any warm gestures. Like vicarious enjoyment of a Hindi movie hero bashing up 20 guys, I think Pakistanis enjoy beating India through cricket matches at least. To them it seems like an extension of the conflict they have with India on all fronts. There is not even a reciprocation of goodwill. It is important for people to be sensible before we expect establishments to reflect our feelings.
Unless attitudes change, hope cannot be realized. I am hoping that through this cricket match, more diplomatic and people-people level interactions increase to restore some kind of a peace that had developed prior to the Mumbai attacks.
Americans have been warning about another set of terrorist attacks. Hope the terrorists’ attempts fail so that a new era of peace can be started in South Asia.
I saw this youtube video yesterday. This is an interview of an Indian journalist who spent sometime in Islamabad. At some point during the interview, the indian journalists points directly at the emotional nature of Pakistanis where they jump to sweeping conclusions without facts. This includes even journalists. I do not know how Pak media is reacting to the upcoming match at Mohali.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKZ18gQVS go
I think this match is low investmnent/high return situation. Given India-Pakistan history, there is high probability that this will improve the relations or at worst no harm done.
“I saw this youtube video yesterday. This is an interview of an Indian journalist who spent sometime in Islamabad.”
***
Long video have not seen yet. But sure Pakistan talk show host Mohtarama is HOT, with all due respect to women.
Kpsingh01:At some point during the interview, the indian journalists points directly at the emotional nature of Pakistanis where they jump to sweeping conclusions without facts.
Well not just Pakistan,but entire south Asian psyche is emotional in nature. If you look at the way Nehru had taken decisions based on his belief of people rather than institutions we would not have the problem of kashmir. Nehru believed so much in Sheikh Abdullah that he did not realize that sheikh is demanding a completely different treaty of accession for kashmir (Read Article 370) and his naive belief of chinese benignity which eventually lead to 1962 embarassment (and of course his even naive socialistic policies). The only person with real politic was Indira Gandhi (and perhaps P.v, Narsimha Rao). Even Rajiv and Vajpayee were less mortals of emotional thinking. Even when intelligence was available to India that Pak was going nuclear Morarji stubbornly refused to act naively underestimating their capabilities.
well Although I am not against any talks, they should begin with some realpolitik in mind and not on emotional offer or acceptance of inviting to cricket matches. No matter what kind of bonhomie is reached. Long standing disputes can only begin with taking the Process forward and this process should stand on reciprocity and nothing else. Trust is strengthened by reciprocity and not by friendly gestures which can only turn more sour if something goes wrong.
Also, A little pity that even People like KPSingh01 who abide by the idea of real politik start to get emotional that something positive is gonna happen by this invitation and rather forgetting for a moment, the gigantic task that the pakistani state has to battle its own monsters.
I watched this video and my take is that Nirupa is trying to be nice but not open. She was defensive thru out. She was looking for facts on river flows that Indian establishment holds. Interesting anyway.
Sensiblepatriot:
“Well not just Pakistan,but entire south Asian psyche is emotional in nature.”
Agreed. It is this emotional nature that has led our people to betray each other and offer our heads to outsiders just to settle scores.
“If you look at the way Nehru had taken decisions based on his belief of people rather than institutions we would not have the problem of kashmir.”
No arguments there either. I am still trying to understand why Nehru back tracked on Kashmir. He was a very open minded and secular person. In the case of Kashmir, I guess his attachment to the place of his origin overwhelmed him. No one knows.
“The only person with real politic was Indira Gandhi”
She was ruthless and cold blooded. No one could read her mind. But she was leading the country towards self destruction.
“Even Rajiv and Vajpayee were less mortals of emotional thinking.”
Rajeev was highly inexperienced. He walked into the trap that Jeyawardhane had laid for him in Sri Lanka and paid the price for it at the end. His mother would not have done that. Vajpayee is a very good man at heart. But for Musharraf’s untimely venture in Kargil, he would have accomplished a lot for both countries.
“Even when intelligence was available to India that Pak was going nuclear Morarji stubbornly refused to act naively underestimating their capabilities.”
Morarji was being accused of being an American supporter and “agent” to some. He clashed with George Fernandes who
wanted Coca Cola and IBM thrown out of the country. The latter succeeded in his mission.
“well Although I am not against any talks, they should begin with some realpolitik in mind and not on emotional offer or acceptance of inviting to cricket matches.”
There is no other option available. People sometimes come forward and agree to bury all hatchets after a tragedy or a celebration. It happens a lot between family members. Long standing issues get resolved through a wedding or someone’s death that resulted due to the feud.
“Long standing disputes can only begin with taking the Process forward and this process should stand on reciprocity and nothing else. Trust is strengthened by reciprocity and not by friendly gestures which can only turn more sour if something goes wrong.”
Everything has to start somewhere. This occasion can be one.
“Also, A little pity that even People like KPSingh01 who abide by the idea of real politik start to get emotional that something positive is gonna happen by this invitation and rather forgetting for a moment, the gigantic task that the pakistani state has to battle its own monsters.”
A small key is all needed to open a large door. One does not have to break the door down. This cricket match is like a small key. One never knows how the emotions will play out after the match. If Pakistan wins, they must hold the final in Colombo instead of Mumbai because the Shiv Sena might riot. If India wins, there is a possibility of LeT terror attack in Mumbai, which can reset everything back to square one. Let us see how things go. I always look at the glass that is half full.
KP
Nice video. TV Host was making lots of assumptions and was so certain about them and treating those assumptions as factual.
Matrixx
I agree the journalist Nirupa (in the video link by KP) was not open on CERTAIN issues. But I do not agree you with her being not open on river flow into Pakistan. Neither lady was having clue about river water. Pakistan lady was making assumptions floating around and Indian lady Nirupa said she does not have facts and figures so she cannot say.
My impression on water issue is that it is a vicious propaganda in Pakistan in the absence of evidence and evidence is easy to get if India is “stealing water”. News similar to “India stops water, no drinking water/Agriculture water, babies dying” is sold so easily.
Forgot the name of the Pakistani guy, who really knows water issues, says India is doing none of that.
I am wondering was there a time when India could not hold on to its share of water and water flowing downstream into Pakistan, and Pakistan taking advantage of that.
WE should use restraint in swallowing such news.
Matrixx: “She was defensive thru out. She was looking for facts on river flows that Indian establishment holds. Interesting anyway.”
She was being careful not to stir up any emotions with the hosts. She played her cards well. And she corrected the host by saying that conclusions cannot be drawn without facts on hand. That is the right thing for a journalist to do. Facts are important from both sides of the issue. She was quoting poor monsoon, which could have led to limited water supply into Pakistan. I’d like to see more interviews of this kind on TV in both countries. I’d like to see Zaid Hamid, Shiv Sena’s Bal Thackery, Advani and LeT chief Hafiz Seed on the same stage arguing with each other. That will be even better than an India-Pakistan cricket match.
KP Singh said:
> I’d like to see Zaid Hamid, Shiv Sena’s Bal Thackery, Advani and LeT chief Hafiz Seed on the same stage arguing with each other. That will be even better than an India-Pakistan cricket match.
That would be “doughnut politics” of the kind seen in the US today. Everyone is on one extreme or the other, and there is no one in the middle. We need more people in the middle if any real progress is to be made.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Ganesh: “We need more people in the middle if any real progress is to be made.”
It is not for the middle folks. We must make these guys clash so that people get to see how warped they are and why they should think for themselves.
Rehmat,
I like to see rainfall, river flow, storage data from GOI if they are honest. Why is it so difficult? Water is a big issue, so don’t push it under the rug.
” I like to see rainfall, river flow, storage data from GOI if they are honest”
=
Every one has their own priorities
Global suppliers of paper for printing currency report that GOP purchases lot more currency paper than it seems to need for its own currency.
There is a press in Quetta set aside to print high quality Indian currency, flooded into India through Nepal, Bangaldesh and Gulf. GOI is interested in knowing more details
GOI is also interested in the whereabouts of terrorists living in Karachi wanted for murdering unarmed civilians in India who are living under ISI protection.
GOI has enough data, but still seeks more data on flow at terrorist training camps. Data, Data, Data…every one needs data:-)
Matrixx
Sure, Water is a sensitive matter–within a country (Indian states have issues and so does Pakistan) or between countries.
I bet the data you are asking is with Pakistan already. Only technical experts from India and Pakistan know the issue. Politicians give statements for gullible public and media, which does not let the truth come out.
Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit said India is not honoring the Indus water treaty. In the past, Indus Water Committee Commissioner Syed Jamaat Ali Shah said India is not violating the treaty (read interview in the HIndu; news in Dawn is inaccessible now). here is the link:
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/intervie w/article443956.ece
Between Basit and Shah, I will pick Shah as trustworthy source on water issues.
Shah gave that comment in June 2010 and was removed from his post later that year. see here:
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/pakistan -news/National/15-Dec-2010/Indus-Water-C ommissioner-removed
I do not know the reason why. But he has been in this post for 17yrs. I can connect the dots, cautiously.
There is nothing unusual about the positions of India on the Indus water treaty. With expanding populations, there is water scarcity everywhere. There are disputes within Pakistan, within India between upper riparian and lower riparian disputants.
India has been following the spirit of Indus Water Treaty.
This is not the case with Pakistan. With tail between his legs ZA Bhutto signed the following in 1971:
{{{{(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance of encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peaceful and harmonious relations; }}}}
He/Pakistan kept their word. So it is kind of silly to talk about India violating treaty, etc.
Guys hold one minute. We are talking about Nirupa, you top journalist in Islamabad. You should educate her on one of the major issues of interest in Islamabad. She is the one who needs facts but who is going to give her facts?
Currency paper prices or quantity is not related to issues at hand. Give her the data any way.
Terrorism is not related to issues at hand. Give her the data any way.
Internal water distribution is not related to issues at hand. Give her the data any way.
So what were we talking about???
According to the Indus water treaty, India gets 20% of the water and Pakistan gets 80%. I may be a bit naive here, but wouldn’t 50-50 be a fairer split? Why is it Pakistan that is complaining and not India?
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
@Ganesh
“Why is it Pakistan that is complaining and not India?”
Because we have had too many emotional fools heading PMO in India. And this latest act of inviting a lameduck puppet PM of Pakistan by our own lameduck puppet Indian PM is just hilarious. What is Singh trying to achieve here. Is inviting Gilani going to solve anything? He cannot resolve any issues in 10 years for he is just a puppet and dishes out such emotional acts. This cricket encounter will lead to more trouble than peace if Pakistan loses the match. Their interior minister is already suspicious of their players involved in fixing and that is supposed to boost morale of their team…huh?? There will be artillery firing on border if pakistan loses for that has been the trend, so can Gilani stop that response this time?? If not then what’s the use of inviting him?? He is not the one who has any say in Pakistan.
Here is an excellent article on real-politic impacting India and Pakistan. I like Prasad and Singh to read it and comment on it ( take it as a complement ).
http://www.eurasiareview.com/pakistans-g eopolitical-dilema-china-or-us-viewpoint -from-pakistan-analysis-22032011/#commen t-86852
I’ll be adding my extension and observation in a day or so.
Although I was not invited to comment, I will post it any way
Khan A. Sufyan is a Lahore-based ISI analyst. His column in Eurasia review on “view point” of Pakistan regurgitates and rehashes the now well known, worn out delusions of Pakistan-the security state. PA/ISI grandiose delusions on “Pak-China axis ” will mean diddly-squat since Pakistan’s economic stature, and internal cohesion are in tatters.
This is not some sort of temporary set back for Pakistan. “alliance” with China will not lead to a grandiose “pak-china axis” as the ISI analyst opines…..I mean deludes….
Rather the “axis” will resemble the “China-North Korea” axis.
Matrixx: “I like Prasad and Singh to read it and comment on it ( take it as a complement ).”
The article sounds as though someone like Umair wrote it. I do not see anything new in it. It is the same flour that has been ground over and over again – India surrounding Pakistan, India being unable to exert its dominance over Pakistan, US is clueless, China is the greatest ally of all etc. I am surprised he did not bring in India’s thousand consulates in Afghanistan, TTP being supported by RAW, Kashmir, Indus water etc. May be when he runs out of ideas, he would mix these old spice into the grinder and churn out yet another article.
There is nothing new in it absolutely. Basically it gives the impression of Pakistanis wanting India and the US to look like losers, while Pakistan coming out of all issues without getting harmed and China carrying Pakistan off in its high horse. We know and have read these useless lamentations from various Pakistani authors and people.
However, falling into China’s hands is dangerous. Any country that China brings under its influence resembles Burma or North Korea. China did not even lift a little finger to help Japan during the recent disaster. If it really wants to be a world power and a leader at that, it needs to take charitable actions. Only then the world will look up to China. If refugees are given an option to choose between China and the US, they will prefer the US without a question. For that matter, if they are offered to choose between China and India, they would still opt for India. That is the image China created about itself. Any country cozying up with China will be trampled soon if not sooner.
And China is where it is not because of its own innovation or creativity. It is there because of the huge American market that supported it and sustained. Without American help, China would never have made it to where it is. Normal nations would have a sense of gratitude. But Chinese have shown their true colors – they take and only take. They do not give. When they give, it is for taking more. Remember this fact.
Matrixx said:
> I like Prasad and Singh to read it and comment on it ( take it as a complement ).
Thanks for the compliment. I agree with the main contextual statement made by Khan Sufyan in his article:
“Pakistan therefore sits at the cross-roads of strategic interests of major world powers – an unenviable predicament or an enviable opportunity!”
I think this is a question on which the jury is still out. The next few years will tell whether Pakistan is able to walk this tightrope to its own benefit. Certainly the Raymond Davis episode has shown that Pakistan holds a few cards of its own when dealing with a superpower, but one cannot be too complacent. Large and powerful countries have bigger margins of error, so the situation could be very different over the long term.
The sections on India are full of wishful thinking, I’m afraid. Surely if the pivotal role that Pakistan has is such a strategic advantage, shouldn’t India have an even bigger one? After all, it has been discussed by geopolitical strategists for many years that India holds the balance of power between the Core Powers (Russia, China and Iran) and the Peripheral Powers (the West). By playing them off against each other, India can gain tremendous advantages. There is no recognition of these parallels in this article, which indicates bias. This may be understandable in an average Pakistani blogger or private citizen, but an analyst must at least consider and address such obvious points.
I’m also surprised that although the author comes close to recognising the Chinese strategy, he doesn’t quite get its negative implications for Pakistan. Yes, the Chinese are developing the Western part of their country and trying to bring prosperity to the 300 million people who live in that region. This much the author recognises. But he remains blind to what is happening under his very nose, so to speak. China treats Pakistan as just the host country for the Karakoram-Gwadar expressway which is intended to get Chinese goods to the Arabian sea in the quickest and most economical manner possible, whence they can be shipped worldwide. Along the way, Chinese goods are hollowing out the local Pakistani industry, as can be seen from the balance of trade deficit that Pakistan has. If the relationship with China was benefiting Pakistan, then this should have been a surplus. I’m not talking about raw materials. Does China encourage Pakistani industry by importing finished goods of any kind? Pakistan enjoys a balance of trade surplus with the US and Europe and is seeking to deepen that advantage given the flood crisis of last year. The Chinese have shown no equivalent support, which is why the Pakistani blind spot towards that country is so surprising.
I believe China will destroy whatever is left of Pakistan’s industry by flooding the economy with cheaper goods. It’s only distrust that prevents Pakistan from aligning its economy with a country (India) that can deliver genuine benefit to both economies. It’s a real pity. I have no idea how long this blind spot will last.
Ah well, history has a way of playing itself out, and we will be able to verify the perspicacity of such articles in a few years.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Some of the Key Points in the Article pointed by matrix which I would put below and the other points the author seemed to miss out.
1.Also, the Americans soon realized Indian inability to replace Pakistan’s strategic influence in its backyard. This also solidified the fact that the geo-politically influenced strategic pivot provided by Pakistan could not and would not be replaced by India, no matter how powerful India may be”- the Author is forcibly putting a point saying India cannot replace Pakistan, no matter what the Author has understood, The point is Indians cannot replace Pakistani’s for two reasons. Firstly, India cannot stoop too low to become a lackey of US, When the Americans say we cannot fill the place of Pakistani’s it effectively also means that Americans cannot expect India to act as a complete client state.
secondly, If America cannot itself fight a raging perpetual insurgency eminating from pakistan and directed at American propped by Afghanistan with almost no political and democratic institutions. How can India do that and no dishonour in accepting that.
But the Question is, has pakistan gained anything by becoming an unwilling ally in this war. I’ve seen pakistanis naively pointing it out the billion dollars of aid that swept their coffers, but forgot the socio-political cost the war has imposed on the pakistani society.
And just like the African states drugged to the foreign aid becoming a disincentive in strengthening local political institutions,economy and foreign relations, one wonders whether the cost being paid by pakistani state for this “strategic victory” over india is worth.
2.”Many believe that India is a regional power, yet they fail to realize the fact that its regional prowess can only be exercised against nations as small and vulnerable as Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Maldives and Bangladesh”.-one wonders whether author still lives in colonial era where states were coerced by foreign powers.
He conveniently ties bangladesh to srilanka and calls it a small state ignoring bangladesh is almost as big as pakistan in population. The Author does not realize that these neighbouring states are friendly towards India because of their own self interests and not for any kindness or fear.
Also, there was a time when Srilanka and Bangladesh were hostile to India and after the realization of their wrong policies, they have corrected their course. Nepal will follow suit if it has its national interests in mind.
3.India may become a strong economic power and be able to generate fair bit of economic influence in all those countries which are its trading partners and may also be able to exercise fair bit of negativity against Pakistan and China in this domain. However, it’s overall power projection and generation of influence in the key regions would still remain limited unless it drastically improves relations with both Pakistan and China. It also highlights the importance of strategic nature of Pak-China relationship – Just a little analysis shows that just as China used North Korea for Geo stragetic entanglement (or straitjacket)of South Korea and Japan. It used the pakistan for the same purpose and the underlying compulsion for both the client states of China are same; their interminable hatred of others.
If there is any strategic region lost by India, it is the northern areas which geographically connected Afghanistan and India knows there is no point in crying for spilled milk. Central Asian states do know that Big powers are competing for their oil and will never allow a singly hegemon to control all their oil and hence their fate. This is the most significant point the author has missed in his analysis. It is true pakistan has influence in this region but the influence is disruptive in nature and just as bangladesh,srilanka and maldives realized they will realize the gameplan of pakistani state too. I believe the market of 1.5 billion (our population likely be in 2 decades) for their resource is too mouth watering to lose out.
In the early nineties Pakistan’s economy was a fifth of the Indian economy and because of its “strategic victories” over india it has fallen to 1/7 th in 2008 and will fall to 10th in the next fiscal year. I wish pakistan more such “strategic victories”.
To all people of goodwill:
As promised, here is my take on Khan a Sufyan article:
http://www.eurasiareview.com/pakistans-g eopolitical-dilema-china-or-us-viewpoint -from-pakistan-analysis-22032011/#commen t-86852
It is a good review of American project for South-central Asia and it has been works since early ninties after the demise of Soviet Union. It was the time for “New world order”, “New American century” and “Full spectrum dominance”. There were other grand concepts as to how world should be shaped under American leadership and guidance. There was the European Union and recasting NATO as global security organization. The alliance for democracy and color revolutions had their day in the sun. Then there was 911 and the application of shock and awe. Here we are twenty years later, properly awed; perhaps ready to take stock world we live in.
We live in a world where international law is in shambles, the concept of state as agreed in treaty of Westphalia is no more, United Nations is laughing stock of the world, human rights have more acceptance so is the case with torture. Technology and communication are the bright spots helping the masses. Coming back to American project, it is quite simple in fact. It is to have corporate state structure like it was built in Japan and very successfully. It is being done in China, as we speak. If it is repeated in other countries, they can also share the prosperity with their people. This is what American leadership provides and also assures full spectrum dominance. What is your problem? Japanese mushroom clouds, any one!
Countries are states no more, they are markets and resources. If you have good products, consumers will break you door to get it. The resources are labor and commodities. It is natural commodities that are in greater demand. Just look at wages against prices of natural commodities. So, nobody wants to take over highly populated countries, just only those with natural resources.
In South Asia, India has been blocked by Pakistan and then America has blocked Pakistan from free access to energy resources, and that flow is allowed to West only. Both countries need significant amount of energy for their economic growth. There was the solution of Nuclear energy but after Fukushima it is doubtful proposition for densely populated countries.
Despite all the issues between India and Pakistan, here is an issue where they should tell NATO to unblock the flows of energy to the area. Does India have the guts? This is my proposal to both sides and even half brains could understand.
All comments are welcome.
Is there a way to watch India-Pakistan match on internet?
Matrixx,
I will extend what you said. The West’s reputation lies in tatters. They are no longer a referee (if they ever were). They are a player like everyone else, with equally soiled hands. Much as they would like to project themselves as adults maintaining order in the playground, they’re just bigger kids often acting like bullies.
With the simultaneous drop in both Western moral standing and their relative economic strength, the world has entered a new period of uncertainty and instability. Not that this is a bad thing. Smaller players are jostling for space and influence. Alliances are shifting. The world will be a different place by 2020.
Pakistan is playing the role of spoiler. Their strength lies in their ability to deny what others seek unless they are appeased. This is a dangerous role to play, as any loss of influence will translate swiftly into retribution. In this respect, they are vulnerable to tipping points that arise from gradual and imperceptible trends, such as the increasing importance of India to China, or the gradual hardening in the US attitude. Some shocks could be in store when those tipping points are crossed.
China is still largely conservative. Their problem is that the world wants to ride on the back of their economic rise and therefore has a stake in it, but whenever they flex their growing muscle, the rest of the world unites against them. They are still working out their strategy to minimise opposition to their rise.
India has not yet learned to use its power. The country is still timidly tiptoeing its way around old power structures, unwilling to push aside the more rotting ones to make space for itself. But the confidence of the new generation of Indians will soon translate into bolder state action as demographic change sweeps through all the organs of the state.
Russia and Iran are wild cards. Russia is getting richer, but its governance is awful and alcoholism has ravaged the potential of its people. Iran has many friends but also many enemies. If their green revolution reboots and succeeds in its second try, they could be a natural ally of India and help to form a Russia-Iran-India triumvirate. The three states do not have any natural conflict of interests. It’s only Iran’s current hardline Islamist ideology that keeps it an outcast. That could change soon.
All in all, it is an interesting time.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
“Pakistan is playing the role of spoiler. Their strength lies in their ability to deny what others seek unless they are appeased.”
Posted by prasadgc
==
Actually it goes beyond that when you think about it. When a country conducts itself like a suicide bomber, obviously the opposing party will have very little leverage. This is what they mean, when they say India has not been able to exert its influence over Pakistan.
A normal, non-ideological country will worry about trade benefits, economic consequences of perpetual confrontation against a larger neighbor. Not so in the case of the militant security state where they feel they are “blocking” India’s economic growth.
90% of India’s interest on Pakistan is related to how to protect, prevent against terrorism, and tackling it, attempting to discourage Pakistan without hampering economic growth inside India. Other issues are trivial, peripheral.
Pakistan’s ability to block a land route to C.Asia is an inconvenience, but this is not as much of a big deal, as paks would like to believe and would like Indians to believe. Developing Chabahar port in Iran is one solution.
netizen: “Actually it goes beyond that when you think about it. When a country conducts itself like a suicide bomber, obviously the opposing party will have very little leverage. This is what they mean, when they say India has not been able to exert its influence over Pakistan.”
Spot on. I think this kind of attitude arises from false pride and the inability to swallow it. They have a lot of talented and intelligent people. But working together is a problem. Only a common enemy and the pride associated with looking down upon that enemy unites them. And it gets reflected in all walks of life, including cricket. Left to themselves they fight each other and the team just falls apart more often than achieve anything. As soon as India is in the picture, something unites them like iron files by a magnet. One can feel that burning sensation arising from them. Uniting by relying on a common enemy is like steroid. It weakens the system much faster. If they had a common goal of progress instead of an enemy, they would have done very well. In the case of India, we are all not all that united either. But we have a common goal instead of relying on a common enemy. This is something they do not see. They see us reflecting their attitude without realizing that we do not look at them that way. For us, their unnecessary paranoia and hindrance is an irritant more than anything else. If they had left us alone after they got their country, we wouldn’t even think about them. But they need an enemy to keep their country going and it has taken them to where they are now.
KPSingh01:”Only a common enemy and the pride associated with looking down upon that enemy unites them”.
I believe the definition of “enemy” for Pakistani state (the politico-military-mullah establishment) is more obscure than anything we have seen.
For a section of society which is whole lot conservative (religious mullahs), the anger towards India may be because they see us as Infidels. But if this is the sole theological hatred then that should also push their boundary of hatred to china too, who are offcially atheists (and with atheist culture thoroughly embedded). There cannot be belief that India is more infidel and china is a lesser infide, well Infidel is an Infidel right!
For a section of society which forms the basic political class,the anger towards India was because in their perception we treat the minorities in a demeaning way. But the case is same for all countries(including its own) and more so with china which represses the uighur people. May be these guys think our numbers of repressed minorities are larger in our case, but have they missed the point that Chinese Xinjiang province is bigger than our kashmir in size and population (or the tears are only for land grab).
For a section of society which forms the miltary complex of Pakistan who understand the strategic issues better, Have they realized that US,its Afghan insurgency into pakistan and extreme dependence on chinese has undermined their country more than India.
Thinking of the above scenarios I was at loss to understand why this hatred is perpetuated by the state and I realize that Pakistani state is an Insecure state which needs the bogey of some enemy to keep the Country united. The Question is if the relations between two nations would become better tomorrow (or whenever it will be). Wont the same political class with feudalistic roots be questioned by the masses for serious governance deficit?
Wont the military which cannibalised most of states resouces be questioned by the masses for serious foreign policy and strategic blunders?
Wont the religious mullahs with perverted and regressive ideas be questioned by the masses for perverting religion,defaming their people and destroying their social lives?
(I did not add schizophrenic media which is an effect of exiting faultlines)
And without taking the above groups into confidence, will the relations improve? and with India’s own hawks (chidambaram was being brought to the table with kicking and dragging his feet) the Prime Minister had begun this detente with very limited political capital. I really hope for a miracle for it to succeed.
An excellent analysis by Myra! A very good feel too at this juncture. Pakistan is well advised to keep her diplomcy more in tune now with India, Russia, China,Brazil and Germany from Europe(if it must) and not with the USA, France and UK, who have taken the first step towards the third world war intheir brutal military attack on Libya. We are now in the new time zone of Geo strategic changes when the industry need for oil and renewal energy is likely to increase rapidly. W are witnessing the fall of the great industrial country, and the Arabian people struggle for dignity which was denied themby their dictator leaders with support of the successive American and European Govts over the past several decades and today these powrs want to direct these movements simply to deny the supply of oil to China and perhaps India and have even appointed an oil agent for the libyan oil or any future oil country where the people’s revolution becomes violent.
Indian Govt. have chosen the neutrality and it is time Pakistan follow the same to avoid libyan like disaster in its country. You have a passionless kenyan technocrat sitting in the USA and war mongers from the right occupying the European Govts.
I know from this blog that both Indians(most citizens of Western countries) and Pakistans have very constrained compassion towards each others misfortunes ut perhaps this is the time that the Govts should keep cool and in my view Pakistan Govt. can learn a lot from the current Indian Govt. diplomacy!
Rex Minor
The beginning has to involve the US. The US must make aid to Pakistan contingent on it stopping its training and funding of terrorists.
This cricket match clearly shows Pakistan’s potential. With so many road blocks and issues in their cricket, they are still producing one of the finest cricketers in the world. Imagine if this potential was turned in the direction of constructive development. They have already demonstrated that they can make nukes with almost no infrastructure to make even bicycles. Unfortunately all potential is being wasted towards wrong things. I think Pakistan will win this game, the way it is going and even if they lose, it will be a very close one. Pakistan badly needs a positive result from this match to bring back its national confidence. I hope they build from there on and choose the right path. There should be a clear understanding at that point that India is not the enemy anymore. I’d like relationship to build from here so that we all can move on with our lives and goals.
I think Pakistan will win this game
=
Oh well India just won
“There should be a clear understanding at that point that India is not the enemy anymore.”
=
Easier said than done. The entire edifice is based on victimhood, confrontation and falsehoods.
The option of peaceful co-existence has always been available to Pakistan. It has never been possible. Many Indians (unfortunately) say and write things (including here) that there are “hawks” in Inda also and that’s why there is no peace.
The truth is Indian actions have always been reactive towards Pakistan. Before 1971, PA army had launched war twice and was financing, and etending logistic support to militant groups from erstwhile E Pakistan. Each time hoping there will be a change of heart/course on the other side.
The game just got over. India has won. However, I salute the Pakistan team for making this match worthy of a memorable win. I wish India and Pakistan met in the final instead of the semi final. May be next time.
I now want goodwill to start from here on the diplomatic front.
Interesting posts but some incorrect and stereotypical conclusions about our motivations. Pakistanis don’t hate India or Indians. The hostilities are due to Kashmir. There is a feeling of great sense of injustice at Pakistan being deprived of Kashmir vis-a-vis other princely states. There is a feeling of anger at the brutal subjugation of ‘our people’ brothers and sisters in Kashmir. Finally, there is a feeling of helplessness about not being able to do anything about it militarily or politically.
As you can imagine, those are 3 very powerful emotions and the basis for our animosity towards the republic of india. I certainly don’t expect you to agree with these sentiments but these are undoubtedly the core drivers of Pakistani actions.
There is to my knowledge no other basis i.e. “bogey, pan-islamic-delusions, land-grab, kaffiricide, state sponsored hate-literature, existentialist threat” etc.
“There is a feeling of anger at the brutal subjugation of ‘our people’ brothers and sisters in Kashmir. Finally, there is a feeling of helplessness about not being able to do anything about it militarily or politically.”
Separation of East Pakistan should be closer in memory than Kashmir, which predates it. If Pakistan is able to accept Bangladesh, I do not understand why it cannot accept the status quo in Kashmir. And it is Pakistan that did not respect the UN resolution of 1948, which required all Pakistani military and non-military personnel to be evicted from all of Kashmir as a pre-condition before the plebiscite. Pakistan refused and has held Azad Kashmir. Six decades have gone by and Kashmir seems to be a simple excuse for Pakistan’s governing bodies to divert public attention away from their lack of efforts to develop the nation.
As far “brothers and sisters” being subjugated, it is not as bad as being projected. If people riot and throw stones, tear gas, batons and bullets are the norm everywhere. And many of these riots seem to be staged and controlled by vested groups in Pakistan.
If you are so much shedding tears about your brothers and sisters in Kashmir, you must do the same for the brothers and sisters in Balochistan which your military and ISI are brutally holding under siege. See the recent reference here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar /29/balochistan-pakistans-secret-dirty- war
No one is an angel. Pot cannot call the kettle black. So let us move on. I am hopeful that Geelani and Manmohan Singh will build a new future through diplomatic efforts that will eventually help Kashmiris.
This (cricket diplomacy) could bring about goodwill & cooperation between India & Pakistan. I already see some postive reciprocation by Pakistan like inviting Indian officials investigating Mumbai attacks to visit Pakistan & releasing some Indian prisoners. I hope both countries can build on this initiative.
Congrats to India for winning the game. It was the first live cricket game that I saw in more than a decade & thoroughly enjoyed it. Pakistanis must be disapppointed but their team did well under the circumstances AND don’t forget that it’s just a game.
KP Singh,
My response was to SensiblePatriot’s assumptions about pakistan’s belligerent posture towards India. I do agree with the Indians on the impact of the Indo-centric approach but not the presumed root causes.
I care deeply for Baluchis and all the misgoverned people of my country. However, in the context of our discussion, Balochistan is not similar to Kashmir as a international, political or territorial dispute. It is not similar in the magnitude or continuity or severity of violence, suppression, subjugation. You have given one link, I could give you a thousand reports from just amnesty international. Still, I absolutely condemn our actions in Baluchistan as I think all Pakistanis should.
I thought the theory of Kashmiri’s liberation struggle is staged by ISI was discredited even by Indian scholars. btw, Kashmiri liberation struggle predates the creation of Pak/Ind.
While I genuinely commend your desire for peace, the proposal to build a new future by pretending core issues are ‘so last year’ is wishful at best. A powerful neighbor dictating its terms for peace is not diplomacy; it is hegemony.
I suspect you think our concern for Kashmiris is insincere. Since you are already cognizant of my thoughts, my words will only be a waste of your valuable time.
@shoaibo
Assuming that your concern for Kahmiris is genuine, what do you think about the fact that some credible polls have concluded that Kashmiris are averse to being a part of Pakistan at least as much as they are, to being a part of India (if not more)? Under such circumstances would you support independence of Kashmir from both India & Pakistan (with Pakistan giving up AJK & GB)?
Rex,
What are “constrained compassions”?
Shoaibo,
Thanks very much for your calm and analytical listing of the roots of the problem as seen from the Pakistani side.
> The hostilities are due to Kashmir. [1] There is a feeling of great sense of injustice at Pakistan being deprived of Kashmir vis-a-vis other princely states. [2] There is a feeling of anger at the brutal subjugation of ‘our people’ brothers and sisters in Kashmir. [3] Finally, there is a feeling of helplessness about not being able to do anything about it militarily or politically.
This is probably one of the best enunciations of the Pakistani viewpoint.
My personal belief is that in 1947, Pakistan did have a prima facie case for Kashmir because of the opposite parallels to Junagadh and Hyderabad. However, two factors have led to the current impasse – military action by Pakistan in 47-48, and a refusal to withdraw from PoK, which was a pre-condition to holding a UN-conducted plebiscite. I still think if Pakistan had chosen the path of peace and protested the Kashmir case without resort to violence, the issue may have been settled within a decade, in the fifties itself. Ten years may seem a long time, but now we have seen 63 years go by without a solution in sight. A Gandhi-style agitation would have done more for the Pakistani cause than all the wars and belligerence. After all, Indian civil society has been fairly reasonable. Before the Mumbai 2008 attack, we had even begun to see articles by prominent Indian journalists and opinion-makers (not just Arundhati Roy but people like Swaminathan Aiyer, Jug Suraiya and Vir Sanghvi) arguing for “letting Kashmir go”. Then the Mumbai attack happened and Indian attitudes hardened, perhaps irrevocably. My favourite analogy here is the bet between the Sun and the Wind. The Wind tried hard to blow a man’s jacket off, but he only held on tighter. But when the Sun shone and it became warm, the man took off his jacket by himself. Pakistan followed a very counterproductive strategy to the point that Indian attitudes have hardened a very great deal. After Mumbai 2008, very many Indians would now be averse to making any concessions to Pakistan on Kashmir. It would be seen as succumbing to terrorist blackmail. If Pakistan had been a friendly country throughout and never initiated any hostilities, then Indian civil society would have accepted a transfer of Kashmir much more readily, and a long time ago. Today, the best that we can hope for is a freezing of the LoC as the border. It is the only realistic solution, and Pakistanis will have to accept that. Perhaps after a few decades of peace, the border will become irrelevant, as PM Manmohan Singh hopes, and then we will have some semblance of a united Kashmir and both countries more or less satisfied. But today, this is where we are, unfortunately. In my opinion, the situation is of Pakistan’s making, because the same cause could have been pursued very differently with very different results.
To me, the moral of the story is that a smaller player must not resort to violence even in a just cause, as they just ruin their chances.
> As you can imagine, those are 3 very powerful emotions and the basis for our animosity towards the republic of india. I certainly don’t expect you to agree with these sentiments but these are undoubtedly the core drivers of Pakistani actions.
> There is to my knowledge no other basis i.e. “bogey, pan-islamic-delusions, land-grab, kaffiricide, state sponsored hate-literature, existentialist threat” etc.
I do have one question here, which is whether the solution to the Kashmir problem will make the India-Pakistan relationship hunky-dory, or whether another problem will then take its place due to some deeper issues we have not considered. Many analysts have talked about the need for identity on the part of Pakistan, and the consequent striving to be the “un-India”. Is this true, and will this quest for a separate identity continue to be a barrier to good relations? I have also asked here before about fear of India’s cultural and economic domination (as opposed to a military threat), but no Pakistani has answered me. These may be something you need to think about as well.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
There is to my knowledge no other basis i.e. “bogey, pan-islamic-delusions, land-grab, kaffiricide, state sponsored hate-literature, existentialist threat” etcPosted by shoaibo
==
We can discuss differences of opinions, differences in interpretation of history and so on. But blatant lies as in this write up should be pointed out.
There are many lies written by shoaibo, but let’s take one of them: “There is no hate sponsored hate literature”.
When you have ensured ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Pakistan, and gurantee 3rd class citizenship to minorities, what is the need for “educating” with “pakistan studies” year after year in school and in college about evils of Hindu society, other than to indulge in “state sponsored hate literature”?
http://www.sdpi.org/whats_new/reporton/S tate%20of%20Curr&TextBooks.pdf
The class 4 text book states: The religion of the Hindus did not teach them good things — Hindus did not respect women…
Another book tells the students: Hindus worship in temples which are very narrow and dark places, where they worship idols. Only one person can enter the temple at a time.
For another, the Hindus as a monolith were always cunning, scheming, and conspiring to deprive the Muslims of their due rights.. The Hindus always desired to crush the Muslims as a nation. Several attempts were made by the Hindus to erase the Muslim culture and civilization
Shoaibo,
A further complication is that the Kashmir issue started off as a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan, but along the way, as there has been more attention paid to the aspirations of the Kashmiris themselves, an independent Kashmir has become a third option, much to the discomfort of the two original parties to the dispute. The plebsicite according to the original UN resolution does not include the option of independence, which many today would say is a fatal flaw in it, even if that plebiscite were to be held. [According to what I have read, it was Pakistan that lobbied the UN to have the independence clause removed from the plebiscite resolution.]
Yet another complication is the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri Pundits, which will skew the results of any plebiscite to India’s disadvantage, since the Pundits would likely vote for India.
Finally, there is the question of whether (on the Indian side) Jammu and Ladakh should have their own independent plebiscites and be allowed to choose their destiny independently of the Kashmir Valley. There are good humanitarian arguments for this, and the recent plight of religious minorities in Pakistan strengthens these arguments. In such a case, the most that Pakistan can hope to gain from India is the Kashmir Valley. From India’s perspective, if this will not satisfy many in Pakistan and hostilities will only continue, then the sacrifice of territory will not be worth it, so why even bother?
It is therefore a very complicated situation. However, if we are able to talk about the issue and all its confronting aspects without calling each other names, we may one day get somewhere.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Netizen,
I suggest you don’t go on the attack immediately by calling Shoaibo a liar, even if you disagree with what he said. It spoils the atmosphere unnecessarily, and this has been a constant problem on this blog and elsewhere. He has been courteous and as Indians, we should respond in good faith. We can drive a strong argument without personal attacks.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad