India and Pakistan: practising peace

April 3, 2011

gi

Given the history of India and Pakistan, it is easy to be sceptical about the chances of their latest peace initiative. So let’s start with the positives.

Unlike past peace efforts which have veered between ill-prepared personal initiatives by political leaders and technical talks between bureaucrats which foundered for lack of direction from the top, the current phase combines the two.  Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s impromptu  invitation to his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani to watch last week’s India-Pakistan cricket semi-final coincided with the resumption of the first structured dialogue between the two countries since the November 2008 attacks on Mumbai.  The foreign secretaries, or top diplomats, of India and Pakistan met in Thimphu, Bhutan in February.  In talks last week, the home secretaries of the two countries made progress in coordinating their investigations into the Mumbai attacks; the trade secretaries are expected to meet soon, as are the defence secretaries.

Moreover, the Indian prime minister is personally committed to pursuing peace in the time he has left before a national election due by 2014.  And while last year he was isolated even within his own party in his enthusiasm for peace - an idea that still lingers in some quarters - his  initiative  appears to enjoy the support of powerful Congress party president Sonia Gandhi. Outlook magazine, writing about his cricket diplomacy, noted that Singh was flanked by Gandhi and her son and prime-minister- in-waiting, Rahul Gandhi, when he welcomed Gilani on his first official visit to India.

The Pakistan Army, which dominates foreign and security policy in Pakistan, has also been slowly reassessing its approach to Islamist militants it once nurtured for use against India as they slip increasingly out of its control. How far that reassessment goes is open to debate;  but few doubt that Gilani would have accepted Singh’s invitation to India to explore peace talks had this not been endorsed by the army.

All that said, sceptics have history on their side when they argue that the latest attempt at peace-making will fail.  Militants, including those allied with al Qaeda, have an interest in disrupting peace talks, using an attack on India to stir up fears of war on Pakistan’s eastern border and take pressure off them on its western border with Afghanistan.  If talks are not to be sabotaged – particularly at a time when militant groups in Pakistan are fragmenting and some of their cadres  sucked into the orbit of al Qaeda – both countries would need to overcome distrust enough to share intelligence to prevent another big attack.

Singh’s peace initiative also has powerful opponents within the Indian establishment, who are well placed to whip up an already jingoistic media if they think he is going too far.  Bharat Karnad, from the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, wrote that the Pakistan Army appeared to have decided to favour talks with India for now. ”The question is can India capitalise on what seems to be rethinking underway in the Pakistan Army?  Alas, there is surprisingly less give here than is generally assumed,” he wrote. “This is because India’s Pakistan policy is hostage to the petty calculations of the political class in the country and powerful ministries within the Indian government with vested interest in portraying Pakistan as menace.”

And making matters even more complicated, the problems between India and Pakistan have been worsening over the years — in particular both are now bickering over their shared rivers as rising populations and poor resource management leave them facing both water scarcity and flooding. The risk now, as underlined by Cyril Almeida at Dawn, is that “the already fiendishly complex relationship may collapse under the weight of `new` problems if the `old` ones aren`t resolved first.”

So the question is not really whether the peace process will succeed or fail in some kind of absolute sense (you can stack up arguments on either side of that debate), but rather about the speed at which talks progress. They need to move fast enough to build constituencies for peace on both sides of the border, but not so fast that they trigger a backlash.

Some relatively minor (at least relative to the big intractables) confidence-building measures may be possible. One would be a relaxation of visa restrictions to allow more contact between people of the two countries. Another could be the unilateral opening up of the Indian market to Pakistani goods without insisting on reciprocity - the relative size of the two economies makes it somewhat easier for India to absorb trade from Pakistan than the other way around. And given that even the prospect of improved trade with India helped drive up prices on the Karachi stock exchange last week, this kind of unilateral concession by India would be hard for hawks in Pakistan to turn down.

There is also some talk of building contacts between the Indian and Pakistani militaries and their intelligence agencies to reduce distrust.  That would be tricky from an institutional point of view – the Indian and Pakistani armies play very different roles in both countries – but possible on an informal basis if the political will is there.  ”Two possible initiatives that come to my mind are an invitation to General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, Pakistan’s Chief of the Army Staff (COAS), to pay an official visit to India and exchanges of visits by senior military officers of the two countries.” wrote B. Raman, formerly at India’s R&AW intelligence agency. “We already have such exchanges with the Chinese Army. We are none the worse for it. There is no reason why we should not have such exchanges with the Pakistan Army.”

A third possibility, promoted by some analysts, is that India and Pakistan focus on narrowing their differences over Afghanistan with the aim of easing distrust  in order to build momentum for a broader peace process.  There are already some indications that the rivalry between the two in Afghanistan is easing. India has been somewhat circumspect about expanding its role in Afghanistan over the last couple of years;  Pakistani officials talk increasingly of seeking a neutral and stable Afghanistan rather than a friendly and stable Afghanistan. That said, to rely on an easing of tensions over Afghanistan to underpin a broader peace process would leave them both hostage to fortune in a war whose outcome is highly unpredictable.

Ultimately — and this is where it will get very tricky if the peace process is to become irreversible – the two countries would need to tackle the big issues, including the future of Jammu and Kashmir.

Indian Prime Minister Singh and former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf made considerable progress in resolving the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir, the former princely state which has been divided between the two countries since independence in 1947.  Under a formula worked out by their envoys in secret back-channel talks by 2006/2007, the two countries agreed that there would be no redrawing of borders, but that borders would become irrelevant.  The agreement foundered in part because Musharraf became embroiled in political problems at home which eventually forced him to step down.

Yet many details of that accord had yet to be worked out and even Musharraf admits that it would have taken a great deal of political courage from leaders on both sides of the border  to translate that agreement in principle into reality.

One dispute whose resolution is frequently cited as a possible stepping stone to a  broader peace deal is that over Siachen, the world’s highest battlefield, which lies in the mountainous, uninhabited edges of Jammu and Kashmir.  The armies of India and Pakistan have fought each other in the mountains above the Siachen glacier since 1984, and despite a ceasefire agreed in 2003, their troops remain there, often posted at altitudes above 18,000 feet.

The technical details of a deal on Siachen were agreed years ago and many in both countries acknowledge it was a war which should never have been fought. If Singh were to accept Gilani’s invitation to visit Pakistan, an agreement on Siachen could in theory given him something of substance to announce there.

Siachen, however, does not exist in isolation.  Even since India and Pakistan fought a limited war in 1999 in the mountains above Kargil — which lies on the road linking the Kashmir Valley to Ladakh and the access route to Siachen – the battle over the world’s highest battlefield has become inextricably linked to the broader  dispute over Jammu and Kashmir. However geographically remote the battle over Siachen may be, it cannot be resolved in isolation.

All in all, if this peace initiative is to succeed India and Pakistan will have to make progress on many different issues simultaneously though a combination of detailed structured negotiations between bureaucrats, informal contacts between their institutions, and high-level political support. But at the very least, we can say that process has started.

Comments

cyril almeida remarked in an article in dawn, to pluck the low hanging fruits to get into a negotiating mode. The issues such as sir creek and siachen has consensus between Indians and Pakistanis and should get more weightage rather than tough ones.
At the same time, Pakistan should offer MFN (Most Favoured Nation) status to India as India had given and continued the same even during difficult times.

The Resolution of Kashmir should start with eliminating the extreme positions on both sides, i.e) No Changes in Existing Borders (LOC), rest can be taken up in a long drawn process. If the Truth sinks in that the Borders wont be changed, Hawks on the Indian Side will be satisfied and will let the doves take the lead in resolving rest of the issue.
Hmm… thats again a long post (considering the above one too) and I’d love opinions flowing on these.

Posted by sensiblepatriot | Report as abusive
 

Matrixx said:

> Shoaib, You did a good job of compiling the list of cooperative items which may be useful, even though I may not agree with all of them. More interesting, however, is the response of your Indian friends which is zilch. In fact this is quite predictable.

What is predictable is your anti-India spin on every situation. Shoaib’s list was completely non-controversial and in line with what many Indians have been advocating all along (i.e., trade, tourism and other mutually beneficial exchanges). And as you know, non-controversial statements generally don’t generate a response.

I do commend Shoaibo for compiling this list. My response at the time was to ask for a wrap-up of the discussion on points of difference before moving on to the positives. Doesn’t this count in your view?

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

Ganesh:
I’m still in wait and see mode. However, I like add another item to Shoaib’s list and that is water and air pollution in the general area. It should also include possible Nuclear contamination from power plants and research activity.
On a lighter note, I’m dead set against any tourists taking a dip in Indus river for above mentioned reason. Indus river is only relative clean river left and you don’t want to irritate Sindhi friends.

Keep me posted of progress and I would be checking how hate level changes in Indian Pakistani papers.

Posted by Matrixx | Report as abusive
 

Shoaibo,

First thing, please refer to me by my screen name. Last time you referred to Bond, i thought u r referring to someone else and therefore i did not reply. sure 007 is associated with Bond but still it is confusing for me if u refer me that way. I already have had a lot of trouble in getting a screen name from reuters 2 times registration (777xxx777 and 007xxx are both screen names allocated to me because of some trouble with reuters site) and what not. I would appreciate if u refer me by my screen name only. Thanks.

Now to the discussion:
“Anybody willing to help in our cause is welcome”

Is Pakistan’s sole cause is to hurt India?? That is what it seems right now.

“However, only a resolution would make Pakistan useless.”

You mean that the alms from China would dry up then and the politicians of your country will have to WORK hard to build the nation. Don’t you think you need that desperately already?? Don’t you think Pakistan youth also needs a triggering element to start revolution..not against US, not against Israel, not against India, not to “protect” Islam but to safeguard future of Pakistan. Dont you think it is in interest of Pakistan to have a peace treaty with India?

Posted by 007XXX | Report as abusive
 

007XXX said:

> Dont you think it is in interest of Pakistan to have a peace treaty with India?

You’re talking to the wrong person. In fact, I get depressed thinking Shoaibo is in the minority over there. My reading of his statements is that he is dispassionately collecting all the arguments from both sides. These are not necessarily his views.

If you can get Matrixx to agree to your question, then it means the world has truly changed, and I’m in wait-and-see mode on that!

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

@Ganesh
“If you can get Matrixx to agree to your question, then it means the world has truly changed, and I’m in wait-and-see mode on that!”

We all are representing some or other sections of our countries and humanity in general. My question is for all Pakistanis, I dont mind Matrixx answering that question. My question is very straight forward, all I want to know is what their thoughts on India-Pakistan peace treaty are. Only when we know what other person thinks and why so; only then we can try to pursuade and negotiate. One thing is sure that they know that India-Pakistan treaty is definitely in advantage to India and to intentionally hurt India they can (i deliberately did not say ‘will’) go on denying the peace even if it goes against their own interests. (Remember they ZAB said we will eat grass for 1000 years but build a nuke pile at any cost just to match India) So knowing Pakistanis’ views on the peace treaty is important.

Posted by 007XXX | Report as abusive
 

Ganesh: “You’re talking to the wrong person. In fact, I get depressed thinking Shoaibo is in the minority over there”.

I believe he is a minority because he has the gumption to put out his views bravely disregarding others who might call him unpatrioti,without ghairat (honour) etc,etc even perhaps an Indian agent masquerading as pakitani!

But in the deepest corners of their soul, everybody knows that the current atmosphere is tearing their state’s sould more than anything and while this slow tragedy continues, they harp back into thier only known argument. Denial!

Posted by sensiblepatriot | Report as abusive
 

You Indians have done every thing under the sun to hurt Pakistan and on top of that you insinuate bad faith to Pakistanis. There has been peace between the two countries for last forty years. Do you know why?

Shaoib is a patriotic Pakistani and I fully respect his views and it might be hard for you Indians to understand.

Posted by Matrixx | Report as abusive
 

while the Gullible Pakistani people are fed into this emotional vortex of Injustice to Kashmiri aspirations,and if the status Quo continues and the relations remain in deep freeze, It will push the pakistan further in choas and will only be blessing for land grabber china. China,which has already started asserting control over the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) owing to the dysfunctional nature of the Pakistani state. The Establishment of Pakistan cries foul about the Kashmiris but never talk about the Northern areas which form 90% of the POK which are still ruled by frontier laws. see link below.
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news. php?id=595

I think we Indians have really missed the elephant in the room and that elephant is china. China may well hold cards on kashmir as it has Aksai chin and Northern Areas and Pakistani state will slowly cede all of that region (Northern areas) to China and the region will end up becoming one more unresolved boundary dispute with China.

Posted by sensiblepatriot | Report as abusive
 

Shaoib is a patriotic Pakistani and I fully respect his views and it might be hard for you Indians to understand.

…. Indians view of Pakistan is skewed by their view of other auhoritarian regimes. They believe that dissent is heavily policed or self-policed. They probably are aware of our free press but maybe not our regular and vocal critiques of our establishment

If you look at depiction of “Pakistan” in bollywood movies, you will see people wearing sherwaani, Quaid-styled topis and saying “janaab” all the time. Of course, all of this ridiculously passe.

This is due to lack of familiarity with the other.

Posted by shoaibo | Report as abusive
 

Dont you think it is in interest of Pakistan to have a peace treaty with India?

…. This can only be answered with a Haiku

Long steady walk
much distance covered
circle

Posted by shoaibo | Report as abusive
 

China,which has already started asserting control over the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) owing to the dysfunctional nature of the Pakistani state. The Establishment of Pakistan cries foul about the Kashmiris but never talk about the Northern areas which form 90% of the POK which are still ruled by frontier laws. see link below.
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news. php?id=595

… The TOI article does not suggest china is controlling, encroaching or invading the northern areas. It has been wisely fencing and securing this mutually agreed a border for a long time. You may be reading something into this article that simply is not there.

Posted by shoaibo | Report as abusive
 

Shoaibo said:

> If you look at depiction of “Pakistan” in bollywood movies, you will see people wearing sherwaani, Quaid-styled topis and saying “janaab” all the time. Of course, all of this ridiculously passe. This is due to lack of familiarity with the other.

How true. It’s a pity Lollywood isn’t more prolific and successful, so a truer picture of Pakistani society could be projected. (Conversely, it would be your turn to cringe ;-) ).

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

What’s the deal with Altaf Hussain’s MQM? Is it likely to come to power anytime? What will it mean for Pakistan?

http://bit.ly/h9EDBO

“Altaf committed to the natives of Punjab that if his party came to power, it would change the political, social and economic culture of the country. MQM chief announced that his party would bring a revolution of young, educated people in the country and amend the constitution in favour of the labour class, women and minorities who, he said, were still deprived of their true, basic and fundamental rights. He made a commitment to the people of Kashmir that MQM would resolve the issue of Kashmir for good in line with their wishes, whenever it succeeded in forming a government. [...] Altaf announced to make amendments in the constitution in order to revoke discriminatory laws against women and minorities.”

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

Prasad, I go out of my way to not see anything made in ‘Lollywood’ to save myself from terminal cringe.

Regarding altaf, all ‘royalty’ in all of our ‘democratic’ parties need to abdicate their rule to a new generation for real change to happen.

Altaf, Sharif, Zardari all have too much corruption and/or blood on their hand. It is time to fall on their swords and HAND OVER power to the ‘young and educated’

Posted by shoaibo | Report as abusive
 

On the depiction of Pakistani society in Bollywood movies, check out ‘Tere Bin Laden’. I thought it was a bit different from the usual fare. I’d like to know your impressions.

I understand the movie is banned in Pakistan (I wonder why – if anyone should be offended by their portrayal here, it should be the Americans), but you may be able to get your hands on a bootleg copy.

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

shoaibo: “Altaf, Sharif, Zardari all have too much corruption and/or blood on their hand. It is time to fall on their swords and HAND OVER power to the ‘young and educated’”

Good luck with that. We have not seen any changes with our new generation of politicians and leaders. It is the system that is corrupt. It is like mud. Anyone who falls into it gets dirty, whether they like it or not. So things move one step forward and two step backwards. That is the way it is.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Singh, falling on swords requires having honor. i have no illusions of that happening. i just want the usual suspects to go away.

Prasad, my bollywood is a bit outdated. the last movie was 1947 Earth and it was absolutely terrific.

Posted by shoaibo | Report as abusive
 

I have painstakingly consolidated our lists for the reason behind the Kashmir stalemate. I have taken liberty in paraphrasing Prasad’s statements. For all the trigger happy people – these lists should be read in quotes not personal declarations. It may be useful for our collective understanding of the other. Regards.

Reasons for India reluctance in resolving Kashmir Issue
1. Instrument of accession makes Kashmir part of India
2. Kashmir is a gambit, Pakistan real aim is to dismantle India.
3. Delhi would be threatened by a hostile neighbor.
4. India without Kashmir on its map is simple inconceivable
5. Loss of face, admission of guilt
6. Islamism gains victory over Secularism
7. Too much territory to simply give away
8. Kashmir should show india gratitude for investment
9. Water
10. Welfare of non-muslim kashmiris

Reasons for Pakistan’s insistence in resolving Kashmir Issue
1. Historic Injustice Kashmir/Junagadh/Hyderabad
2. Liberation of subjugated countrymen in IHK
3. Justice for India’s wrongful actions
4. Water
5. Fear of India’s designs on AJK/GB
6. Pakistan as frontier fortress and defense of islamic lands.
7. Resolution of national catastrophe – the K in Pakistan.

Posted by shoaibo | Report as abusive
 

Shoaibo,

You have quite accurately analyzed the K issue. Excellent work.

UN plebiscite can be revisited. However, it needs to be revised to include independence option. It should also include provision for non-Muslim majority areas to decide their own destiny. The current resolution has only two options – join India or Pakistan. We all know that Kashmir’s Muslims may want neither.

One thing you must remember is that China can walk in and take over the whole place if Kashmir becomes independent. They did this in Tibet and no one could do a thing about it. They always create historic claims on every land they walk into. Since Pakistan is a close ally of China, it might not be able to do anything about it. A weakened US might simply protest a little and move on. This is once scenario we Indians have in our list and you do not have it in yours. China does not care what anyone thinks. They might even do this to divert attention on their domestic front.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Singh, me and other pakistanis are aware of the kashmiri independence desires. this is acceptable.

Pakistan’s experience with china has been very positive on the territorial side. They agreed to all of our claims even though they are 15?? times bigger than us.

I don’t know much about china’s territorial claims except taiwan and arunchal pradesh.
I thought they had already taken everything they wanted in terms of territory? what else are they interested.

Perhaps an indian perspective on china would be of value. what else do you **think** they want? How could they POSSIBLY claim srinagar.

Posted by shoaibo | Report as abusive
 

@SP
Not aware of any “consensus” on Siachen.

http://tinyurl.com/3rtur7n

BY Brig (Retd) Gurmeet Kanwal
Director, Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), New Delhi

EXCERPTS-
“However, Pakistan’s military capacity to grab and
hold on to vacated Indian positions after the
demilitarisation agreement comes into effect needs
to be carefully evaluated.”

“India should insist on building a clause into the
demilitarisation agreement that in case of a clear
military violation of the agreement, both sides
reserve the right to take whatever action they deem
fit, including offensive military measures.
Simultaneously with the withdrawal of its troops from
the glacial heights, India should create and maintain
suitably structured reserves for counter-action across
the LoC at a point of its choosing. These quick
reaction teams should have air assault capability
with sufficient assets for air maintenance. They should
be stationed in Ladakh, acclimatised for launching
operations in high altitude and should be maintained
at a high state of readiness. The Indian Air Force must
equip itself with suitable surveillance and ground
attack means to detect and attack Pakistani
intrusions.”

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive
 

Shoaibo: “Perhaps an indian perspective on china would be of value. what else do you **think** they want? How could they POSSIBLY claim srinagar.”

I do not claim to speak for all Indians. I do have relatives in our military, three in the army, one in the navy and two in the air force. I have talked with them about China. Military personnel always have their own views on geo-politics. Let me share their views. They are the ones who are associated with strategic issues of this kind. So what I present here as Indian view might be very different from that of the common man in India.

China’s relationship to Pakistan is not so much from a friendship stand point. China is kind to Pakistan for the obvious reason – both have their views aligned towards India for their own strategic reasons. If China had some alternative other than Pakistan, they would take that too. And Pakistan’s reliance and tolerance towards China stems from the same need. But China did not help Pakistan when India got involved in East Pakistan. And Pakistan did not jump in from the rear when China attacked India in 1962. Both probably see it as missed opportunities. So India has now begun to look at Pakistan and China together rather than separate entities to deal with. One of the Indian military generals has even talked loud about taking on the two. This is not possible today from a realistic stand point. But generals do what they do.

Now Kashmir becomes a very important part of the geo-strategic equation vis-a-vis Pak/China angle. In the past it used to be just an issue between India and Pakistan. But China might either want an independent Kashmir that is in strong alliance with it or might begin to dominate Pakistan controlled Kashmir. From Indian stand point, it looks as though Pakistan has leased its part of the Kashmir to China. Karakoram highway is the backbone of this new strategy where troops can be moved in very fast if needed. It may not be just for expanding trade route from China’s hinterlands to the Arabian sea.

All the rise in Jihad and liberation calls, from the Indian strategic perspective, carry a Chinese under tone. That is one reason why India has a huge military presence in Kashmir. There is something brewing and India does not want to be caught off guard. It is possible that India is slowly tilting the balance against Pakistan by pulling the US towards its side. India is probably doing this to counter the Sino-Pak strategic move in the region.

Pakistanis want plebiscite etc from Indian held Kashmir only. If they are fair, they would demand the same from the Kashmir held by them. And if they agree that it is a disputed territory needing UN intervention, they would not have allowed China to build a road through that territory. Until Kashmir issue is resolved, it should be off limits to everyone. But Pakistan is already treating Azad Kashmir as its own province, leasing out land to China, while demanding from India fairness towards Kashmir. This discrepancy is obvious to the Indian strategists, but Pakistanis do not want to consider it at all. So if UN plebiscite has to be held, everything done in the whole of Kashmir has to be undone. This means the Karakoram highway has to be demolished entirely and land ceded to China by Pakistan has to be returned. Whatever conditions existed in 1948 (other than the people who are dead and gone), has to be brought back to the same level, specifically in regards to real estate. Then the UN resolution might have some validity. Since all these aspects have been ignored and only selective items have been chosen by Pakistan, it looks clear to the Indian strategists that China has increasing its presence in this part of the region. India is not even considering Pakistan here. It is looking at China. Both are huge countries and are almost at par on many fronts. So Kashmir has become an intractable situation due to the Chinese ambitions in the region. India is unwilling to move on Kashmir because we simply cannot allow China to gain control over our heads. China is exploiting Pakistan’s phobia and venom against India to the hilt.

Hope I have given some perspective about why India is not budging in regards to Kashmir. The only way a solution can arise is by diffusing the apprehensions of India regarding China-Pakistan collaboration. If Pakistan demands India vacate from Afghanistan, then India has every right to demand Chinese exit from Pakistan. But that is not going to happen. These are unnecessary moves and counter moves. You and I can sit and analyze these moves. But it is not going to change anything for us. I have only given the perspective from our military’s view point. Our elected governments do listen to our military strategists and that could be one reason why they are not willing to move forward in regards to Kashmir. This is despite opposing parties occupying the center of the power.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

This is an interesting article: http://bit.ly/hQT5jh

So, are Indians and Pakistanis really the same people?

I would say yes, no, yes and yes.

Considering that a single country was partitioned into India and Pakistan, the simplistic answer would be yes.

But considering that apart from Punjabis and Sindhis, there are no shared ethnicities between the two countries, the more discerning answer seems to be no. (Pakistanis also seem to consider religion as a big differentiator, Indians less so.)

However, step out of the subcontinent and look at Indians and Pakistanis in a third country. There is far greater similarity between the two peoples that distinguishes them as a group from the people of the host or other countries. So the answer again seems to be yes.

And finally, if we look at the entire world as made up of humanity, then there is ultimately no difference between any two peoples, so once again the answer is yes.

Once peace rules, the “yes” answer will seem more plausible, but the catch-22 is that the “no” answer in the minds of enough influential people will keep us from ever getting there.

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

Shoaibo said:

> Perhaps an indian perspective on china would be of value. what else do you **think** they want? How could they POSSIBLY claim srinagar.

It is sobering to think that Tibet was once an independent country, one of the largest in Asia by area. We don’t even think about Tibet as a country anymore, so completely has China taken over. It is scary.

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

Shoaibo (Would you prefer to be called Shoaib or Shoaibo?),

Thanks for consolidating the lists of Kashmir-related reasons. You’ve done a good job paraphrasing what I said. I would just suggest a minor change to point 3 to read “Delhi would lie closer to the hostile border” to make it clearer.

I notice the more diplomatic phrasing of two of the latter points (Pakistan’s reasons). I guess “justice for wrongful actions” could also be seen as revenge, which some people want. And “frontier fortress (citadel) of Islam” puts a more defensive slant on an aggressive expansionist ideology, which again some people have. No big deal.

Good that you have eliminated the points that are often ascribed by one side to the other but are actually irrelevant.

I guess what remains is really the core of the arguments on either side. We should be able to “frame and hang this on the wall” somewhere for regular reference in our discussions.

What do you think of the moratorium suggestion? Freeze the border and normalise relations first, then reopen the Kashmir discussion in a more relaxed way after a few years of peace and friendship. India would be very much in favour of this approach, but clearly this is not to Pakistan’s liking, or it would have happened already. What are Pakistani objections to this suggestion? Let’s try another list.

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

While we are cozying up, the real people who control the knobs in Pakistan seem to have a dim view of the thaw in relations between the two countries:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/audio-news -video/Hafiz-Saeed-slams-Indo-Pak-peace- initiative/Article2-684463.aspx

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Prasad,

I have been called much worse. Either will do.

My opinion is Indian subcontinent is like Europe.
The two main, current nation-states (Pakistan and India) are each a nation of nations.
Collectively, they are one civilization of different cultures, languages etc.

In other words, France and Germany are very different but to someone on the other side of the planet — they are similar.

One difference is that it is a fusion of two major civilizational powerhouses – Indo/Islamic. Another differerence is the diversity of races in the subcontinent.

In modern times, As Indians will be more than eager to point out, Pakistan and India have taken two separate routes which makes them different.

Our differences are too much to be one country or people but our similarities are enough to be the asian version of the European Union.

Posted by shoaibo | Report as abusive
 

Singh, fascinating post. I always thought of Karakoram highway as a trade corridor but after your point it makes a LOT of sense as a dual-purpose project.

The territory ceded to china has a clause related to the ‘eventual’ kashmiri resolution.
I believe this clause is 1 more reason for chinese to not want an indo/pak entente.
We genuinely believe that this ceded land does not belong to us or kashmiris and in return we got what we wanted. you will notice kashmiris dont complain about this land. your point is fair enough though… Pakistan does not want to take on china for a barren, uninhabited land.

I will google china’s ambitions in the region.

One thing I did not understand was how lack of cooperation betweeen pak and china in 62,71 makes you think of them as a collaborative threat. I thought you would’ve drawn the opposite conclusion.

Posted by shoaibo | Report as abusive
 

Prasad, i paraphrased to make the list easier to manage. s On india points, it would not suprise me if my bias seeped in but it was subconscious.

I tried to word the pak point based on what i think is more representative of the majority.

a poor example about terminology: if a family member is killed by a drugged-up driver. the family may want the driver to be hanged. To the victim’s family this is justice, to the offender it is revenge.

regarding, the citadel point, i genuinely believe Pakistan wants nothing to do with an inch of india other than kashmir, perhaps even JUST the valley. It is a defensive posture against an “invader”. we do take pride and being frontier nation, the country that holds back much more powerful countries from the islamic world. Also, pak taking india is simply a ridiculous notion for all except hafiz saeed.

Posted by shoaibo | Report as abusive
 

Shoaib said:

> My opinion is Indian subcontinent is like Europe.
[...]
> Our differences are too much to be one country or people but our similarities are enough to be the asian version of the European Union.

My view as well :-) .

> Collectively, they [Pakistan and India] are one civilization of different cultures, languages etc.
[...]
> One difference is that it is a fusion of two major civilizational powerhouses – Indo/Islamic. Another differerence is the diversity of races in the subcontinent.

This is a very respectful view that does not denigrate the other but recognises its equal legitimacy. I concur. And like I said before, I hope you are not a minority voice on the Pakistani side. Peace would be a cinch if everybody thought like you.

Psychologists say the most reliable indicator of an impending divorce between married people is the emotion of contempt, and conversely, that married people who respect each other tend to stay together. I think mutual civilisational respect is what we need for cordial relations and a successful “marriage” between our two countries. If one looks at either the Wahhabist school or the Hindutva movement, this is exactly what they lack – respect for the other.

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

Shoaibo: “One thing I did not understand was how lack of cooperation betweeen pak and china in 62,71 makes you think of them as a collaborative threat. I thought you would’ve drawn the opposite conclusion.”

In 1962 and 1971, China was not that powerful. In 1962, India had a namesake military. Jawaharlal Nehru did not invest much on national security as he naively trusted Zhou En Lai like his brother. China was more powerful then as it is now. But China was not a world power like it is today.

Ayub Khan, according to what I have been reading, was a very pragmatic and practical man. He had no interest in nukes. He did not plan the 1965 war on India either. But he was pushed for both by ZA Bhutto. Later on after the war became a surprise debacle for all parties, Bhutto is believed to have said,”Yes, I instigated the war by convincing Ayub. But that way I know the military will face the wrath of the people.” Bhutto was also one of the factors behind the East Pakistan genocide.

In 1971, Indira Gandhi did not decide to cut East Pakistan off either. She was a very hesitant and indecisive person. She was convinced by a clique of strategists who campaigned for an opportunity of a life time. They finally convinced her of this quick surgical action. India made the move and Pakistan lost its Eastern arm.

Later on I have read in a work by Mr. Siddique Saliq, a Pakistan POW from 1971, raising the point. He argued that the Indians were smart enough to make the move when Pakistan was at its weakest point. He regretted that the Pakistanis did not capitalize on Chinese rout of India in 1962 likewise. It was a missed opportunity according to him. Had Pakistan taken on India in 1962, while the Chinese mauled India in the North, they probably could have wrested Kashmir from India and caused more damage.

The US was always a factor in all these. However, India liberated Bangladesh under the nose of the US boldly. And Pakistan or China could have done the same to India. They missed the opportunity that is never going to come. India is now nuclear capable and has the missiles to level China. So China has resorted to proxy means.

Those who miss an opportunity, look for the next one and it always comes in one way or another. History is full of it. So India has become cautious of this fact. Our strategists know about the missed chance for Pakistan and China in 1962. So they always expect a similar down fall for India. In 1991, India did face a similar brink. It experienced a leadership vacuum. Khalistan campaign was at its peak. Somehow, India managed to get out of that grip. So the caution is even more.

India now believes that Pakistan and China are building trenches for the future to stumble India. Hence its tight grip on Kashmir. China is waiting for the US to weaken further. I think Pakistan is slowly emasculating the Americans. Beyond a threshold point, the US will be forced to get back to the basics and focus on its own survival. And China will be at a higher vantage point. India is aware of this eventual situation. And it is not moving back from its stance as a result. That is one reason why India is working hard to strengthen its economic front at the same time. Being just a military power is not adequate. One needs deep economic foundation that will take on shocks and provide stability at the same time.

Hope I have made myself clear.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Shoaib,

To me, the difference between justice and revenge is not just the viewpoint. A person interested in justice for wrongs suffered may be content with an apology (a validation of the feeling) and reparations (compensation for loss to the extent possible). A person interested in revenge would not be content with that. They would want to inflict hurt in equal proportion. I believe (on the basis of my readings on blogs and elsewhere) that there are people in Pakistan to want to hurt India for its perceived injustices, and would not be satisfied with a mere settlement of outstanding issues even if accompanied by official apologies. I thought that may be an important enough difference to highlight.

> we do take pride and being frontier nation, the country that holds back much more powerful countries from the islamic world.

This is an interesting view. I was reading an article just a couple of days ago (sorry, can’t recall the link, I read too many things to keep track of everything) by an Indian author (not necessarily a right-winger) who argued that India was the bulwark that saved countries like Burma and Thailand from aggressive Islamic conquest.

> Also, pak taking india is simply a ridiculous notion for all except hafiz saeed.

And at least some sections of the PA/ISI, it would seem. “Mughalistan” or “Mughalstan” is a term we come across a lot in this context. It may be a ridiculous notion, but it doesn’t stop some people from trying, and even low-level hostilities that stem from that view are sufficient to keep a detente at bay.

You made a number of points about India and Pakistan as peoples and as civilisations (Comment URL: http://reut.rs/gMgD0p). Let’s try a snap poll – Matrixx, Umair and any other Pakistanis reading this, do you agree with what Shoaib has written? What’s your view?

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

In 1971, Indira Gandhi did not decide to cut East Pakistan off either. She was a very hesitant and indecisive person. She was convinced by a clique of strategists who campaigned for an opportunity of a life time.
Posted by KPSingh01
==

I’m afraid the above statement is an inaccurate description of events in 1971. The truth is every one was hesitant including Indira Gandhi, as they should be. India is/has been a responsible nation, and not Pakistan to go into wars willy nilly.

Indian strategic leadership was forced by refugee crisis, and continued West Pakistani aggression. Final DECISIVE leadership was provided by Indira Gandhi. This has been acknowledged by even Indian right wing- which doesn’t give any credit to Congress or Nehru dynasty for any thing positive.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/dec/26cl aude.htm

EXCERPTS-
“To divert the pressure applied by the Mukti Bahini on the eastern front, the Pakistan air force launched an attack on six Indian airfields in Kashmir and Punjab on December 3. It was the beginning of the war…..

……Let me recount an anecdote related to me by Major General K K Tewari (retd), Chief Signal Officer, Eastern Command, during the 1971 War.

General Tewari was present at a briefing the three defence services held for Indira Gandhi. She was seated at a large table. On one side was General S H F J Manekshaw, the army chief, and on the other Admiral S M Nanda, the navy chief.

During the course of the presentation, the admiral intervened and said: ‘Madam, the US 8th Fleet is sailing into the Bay of Bengal.’ Nothing happened; the briefing continued. After sometime, the admiral repeated, ‘Madam, I have to inform you that the 8th Fleet is sailing into the Bay of Bengal.’ She cut him off immediately: ‘Admiral, I heard you the first time, let us go on with the briefing.’

All the officers present were stunned. Ultimately, their morale was tremendously boosted by the prime minister’s attitude. She had demonstrated her utter contempt for the American bluff…..

… Finally, on December 16, Niazi surrendered to Lieutenant General Jagjit Singh Aurora…..

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive
 

KPSigh:
You are getting the drift of things regarding China’s relationship with Pakistan. There other threads that go around India. It is for you to dig deeper.
Since India is coordinating with America, it is rigid and hegemonic in its treatment of Pakistan and it is not a road to peace. In any case, later this year, the Afghanistan policy proposals will set the future trends.
Netzen:
As far as 1971 war is concerned, India attacked another country and it did the same in 1965, across international borders, simple case of aggression. That is why India is enemy number one. Nobody is buying your sob stories.

Posted by Matrixx | Report as abusive
 

Nobody is buying your sob stories.

Posted by Matrixx
==

Who is nobody :-)

http://archives.dawn.com/2005/08/02/nat4 .htm

Pakistan sent infiltrators to Kashmir in ’65: Nur Khan

By Arshad Sharif

ISLAMABAD, Aug 1: Pakistan Air Force and Navy were not taken into confidence by the top army command as they started a secret operation to launch infiltrators into Kashmir — an operation which finally led to Pakistan-India war in 1965, said former chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal Nur Khan, here on Monday.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive
 

1971 PA decided to bring bad reputation to Chengiz Khan by naming air attack on India “Operation Chengiz Khan” :-)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates  /stories/december/3/newsid_2519000/2519 133.stm

1971: Pakistan intensifies air raids on India

Jets from West Pakistan have attacked at least four Indian airports, with reports eight airfields have been struck.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive
 

Netizen: “Final DECISIVE leadership was provided by Indira Gandhi. This has been acknowledged by even Indian right wing- which doesn’t give any credit to Congress or Nehru dynasty for any thing positive.”

Of course the final decision had to come from IG. She was the head of state. But she did not plan the bifurcation of Pakistan. If she raised the topic of a golden opportunity to weaken Pakistan and then engaged Indian military from the beginning in East Pakistan and then waited for the right time to make the final blow, you would have been correct in your claim. The fact is that this quick surgical action was proposed by Indian strategists and taken up with Mrs. IG. She had promised Nixon that she would not invade Pakistan when it was mired in a civil war. But her advisers managed to convince her. And only she, as the head of state, had to the authority to let it happen. I would not give her credit for being a genius strategist, because she was not. Even her declaration of emergency was pushed hard by her rogue son and his clique. She was very hesitant to impose it. She completely screwed up in the case of Khalistan and paid the price for it. I am not saying any of this from my personal standpoint (i being a Sikh and my view point skewed by Operation Blue star). She finally decided to go along with the plan of cutting Pakistan in half.

If she had hesitated further, India would be in history and many of its states would be in geography as separate entities. Some of them might even be fighting wars between them. Her father Nehru would not have allowed for interference in East Pakistan.

IG shot down the plan to take out Kahuta enrichment plant as well. The Israelis and Indian strategists found a window of time to strike hard and set things back by a couple of decades in Pakistan (source: Nuclear Deception). She was deciding and deciding and the CIA managed to tip the Pakistanis about this plan and the window of opportunity was lost. If they had struck down the Pakistani reactor and enrichment facility, Jihad would not have burnt Kashmir and terrorism would not have grown this much. It is the nuclear guarantee that has made these terrorist organizations quite bold.

Opportunities come both ways. If taken, and timed right, they can make long lasting effects. Pakistan could have derailed India completely if they had taken the opportunity to strike in 1962 when China hit India from the other side. We probably won’t be here as Indians. Pakistan nearly came close to getting Kashmir out of India’s grip. 9/11 destroyed that effort. There are enough elements on both sides, which still think of new opportunities. And everything becomes “strategic.”

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

KP Singh,

Minor quibble: the Prime Minister is the head of government. The President is the head of state.

Trivia: Heads of state get a 21-gun salute. Heads of government have to make do with 19 :-) .

> She [Indira Gandhi] was a very hesitant and indecisive person. She was convinced by a clique of strategists who campaigned for an opportunity of a life time.

It’s a very different picture of her than what we are used to hearing, that she was “the only man in the cabinet”. Still, who knows what lies behind the public persona?

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

Netizen posted:

> ISLAMABAD, Aug 1: Pakistan Air Force and Navy were not taken into confidence by the top army command as they started a secret operation to launch infiltrators into Kashmir — an operation which finally led to Pakistan-India war in 1965, said former chief of the Air Staff, Air Marshal Nur Khan, here on Monday.

Not just Air Marshal Nur Khan, Air Marshal Asghar Khan (who had retired just before the 65 war), said the same thing. He contacted Ayub Khan and the latter confirmed to him that Pakistan has indeed attacked first.

This is available in an interview excerpted in one of the episodes of An Enemy Imagined (don’t remember which one, but watch all 18 installments anyway). It’s all available on YouTube. Also check out all the things Prof Aasim Sajjad of LUMS has to say in this (Pakistan-produced) series.

Matrixx, you need to get rid of the earplugs and the blindfold and *really* open your mind. No one objects to a difference of opinion and robust debate but beyond a point, your state of denial gets tiresome and people don’t respect you anymore.

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

Ganesh: “he Prime Minister is the head of government. The President is the head of state.

Trivia: Heads of state get a 21-gun salute. Heads of government have to make do with 19 ”

Thanks. However, in the Indian system, President is a rubber stamp. It is the Prime Minister who has the power. So his or her decisions count.

I have read the biography of Indira Gandhi by her friend Pupul Jeyakar long ago. In that she describes IG’s personality. She was a cut throat politician at the same time. Her coquettish demeanor belied the power craze in her. She led the Indian democracy by institutionalizing corruption. She won by her charisma more than anything else. She looked white and European. Most backward and poor people had no qualms about voting her to power, no matter where she stood for election. Her father and her son had the same charisma and reach. None of the present day Indian leaders have the mass appeal that spans across the whole country. I do not know how Rahul Gandhi would fare. White skin and European looks fetches a lot of favor in India without needing much effort.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Ganesh: “It’s a very different picture of her than what we are used to hearing, that she was “the only man in the cabinet”. Still, who knows what lies behind the public persona?”

The others were mostly clowns. Only may be Morarji Desai had some leadership skill. IG’s clique wiped out the base for many older generation Gandhian politicians. Hers was a new generation that took India in a different direction. I sometimes dread to think what would have happened if IG and(or) Sanjay Gandhi had lived longer.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Matrix: “Since India is coordinating with America, it is rigid and hegemonic in its treatment of Pakistan and it is not a road to peace. In any case, later this year, the Afghanistan policy proposals will set the future trends.”

You guys keep saying India is hegemonic. Please provide some logical points to support this statement. A hegemonic state will do what Pakistan will do – demand everything in its favor. Pakistan demands that India hold plebiscite in Indian held Kashmir. No one talks about PoK. Pakistan demands that India close down all consulates in Afghanistan. Pakistan demands that India leave Afghanistan because “there is nothing common between Indians and Afghans.” But Pakistan is smooching with China with whom there is absolutely nothing common. Pakistan demands that America should be their loyal ally and not favor India. Give one example of what India has demanded. It is Pakistan that has refused to help and co-operate when it citizens entered India and killed innocent civilians at Mumbai. India has not sent in its Hindutva brigades and wreaked havoc inside Pakistan. Hegemonist states will campaign hard on all fronts and deny privileges to their enemies. They will not stop pushing wherever they can. Look at the picture clearly. Pakistan has been doing most of it. India has no interest in dominating others today. India simply does not want to be dominated or intimidated. Whatever it has been doing is in this regard.

You are banking too much on Afghanistan’s future. The problem is there is going to be no future. Pakistan simply cannot go back to the days of controlling Afghanistan by remote control. It does not have the money, resources or support to do that. It is no longer the darling of the ignorant West. China will get in and control things. And when Chinese control, they will give you no options. They make the rules and you and your Afghan brothers will follow them. Because there will be no one else left to sympathize with you. The next phase will see China facing the Islamists. It will be an interesting encounter. They have no idea what they are going to deal with. But they have their own brutal ways to achieve their ends. They are accountable to no one.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

KPSingh: According to you, it is all Pakistan’s fault and all evil exists in Pakistan. Does it not mean that Indians should stay away from Pakistan? You in fact reinforce my position that there is no basis for good relations between the two countries.
Even the evil people have the right to choose their friends and enemies. Thanks for your advice.

Posted by Matrixx | Report as abusive
 

Matrixx,

It’s more nuanced than that, and you’re intelligent enough to understand it. The point being made is that the PA has acted belligerently in the past (and this perhaps continues).

Taking these arguments to mean that everyone in Pakistan is evil is unwarranted. On the contrary, KP has often made the point that the people of Pakistan have been misled by the establishment.

Try and engage without escalation.

Regards,
Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive
 

@KPSingh,
Please consider the possibility your passionate dislike of IG (for other reasons) may cloud your assessment of her. It is true she destroyed inner party democracy in Congress party, a great disservice to the country. Your comment her European looks is the reason for her success is rather unfortunate. You don’t understand, to this day only the Nehru dynasty has genuine pan-Indian appeal, from Assam to Gujarat, Kashmir to Kanyakumari. They have been to this day willing to listen to the periphral states, and display the impression they don’t belong to one part of the country. This doesn’t mean I approve dynastic rule. Just pointing out the reality.

Your comments about Indian “hegemony” as claimed by paks.

It is very simple. This is a code word to demand
(1)India should punch BELOW its size, economy, military stength would permit
(2) Pakistan should punch ABOVE its size, economy, military strength would permit.

In 5 years if Indian economy is 20 times the size of Pakistan’s, still they should be treated as equals :-)
Any one who understands this has understood the “pakistan ideology”.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive
 

netizen: “In 5 years if Indian economy is 20 times the size of Pakistan’s, still they should be treated as equals”

I have always wondered about this. Do they lack perception? Is it the reason for them to be striving to achieve parity on every front with India? Even most countries call us “rivals.” They would not call India and Bangladesh as rivals, when the latter has more population than Pakistan. India and Pakistan are called as South Asian rivals. It is this attitude of Pakistanis to see themselves above or at par with India that has been the core problem. They would not equate themselves with China or Russia. Somehow India seems to appear inferior in their eyes. And that is one reason why they have attacked India four times directly and many times indirectly. Some of their historians believe that Pakistan was the entire sub-continent where they ruled for more than 800 years until the British cut them into a small nation while giving the majority of their land to their past subjects, the Hindus. Seeing themselves as rulers, they are still struggling to come to terms with accepting the reality. Anyway, this is something that will die out with time. We can focus on talking to sensible people across the border. There seem to be some.

BTW: I do not have anything passionate against IG. I treat people on their merit. Most of her family members made it big without any efforts and acted like royal people. She did to India what ZA Bhutto did to Pakistan. While India survived, Pakistan has been devastated.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Matrixx: “According to you, it is all Pakistan’s fault and all evil exists in Pakistan. Does it not mean that Indians should stay away from Pakistan?”

I gave some examples at least. Can you counter my points with some valid information? Show me with valid references where India appears belligerent to Pakistan. You need to understand that it is the perception from your end and not a fact. India knows its limitations and will not go beyond that.

As far staying away from Pakistan, yes, we would like to do that if that would do good. Unfortunately some of your countrymen, including the generals will go jobless if they do not play the India card. So long as they are there, we have to do what we do.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive
 

Unfortunately for Common people like Matrix who are fed hatred of India by their establishmet in pakistan, the Idea that India may perhaps be breaking with the past and moving away (I would rather say entire south Asia) is an anathema to their mind.

I always believed people who are exposed to liberal media will not be as bigoted as people who are fed only narrow and twisted propoganda of civilizational greatness.

But I am very surprised with these bigots because even with the English media and other liberal sources that are at their disposal. I am still unable to understand how people can be confined to their narrow narratives of pakistan.

Although it is possible to expect a chinese (or a mullah), though highly educated he might be, to have constricted ideas of his country bcoz of the media clampdown, one cannot belive that even in pakistan where free media reigns and a decent liberal news papers with diehard secularists exist, people like Zaid Hamid still roam around without being questioned in their News channels.
It is this popularity that even praveen Togadia (RSS,VHP) should have been jealous about. He must be longing to meet Zaid hamid to know how he twisted even the English speaking-western branding tugging educated Pakistanis into bending and twisting his ideas to match his dogmatism .

I am not here to pass judgements but I can only hope people like matrix keep reading economic (or better UNDP) indicators across south Asia while not being selective and he will find that,not only Srilanka,Bangladesh (of course India too) but also Nepal has overtaken pakistan in GDP Growth Rate.
It is now ascertained that Bangladesh will reach UNDP goals faster and accoring to Dawn author’s own admission Pakistan is at the cross roads of Education emergency.

Indian Strategists are hoping that bilateral trade with china and close American partership will allow India to close the clout that the chinese right now enjoy. When the trade between china and india crosses the threshold value when chinese belligerence against India looks more and more irrelevant, then Chinese wouldn’t lift a finger before they dump pakistan. As the Chinese and Indians wait for the slow and long decline of the American influence, they will simply build up ties with Iran and Chinese in particular may not have to depend on the land link that they are right now guarding zealously.

When others are playing the Great game cautiously and diligently experts are bedevilled as to why Pakistan is playing the adverserial role against India without first building itself. But few know that it is this machismo by the Army which is needed to usurp people’s aspirations and cling on to power.

Posted by sensiblepatriot | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •