Pakistan: Now or Never?
Perspectives on Pakistan
India and Pakistan: practising peace
Email 
Print
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 RSSPost Your Comment
-
Author Profile
-
Shoaib: “Matrix, I won’t be shy at all. These articles are about pakistan. People are interested in what Pakistanis such as yourself have to say. Your are a realist, I am a dreamerMatrix, I won’t be shy at all. These articles are about pakistan. People are interested in what Pakistanis such as yourself have to say. Your are a realist, I am a dreamer”.
Common Shoaid, I think its the other way. I found you are a bit more realist that matrix not personal about the guy, who is a typical lab rat of pakistani propoganda (To this thought its embedded as India means regional hegemon,poverty,teeming millions sleep on the streets,casteism,insurgencies,corruption ,brahmin-bania domination,riots,hindu zionists blah blah blah). This group is heavily psychofrenzic in nature, while we Indians could not have cared but for the cross border terrorism emanating from pakistan.
I see anti-India websites being maintained by this group even when relative peace prevails between them.
examples are http://rupeenews.com
see the most funny article to date http://rupeenews.com/?p=13486 is best one which made me laugh like never before. or this famous one http://www.riazhaq.com but this got a bit muted these days.
Sensiblepatriot,
Thanks for the link to riazhaq.com. I know of rupeenews and its dependable entertainment value but this site was new to me. Riaz Haq seems a bit hawkish but isn’t living on another planet (like the rupeenews guy). For example, this article by him referencing (but not fully agreeing with) Gujarati journalist Aakar Patel makes one think: http://bit.ly/hrMVg6
I used to joke that Pakistan as a whole was more hardcore than India because the proportion of Punjabis in the population was higher (sorry KP, Mortal and others!) but Patel’s point about needing a good “caste balance” takes this even further. He also tangentially makes the point about South Indians making good employees (but not entrepreneurs), which resonates with another favourite joke of mine:
- How do you get a South Indian to run a small business?
- Put him in charge of a large one.
(Of course, like all stereotypes, this does no justice to the Shiv Nadars and TV Sundaram Iyengars of the world who built empires like HCL and the TVS group, but it feeds well into the “caste balance” theory.)
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
I agree with the author. Kashmir is the core issue. Why has India historically hesitated to resolve the core issue?
My possible explanations numbered by importance with an admittedly pakistani bias: (Feel free to shred them)
2. Any compromise would embolden energize other Indian insurgencies
1. Sibling rivalry / Pride
4. Historical baggage: Conquests of of pre-Raj India
3. Embolden ‘Islamo-fascism’ or ‘CBT’ in India proper
5. Buffer zone from Pak/China/Khyber Pass (learned from Singh)
6. A genuine belief that Kashmiris will learn to love India
7. Kashmiri dams/water/resources
8. Potential for future reunification of a ‘united’ india
3. New demands, claims and blackmail from Pakistanis and/or Kashmirs
2. Any flexibility will end politician’s reelection prospects
Can we Pakistanis or Kashmiris do anything to placate these concerns so that India is willing to negotiate? or are we simply powerless to budge the South Asian giant?
Shoaibo said:
> My possible explanations numbered by importance with an admittedly pakistani bias: (Feel free to shred them)
Thanks, that’s a good start at enumerating reasons. Before we start to comment on them, let me contribute a few more possible explanations. I’m trying to keep my Indian biases out of the way while still looking at it from an Indian point of view (if that makes sense). Also, the numbering below does not denote an order of importance. I’m just trying to cover any reasons that may be missed out.
1. A belief that an outrageous demand should not be dignified with negotiation (If someone walks into your house and demands your furniture, would you agree to negotiate or throw him out?) The instrument of accession is a legal document of territorial ownership, after all.
2. Pakistan’s Kashmir argument is not really the root of the relationship problem but a symptom, an excuse and a gambit all at once. The real aim is the step-by-step dismantling of the Indian Union starting with Kashmir, all fuelled by hatred. We must stay strong and not let our nation be destroyed by our enemies who hate us for just existing as a successful nation of Hindus (as they see us) freed from Muslim rule.
3. A hostile border will move closer to Delhi and threaten our security even more (rephrasing of 5).
4. Hate to see the Indian map without Kashmir after growing up seeing all of Kashmir depicted as part of India in maps and textbooks. India looks “beheaded” without Kashmir. Shudder!
5. Loss of face internationally, for one of two reasons:
- We “lost” and Pakistan “won” – oh, the shame!
- We would be admitting that we were wrong all along
6. It will strengthen Islamism over secularism and will consequently threaten our way of life. This is particularly threatening now that we’ve seen the Taliban vision of Utopia.
7. That’s a lot of territory to give away!
8. We’ve poured so much money into that state, even given them special status (Kashmiris can buy property anywhere in India but other Indians can’t buy property in Kashmir). We should not reward ingratitude. (Different twist on 6).
An idea for the analysis part of the exercise:
Try and see which of these reasons would weaken if
1. Pakistan had never employed violence in support of the Kashmir cause, and relations had been friendly overall except for this one outstanding issue
2. Pakistan was a Buddhist country like Thailand
3. Kashmir was a much smaller territory like Sikkim
4. IHK Kashmiris weren’t actively voting in Indian elections and applying for government jobs at the same time that they’re protesting against the Indian army
My belief is that the following reasons you listed aren’t true:
2. Any compromise would embolden energize other Indian insurgencies (I think this domino theory is just scaremongering.)
1. Sibling rivalry / Pride (On the contrary, Indians believe Pakistan suffers from this complex!)
4. Historical baggage: Conquests of of pre-Raj India (This has been forgotten by today’s generation)
8. Potential for future reunification of a ‘united’ india (Nobody seriously wants reunification, not even the Hindutva brigade, as it will mean expanding the electorate with 180 million Muslims from Pakistan and 140 million from Bangladesh. The most that Indians desire is a free-trade zone and visa relaxations.)
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Shoaib:”I agree with the author. Kashmir is the core issue. Why has India historically hesitated to resolve the core issue?”
Shoaib, You put the points very eloquently. Other than the points Prasad described about our differences of opinion,
others you pointed out were closer to our belief. And nothing is more closer than our belief than the point 5.
Indians genuinely believe that One day kashmiris see reason in joining Indian mainstream and we are willing to rectify our mistakes.This is precisely the reason why sajjad lone son of Abdul ghani lone, the great moderate seperatist leader brooded over the fact that they fizzled away their chances of negotiation because he said “we killed our own leaders”. His contention was that strangely Indians did not provide adequate security. Now these are the same people who built up a momentum of intolerance and ethnic nationalism on narrow terms (Kashmir nationalism equating Islamism) and were consumed by the same hatred.Now Hawks and pro pakistani seperatists like Geelani are not worried about their life from Indian Security agencies but more worried about the home grown radicals and pak sponsered terrorists. Hence they cling on to those Harcode ideas as they know any dilution in their stand will end their lives.
In fact, no point is as farther from truth as the point 8. No point is as abhorrent as this, because for the Indian(read majority Hindu) politician’s penchant to play minority appeasement politics and Muslim politician’s (this is more so in south asia) penchant for majoritarian politics in their region (exemplified by kashmiri politicians). It would be a greatest disaster for the Idea of India. God forbid, if the Unision does take place, it will instantly be the end of India and any insane pakistani who want to see India destroyed at any cost would take this one proposal forward. Had I spoken the state secret of India or jumped the gun too much? But this is the truth.
Since contemporary Islam is still not compatible with modern (I would use this rather than western) forms of Governance and only slowly coming to terms with new age thinking (personified by the recent arab revolutions) in many muslim countries, any such merger would be a disaster as political guidance for 45% of muslim population(in southa Asia) then comes from Perceived Islamic Utopias rather than homegrown ideas churned from local dissent.
PS: The idea that Contemporary Islam is not compatible did not occur to me from Huntingtons less than honest work of “clash of civilizations” or despisal of Islam, but for their majoritarian tendencies (again more so in South Asia). Modern thinking is not just enforcing democracy but that would be majoritarian tyranny on minority , but instead more from liberal thinking and criticism of every socio cultural aspect including religion.
After a long time it gives pleasure to have a reasoned debate with you guys and please tell me if I am patronising too much
“Since contemporary Islam is still not compatible with modern (I would use this rather than western) forms of Governance” – read it as,Since contemporary arab Islam and muslim countries who get inspired by that region is still not compatible with modern (I would use this rather than western) forms of Governance.
Great responses! This is the way to go.
I agree with you; I disagree with you. More importantly, I understand you better than yesterday.
This is how it should be.
sensiblepatriot;
Neocons would be proud of you but you need to work on your presentation. You also need to weave in ” New world order” into your thinking and bring it down to local solutions.
2. Pakistan’s Kashmir argument is not really the root of the relationship problem but a symptom, an excuse and a gambit all at once. The real aim is the step-by-step dismantling of the Indian Union starting with Kashmir, all fuelled by hatred
-===
GP,
I am moving you from UNREALISTIC idealist category to pragmatic REALIST category if you really wrote the above.
If my categorization means anything to you …just in case
No question of ceding sovereignty over any part of Jammu Kashmir. If and when discussions begin it should be about asking Pakistan to vacate Occupied Kashmir.
Let the “talks” begin on this good brotherly note
One thing I’d like to tell honestly is that India is not the enemy of Pakistan. We simply cannot afford to. Whatever India has been doing is in reaction and self defense. Through the exercise of nation building and democracy for the past 6 decades, we have realized that calm neighborhood is the first need for any progress. Constant engagements and conflicts in the neighborhood, whether it involves us or not, will lead to utter disaster. India learned the hard way when it burnt its own fingers by engaging in a proxy war in Sri Lanka. And the generation of politicians who loved creating and sustaining conflicts has ended. Economic goals and progress associated with it are evident to everyone. India’s world cup victory is an indication of its economic growth more than anything else. A new generation has grown through this economic rise and it does not have the complexes of the past generations and is confident. Dhoni’s team simply reflects that face of India. There is tremendous hope and opportunities for everyone who wants to be a part of it. This has pushed the fundamentalist parties into the background and they are losing the significance that they once had. They relished on the backwardness of India and could control masses. Now most people ignore them and it shows in the votes they get.
Pakistan’s phobia of India might have been justifiable in the past. But today, India wants to move forward and the old phobia in Pakistan towards seems to be major hindrance. Pakistan could be with India the way Bangladesh is. We are not treating them like a small, insignificant neighbor. We do not interfere in their affairs. I wish our businesses can set up shop there and help build their economy so that everyone can live happily.
Kashmir issue needs to be resolved. However, timing is very important. I’d say we need things to reach a mature level on both sides (India and Pakistan) before this matter is taken up under a much friendlier atmosphere than it is today. I want the Indian and Pakistan border guards embrace each other and exchange sweets at the Wagah border instead of rising their feet and take up a belligerent posture. A lot has to change between the two nations before Kashmir issue is settled. Mutual trust will only come with continued exposure between the people. Unnecessary myth and mis-perceptions have been built in the people about each other by vested groups. The only way to break out of it is through personal experience and exposure. Pakistanis and Indians must tour each others’ countries and spend time understanding each other without any preconceived notions. If that happens over ten years, then the power mongers will not be able to mislead the people with their slogans. That is the only way to break out of this jinx.
Netizen said:
> GP, I am moving you from UNREALISTIC idealist category to pragmatic REALIST category if you really wrote the above.
I listed all possible Indian emotions while trying not to feel them myself. I don’t know what category you will put me under in that case.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Matrixx said:
> Neocons would be proud of you but you need to work on your presentation. You also need to weave in ” New world order” into your thinking and bring it down to local solutions.
Oh shut up, wet blanket! Or else join the party and dance. The rest of us are having a good time for a change.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Shoaibo said:
> Great responses! This is the way to go.
> I agree with you; I disagree with you. More importantly, I understand you better than yesterday.
> This is how it should be.
Yes, good to see a pleasant discussion for a change. We’ve gained ground without causing our countries to lose territory
.
I should probably add a ninth point that may cover the Hindu right-wing feeling about Kashmir (although, having never been a part of his movement, I can only guess at what this could be):
9. We are the superior religion, and the Muslims are barbarians who took advantage of our past disunity to invade and conquer us. Now we have awakened, and will never let them get the better of us again. Kashmir is ancient Hindu holy land and we will never give it up. On the contrary, we will one day get back all our rightful territories. The holy Sindhu (Indus) will once again be a river of India.
For what it’s worth, I consider this the saffron mirror-image of Wahhabism, or Swaha-bism for those who appreciate puns in Sanskrit. To be fair to them, it’s probably a bit milder than Wahhabism because there’s no desire to wage jihad beyond the borders of this greater India and convert the barbarians outside.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Ganesh Prasad,
Love that response and I hope you don’t end up dancing with Taliban.
KP Singh said:
> A new generation has grown through this economic rise and it does not have the complexes of the past generations and is confident. Dhoni’s team simply reflects that face of India.
On that note, the number of medals won by Indians (especially from smaller towns) in the recent Commonwealth Games shows that economic progress is trickling down and benefitting a larger number of people. There’s no reason why this should be restricted to India alone and why this should not be a subcontinental phenomenon.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
My 2cents, unless it has been said already. Some in India say that since India symbolizes secularism and/or unity in diversity, Kashmir independence would be defeat of secularism. I would argue with this point that Kashmir itself has demography that symbolizes secularism, so that will be further evidence of the success of pluralistic society, more so if independent Kashmir is successful as a nation. Then I counter argue my point with 1. diversity in Kashmir has been diluted ever since 1989 and 2. if there is an independent Kashmir, it will be Kashmir valley and Azad Kashmir, enriched in Muslims, which is not a pluralistic “what should have been Kashmir in 1947″
Why don’t we do a similar exercise and explore Pakistani attitudes to Kashmir? I’m sure different sections of Pakistani society have different viewpoints, but let’s try and capture the lot.
Here is a start:
1. Sense of injustice – The parallel with Junagadh and Hyderabad justifies the accession of Kashmir to Pakistan, and India has committed an injustice by using the ruler’s accession as an excuse to grab the state.
2. Desire for revenge – In addition to any prior justification, we should make India feel the pain of losing territory just as we felt the loss of East Pakistan.
3. Islamic divine right – Islamic conquest is a high watermark, in the sense that any land conquered by Muslims at any time belongs to Islam thereafter in perpetuity. Other cultures have no legitimacy, and if they ever take back such conquered territory, they’re actually taking what now belongs to us. All of India belongs to us, not just Kashmir (see also point 6).
4. Need to justify the Two Nation Theory – If a Muslim-majority state is happily part of secular India, it means the Two Nation Theory was wrong. This raises an existential question for us.
5. Strategic military advantage – Gaining command of the strategic heights of Kashmir gives us a military advantage over India. The border moves closer to New Delhi, and the scope of China-Pakistan cooperation is enhanced through this corridor.
6. Stepping stone to an Islamic Caliphate – Kashmir is a step along the way to ultimately flying the Islamic flag from Red Fort (Islami Jamhooriya Hindustan).
I’m sure there will be more angles. I don’t know if control of Kashmir has an impact on water resources, but that could be another reason.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
I will give my assessment below which has zero scientific value.
1. Sense of injustice – The parallel with Junagadh and Hyderabad justifies the accession of Kashmir to Pakistan, and India has committed an injustice by using the ruler’s accession as an excuse to grab the state.
….. 90% of the population
2. Desire for revenge – In addition to any prior justification, we should make India feel the pain of losing territory just as we felt the loss of East Pakistan.
….. Upper brass of Military and my parent’s generation. Kashmir by far more painful than East Pakistan. Bangladesh a self-inflicted gunshot for intelligentsia, a matter of revenge for the army, irrelevant to the masses.
3. Islamic divine right – Islamic conquest is a high watermark, in the sense that any land conquered by Muslims at any time belongs to Islam thereafter in perpetuity. Other cultures have no legitimacy, and if they ever take back such conquered territory, they’re actually taking what now belongs to us. All of India belongs to us, not just Kashmir (see also point 6).
….. This segment is growing daily at dangerous levels.
4. Need to justify the Two Nation Theory – If a Muslim-majority state is happily part of secular India, it means the Two Nation Theory was wrong. This raises an existential question for us.
….. I would exclude this one. I don’t think this one bothers anyone
5. Strategic military advantage – Gaining command of the strategic heights of Kashmir gives us a military advantage over India. The border moves closer to New Delhi, and the scope of China-Pakistan cooperation is enhanced through this corridor.
…. Average Pakistani No. Military Probably.
6. Stepping stone to an Islamic Caliphate – Kashmir is a step along the way to ultimately flying the Islamic flag from Red Fort (Islami Jamhooriya Hindustan).
…. The most extreme of the extreme and Zaid Hamid not worthy of this list.
I would add these:
1. “India will steal our water just like land and destroy our agricultural economy. One more way India has the power to suffocate us”
2. “India has designs on the rest of Kashmir”
3. India is subjugating our family members (often literally) on the other side of LOC
4. Free our fellow muslims AND countrymen whether they are independent or part of Pakistan. – Masses
Let us wrest Kashmir from India and bring it where rightly belongs Pakistan – Army
5. Kashmiris will be much better off with us than India.
i.e. We are the “same” people.
AJK is better off than IHK.
Just look at the news
6. Desire for revenge not for East Pakistan but for everything India has inflicted upon us.
7. “India’s injustice and our righteous stand has resulted in our failures in other spheres of nation building.”
8. The army is our protector. surely they know what is best for us.
9. We are the citadel of Islam. We are the frontier of an uninterrupted territory that goes all the way to the Maghreb on the shores of the Atlantic ocean. We have been given the honor to protect the ummah from Non-Muslim hegemony and colonialism.
Matrix, I am often the designated village idiot at dawat baat-cheet in Islamabad and Karachi. You should jump in here to give your pov.
You will find the following categories in the complied lists.
A. That’s a legitimate concern, I can see that.
B. That is absolutely ridiculous, They should not worry about that.
C. I disagree
This means B has to be communicated. A has to be understood leaving only C to be resolved.
Me and Prasad could solve this thing in 2 days… only to be assassinated by the unlikely parternship of Matrix and Netizen.
I am joking.
Ganesh, Shoaib et al: Nice discussion.
Shoaib:
I have another bad habit of sometimes jumping in uninvited in the discussion
HOWEVER, take it positively (no agenda on my part).
Back to your two responses to Ganesh’s points.
Don’t you think your response to #3 is in contradiction with that in #6 (ref: your post on Apr 7, 2011 10:47 pm EDT)
If you say that the segment that feels that “All of India belongs to us, not just Kashmir (Ganesh’s point; see also Ganesh’s point 6).” is growing daily at dangerous levels, then the point that “Kashmir is a step along the way to ultimately flying the Islamic flag from Red Fort (Ganesh’s point; Islami Jamhooriya Hindustan; Zaid HamidISM)” is NOT EXTREME anymore which you feel to be the case.
Unscientifically speaking, this is also supported by Zaid Hamid’s growing popularity. Radicals anywhere always gain in such situations.
Sometime I ask myself a question if Kashmir or any territorial India-Pak problem did not exist, would India-Pakistan call each other friends or have alternate problem.
PS: Separately, If you (or anyone else) have the link to 1hr press footage of world cup you mentioned, please post it.
Shoaib:
I do read the interaction on this blog as well as other Indian publications and enjoy it. I look at things from wider angle where actions count lot more than declarations. Therefore, I consider myself as a realist.
It is fine to be a dreamer so long you don’t confuse dreams for reality.
I do step into discussion when statements are unreal and are being offered as facts or reality.
As I see it now, the situation is stalemated between India and Pakistan. This is because lager Indian army can’t be used to coerce Pakistan. It is my guess that Pakistan has battlefield nukes and they will used if they cross international border.
India depends on America to bring Pakistan to buy India’s way of doing business on Bangladesh model.
In the next ploy, 26/11 laid the basis for their joint plans of coercion. This was a replay of 9/11 on Indian scale. After that, Hilary Clinton tried a number of things over last two years and you can see that the political capital was wasted and America is now having trouble in settling Afghanistan issue. I’m waiting for Plan B to show up. For Pakistan peace is more important than any useless deal with India. Business investment can’t take place when there is war creeping over the border.
I’m not against travel and trade. I do travel for pleasure but India is not on my list. As far as trade is concerned, let there be mutually beneficial trade but it can’t be one way street.
Regarding Kashmir, I stand for their right to decide their future irrespective of what anybody else wants.
Let me not stop fun and dance, please continue. I will watching from sidelines.
Shoaibo said:
> Me and Prasad could solve this thing in 2 days… only to be assassinated by the unlikely parternship of Matrix and Netizen. [...] I am joking.
In defence of these two gentlemen, I sense distrust and suspicion of the other side in their posts, rather than hatred. I suspect they would both like to see a peace agreement, but neither of them trusts the bona fides of the other country (with some justification). And building trust is a long and error-prone process.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Rehmat,
No deception was intended between 3 and 6. Prasad has many themes in #3 and a single theme in #6. Perhaps #3 should be broken apart.
Zaid Hamid had street credentials because of his part in fighting the soviets. The hypnosis wore off when he went off the deep end: Kasab is a sikh, looks like an Indian, pak flag on delhi fort, his cultish background among other things. He had this great big revolution meeting…. nobody showed up.
Look at it this way, Islamic republic has not elected Islamic Parties but secular republic of India has elected Hindu Ultra-Nationalists. Yes, I know this is simplistic but I think you might get my counter-point.
Matrix,
I was riding a wave of euphoria… thank you slapping me into cold brutal world of reality.
There are 5 major threats from India
1. Naval Economic blockade
2. Water Treaty Violations to the point of famine
3. Conventional superiority
4. Land grabs
5. Support of separatists
3 is already part of our nuclear doctrine. 1, 2 and even 4 could be added and published.
5 can be handled through very simple governance, justice and nation building.
We have several other deterrents
1. 180 million reserves
2. No oil
3. Cost of occupation
I believe India’s threats are real and significant but tactical in scope not existentialist. What is the point of our nuclear program?
Matrix, I just read your post again. You are not suggesting India’s an existentialist threat. Ignore my last post.
yes friends – they play sports to keep people happy not to find out the best team – they give up victory expecting future gains
like WWE (WWF)
Matrix, India and America are a part of the equation for peace in Pak proper. Here are other issues. (I have a penchant for numbered lists).
1. Saudi/Iran proxy sectarian war in Pakistan
2. Afghanistan proximity effect with or without America
3. Our gun culture. (Disclosure: I have several)
4. Porous Western Border
5. Violence in political parties (less now THANK GOD)
6. Criminals
7. 15% budget spent on mostly conventional force leaving precious little for nation building
8. FATA – a haven for every outfit except Dr. Evil
9. Illiteracy – in both secular and islamic subjects
10. Every Foreign Intelligence agency except New Zealand
11. Our cursed geo-strategic location
12. Non-blowback Jihad (AL Qaeda)
13. Blowback Jihad (LeT)
14. Feudalists
I am not saying we ignore US and India, I am suggesting a more holistic approach to tackling our issues.
Shoaib
All these items you listed are linked to lack of leadership and governance. Bring on the full force of law on criminals and hang a dozen of them and all these these criminals would run and hide like rats. Then it would not be civilized to harshly treat criminals.
Why do you want education when being a mafia boss would get you all you want?
Matrix :”Neocons would be proud of you but you need to work on your presentation. You also need to weave in ” New world order” into your thinking and bring it down to local solutions”.
The way the Arab revolt is gaining strength, You can see me extremely ecstatic about this new development and need to put me in another category.
It is a matter of fact that Muslim Leaders in India (with some honourable exceptions) have played the Victimisation card. Strangely, they even played this Victimisation card of “Islam khatreme hain” even after gaining their own state.
Shoaib,
We Ourselves have big issues to resolve and they are even more and bigger.
I cant remember all, but Ganesh,KP,Citizen can suggest.
1. Corruption – The mother of all problems.
Its mother is 2. Nepotism(my family first and last),which
forces to build 3. Personality cult,
to sustain that personality cult insists it to make money by 4.weaken Governing structures to loot money who child is 5.semi functional state, while results in weak enforcement of entitlements whose child is 6.poverty whose child is 7. Illeteracy, which inhibits reasoning and causes high growth rate which leads to 8.population explosion, the lack of empowerment will result in more childresn, 9.Naxalism and weak Indian identity, which results in 10. Terrorism. To crush these anti social forces brutally will create a new child called 11.political mafia to absorb excessive unemployment from oversized population. The political mafia enforces weak regulation which results in excessive exploitation whose child is Environmental degradation. To crush the democratic revolt because of this sub human existence bcoz of unhealthy environment rises an impending revolution but,12.casteism is employed and this ploy would suffice to divide people.
Since, we have big problems of our own making. why cant we just forget kashmir and concentrate on them? For pakistan this obsession has led to their destruction and brought them close to the Failded states which was unthinkable in 60′s.
If we could engage the above rroblems which I mentioned we would atleast solve some of them to some extent.
After reading so many comments and suggestions here I’d say that we are heading nowhere. Both the nations need revolutions. India is witnessing one of the sorts right this moment…can Pakistanis unite for anything other than Islam and India?? Lord Krishna said to Arjun, that he must fight for the cause of humanity and nation for that is the only way of salvation…peaceful but massive revolution of masses only can bring salvation to nations…no bomb, no bullet, no gun can put down revolution by people. Egypt, Libya, Saudi and now India…is Pakistan next??
(Excuse me for going completely going off-topic here but I’m posting this message on this blog as it is frequented by many Indians.)
I’m fascinated with the anti-corruption campaign currently in progress in India & urge all Indians & persons of Indian origin (regardless of residence) to join & support Mr. Hazare’s movement. A victory would go a long way, in curbing & eliminating corruption from India. Spread the word!
http://www.avaaz.org/en/stand_with_anna_ hazare/96.php
Ordinary people in India & Pakistan work for their daily bread. They don’t want to hear the war & political issue.The leader in both side want to make issue for their political gains.
Both side have millions below poverty line.Both can use the money spend in war to feed them.No missiles or bombs can feed them.
Bond,
I disagree. Anytime pak/ind, turks/greeks, serbs/bosn, arabs/jews don’t spit venom at each other, we are headed somewhere other than backwards. I would argue that the arabs learned a thing or two from Pak’s ouster of Musharraf. Excuse my complete ignorance of hindu cosmology, Lord Krishna’s morality could be inspirational to Kashmiris as well not just Pakistanis.
SP,
great insight. you better hope RAW or ISI are not reading this thread. As a Pakistani, I would say, let’s focus on our internal problems, growth and prosperity. This should not mean that i want to abandon Kashmiris. My opinion, let’s not look exclusively through the prism of the Kashmir “Nakba”.
Ordinary people in India & Pakistan work for their daily bread.
… The dignity of these people should be our single-minded focus.
Instead of dwelling on the negative stuff all the time, it would be good to look at the positive things as well.
What is common between the two countries and how bridges can be built using the common factors?
Differences help build walls.
I see the list by Shoaibo, Sensiblepatriot, Ganesh etc. We know the negative things already. And they have been repeated over and over again.
To make amends, positive aspects need to be looked at and they will diffuse the antagonism considerably.
Shoaibo:
“Look at it this way, Islamic republic has not elected Islamic Parties but secular republic of India has elected Hindu Ultra-Nationalists. Yes, I know this is simplistic but I think you might get my counter-point.”
*** That is true but it is simplistic as you said.While BJP has ruled central govt and currently rules some states, Islamic Parties in Pakistan have not won central election but have strong influence in provinces (in coalition perhaps).
Radicalism is on the rise in two countries in general. However, the nature and intensity varies:
IN Pakistan there are incidences such as flogging of a girl in SWAT and in India Ram Sena type parties impose their cultural views on young guys/girls in eating joints/bars.
Vajpayee-led BJP brought India a bad name by riots in Gujarat but they began thinking on Kashmir solution (Vajpayee/Musharraf back channel). The religious parties of Pakistan have disproportionate say in matters related to mosque and religion.
Nice article here:
http://www.dawn.com/2011/03/07/the-relig ious-discourse.html
Singh, This is going to shock everyone, but I have a list. Warning: I go way off the deep end here.
1. Tourists –
Pakistanis –> Mughal Architecture, Unislamic recreation a la Dubai, Medical
Indians –> IVC , Gandhara, Holy sites, Shangri La
2. Energy
India –> IPI, TAPI, SUI
Pakistan –> Transient Fees
3.
Security (Ensuring each other’s territorial integrity)
Indian —> Balochistan
Pakistan —> Assam, Naxalites etc.
India –> Western flank
Pakistan –> Eastern flank
5.
India —> Resolution of Core Issues
Pakistan —> Support of UNSC bid, OIC
6. Common tastes & preferences
7. Markets
Pakistan –> 1+ billion market , 200+ million middle class, alternative to China
India –> 180 million market monopolized by China + Afghanistan, Central Asia
8.
Pakistan –> Investment
India –> untapped talent & resources
9. Mitigation of Nuclear Flashpoint
While BJP has ruled central govt and currently rules some states, Islamic Parties in Pakistan have not won central election but have strong influence in provinces (in coalition perhaps).
…. i think those were king’s parties. Upon real elections ANP beat MMA in NWFP. Others can correct me if I am wrong.
KP Singh said:
> I see the list by Shoaibo, Sensiblepatriot, Ganesh etc. We know the negative things already. And they have been repeated over and over again.
The difference is that in the past, these negative points were being hurled by people at each other with heated emotion and harsh language. What we tried to do this time was list the various viewpoints candidly but without getting personally emotional about them. I think this was a useful exercise, since we now have a better understanding of each other’s viewpoint. As expected, it’s not a black-and-white situation from either side.
Importantly, this is still unfinished business. We have to complete the task of collating the discussion into some conclusions and identify the remaining areas of disagreement.
While it’s good to start looking at the positives, let’s not forget to complete the previous discussion.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Shoaibo said:
> 3. Our gun culture. (Disclosure: I have several)
I’m glad I didn’t pick a fight with you, then
.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
The political classification of right wing and left wing used in a pluralistic society cannot be equated with “right wing” in Pakistan, Islamic Republic with guaranteed 3rd class citizenship to non-Muslims. While the tiny minorities of Pakistan have become used to their lowly status, things have gotten much worse now.
In India if you say India is a Hindu country you are an extremist. In Pakistan, the “secular” parties compete with others in trying to prove who is more Islamic, etc.
“secular” ZABhutto passed the law declaring ahmadiyas non-Muslims, paving the way for their persecution. His daughter proudly declared she was responsible for Taliban. This is Pakistani “secularism” .
the “secular” PPP+MQM alliance just passed an amendment stipulating only a Muslim can become pk Prime minister!!!
What could be on the right wing to this politics? Other than suicide bombing, and chopping off women’s noses! It is pretentious to discuss right and left wing in Pakistan and India as if they are same or similar.
I’m glad I didn’t pick a fight with you, then .
…. I am harmless, I still remember my poor eid ka bakra from age 8. lol.
Singh, the lists could also be useful to break the stalemate by addressing the issue of the OTHER side. I don’t mean to be a cynical egotist but I would not doubt it if Pak/Indo bureacrats have never thought of the problem that way.
‘Our’ list is familiar but ‘their’ list is not. These were new to me:
Delhi’s proximity to Kashmir
Indus is holy to Hindus
Indian fear on offensive jihad on India ‘proper’
Indian perception of importance of TNT to pakistanis.
I was hoping some Pakistanis could contribute as well but my only compatriot matrix will have none of this tomfoolery. LOL.
Shoaibo
Jamaite-Islami (JI) has influence across the border that China and JI signed MoU (Uighur Muslims was the primary reason).
It was interesting to note that a foreign country signs deals with individual political parties rather than the govt.
@Rehmat
“It was interesting to note that a foreign country signs deals with individual political parties rather than the govt”
You must understand that China deals with influence and not necessarily governments. In Pakistan’s case governments are just meaningless. That state is ruled by army and its various “holy” wings and so China deals with them. The Pakistani state has always made itself available to others as a pawn to let use itself in any way its possessor finds fit so long as it hurts India in any way. Same goes for its relationship with China. Age old principle: enemy of my enemy is my friend. What will happen if China like US start looking at India as a better friend than Pakistan. Or still better what if Chinese investment in India goes so high that China starts to threaten Pakistan for stopping the non-state actor BS?? Time will tell.
Bond,
I would look at it another way.
Pakistan doesn’t care. Anybody willing to help in our cause is welcome. I will give Pakistan some credit here, do we, a pawn, use Kings and Knights as our pawns ????
Regardless, Almost all of India’s neighbors are happy to see Pakistan irritate India.
For smaller neighbors, this means India’s historic and perceived hegemonic tendencies are kept in check. For China, this means India, a historic rival and now a competitor remains embroiled in her own unstable neighborhood.
Any resolution with Pakistan would make India the uncontested regional power and potential global power. Many countries are not interested in Pak/Indo resolution. Curiously the Americans are…. to check China in 2025. For this reason, China won’t tilt towards India over Pakistan. China would be happy to enjoy a trade surplus over both Pak and Inida. However, only a resolution would make Pakistan useless.
Regards.
Shoaib :”This should not mean that i want to abandon Kashmiris. My opinion, let’s not look exclusively through the prism of the Kashmir “Nakba”.”.
It gives me great hope when a Pakistani eventually says “Lets not look exclusively through the prism of kashmir NAKBA”. And even if sizeable section of Middle class pakistanis realize this and make a point by shouting on the roof tops that Kashmir is fine, but what about our country? then may be the establishment listens to you.
I see pakistanis always claiming they are 170 million muslims, I ask them is 5 million kashmiri muslims more important than your own 170 million and their well being that you bind the entire fate of your country to this intractible issue.
I genuinely believe pakistan is more than just a country cribbing about kashmir and ‘cribbing’ is the word that I used because, a country which has become economically crippled,aid dependent and extremist infested loses its moral and geopolitical influence because of the above factors and the world will simply hear all ‘kashmir talk’ of pakistan as merely mindless cribbing.
I have even strangely heard from the same people saying “India would not attain super power status until it resolves Kashmir”. while we are not running after superpowerdom contrary to what may believe ,I am at a loss to understand this issue. Hasn’t the world moved beyond Kashmir? Arab leaders when they meet India use to mention Kashmir, the west used to do it, now they do not. Have you heard from Ban ki moon, that Kashmir resolutions have expired and no longer relevant to existing realities.
I say it again, that Pakistan is much much bigger than kahsmir which is difficult to resolve, because of extreme oddities it displays (majority living in minority area and minority living in majority area and so no one gets all, and as per even pakistanis the seperatists in case of referendum may get thin majority but not majority geographical area, India may not get majority people (although I contest this) on this but gets majority geographical area).
owing to these anomalies, is it correct to tie down entire fate of a country to this issue that even few years back, Pakistan policy was “No normalisation of Relations until Core Issues (read kashmir) are Resolved”.
If the Pakistani state pushes the kashmir issue on the back burner and let the natural evolution of relations based on cultural and geographica similarities were allowed to prosper, then I suspect Kashmir would be such a difficult issue to resolve. For Instance, All the Countries of the ASEAN had issues among them, but when trade bloomed beyond a high watermark, these nations have slowly taken the path of corrective diplomacy rather than aggressive diplomacy to resolve issues.
But when the Indian attempts to address the “aspirations of kahsmiris” (to borrow your words) were repulsed by the assassination of the Moderate Seperate leaders time and again, -http://www.dawn.com/2011/04/09/strike-o ver-killing-of-muslim-cleric-shuts-kashm ir.html – this just happened yesterday, How do you think India should take the dialogue forward? The Pakistani state had abetted terrorism in a fashion that it takes its own momentum and turns on its own mentors and its neighbours, that even if the state wants to come out of this entanglement (dawn afterall says itself that these are pak based aka pak sponsered rebels -Pakistan-based rebels fighting Indian rule blamed the… same link i have provided above. ) It had become inconceivable to do so for them.
This issue which manifests itself as the bare fundemental thread that constituted the anger against India and complicated the average pakistani’s psyche that even celebrities are found flip-flopping their opinions (see afridi, he says good about india,spits out venom the next day, begs BCCI not to treat them as untouchables the next day and that he loves India).
The paradox is indeed struck hard on Indians. This psyche makes you love us on our Big Money,cultural trains (aka bollywood, daily soap) but owing to establishment makes you hypocritic by spitted hatred at the same moment.
Shoaib, dont think this is meaningless musings from an Indian, I spelt it out because we had oppurtinity to speak with some reasonable guys like you and just think of this policy paralysis that had done to pakistan in comparision to India and to its lost generations . we lost too, but we have started taking baby steps.. please ask yourself “have I started taking my baby steps?”
I hope people like Shoaib and any of the dawn’s analysts (and all like minded guys) would have the chance of moulding the opinion of their country for a lasting peace.
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.
I will now step away to let the discussion take its natural course.
Asking paks to shed confrontational attitude, shed hostility, etc is futile They are not going to change voluntarily.
But it will be forced upon them by dire economic, internal security situation inside Pakistan.
India has never been better placed to tackle pak aggression as it is today. the worst arrangement was Pakistan posing to be a progressive moderate country, while being an ally of USA, and with American blessings, money and weaponry waging Jihad on India.
That game is over now. Now everyone knows what “Pakistan” is all about. Although if you read the posts by paks here, they would like to believe Pakistan is getting stronger and going places. Pak aggression on India ALWAYS has depended on and circumscribed by other powers, and Pakistan,s economic, geostrategic stature has dramatically decreased this past decade.
this will accelerate in the future. Any influence pak has is through negative means. increasing Chinese investments, and economic interests in India will make pak even less useful to China. But Indians shouldn’t assume we are already there. not yet.
If the Pakistani state pushes the kashmir issue on the back burner
Posted by sensible patriot
===
They are not going to do it. it is not going to happen.
India’s options are limited to
1. Offering to talk with stipulation of no question of revising borders, ceding territory,etc
2. boosting manpower,technical infrastructure to thwart terrorism ( this is the only tool available to paks)
3. Other means to ensure paks get paid for their midfield.
4. always be prepared for all eventualities.
for their mischief.
Let me look at some commonalities here:
Corruption: This is one uniform aspect that pervades across the whole sub-continent. Everyone from the peon upwards, all the way to the top is corrupt in one way or another. This is does not exclude those in the military either. Corruption makes the so called leaders, be it military generals or elected politicians to hide their tracks by creating and sustaining issues.
For example, in India, the Shiv Sena’s lucrative business is brokering land deals where builders are forced to go through them when they try to buy land from tenants. If they do not budge, the Shiv Sena will suddenly become the savior of the poor and launch violent protests. Dawood Ibrahim has a hand in the same business in Mumbai. The two groups now use religion as a means to push each other out. Not long ago, the same Shiv Sena targeted South Indian immigrants to Mumbai. This was probably because of their influence on votes to capture the Mumbai Municipal election. Then they went after the Baniyas from North Indian states. I am sure that the underlying reason is not really protecting the Maharashtrian identity. It probably had to do with some group refusing to make deals with them.
I am reading Tariq Ali’s book now. And he shows how the Pak military is building its own feudal system over the country by spreading its tentacles into business, land ownership and other ventures. Many join the military in order to derive the same benefits. In order to keep the monetary flow in its direction, the military has kept several conflicts alive. Proxy elements really help in this regard. Most are expendable peasants who can be used against targets, while the military personnel rake the benefits. He says the military will never allow any settlement in Kashmir or Afghanistan. It never allowed a settlement in Pakistan’s political process itself. This is because, these conflicts help benefit its own cadres from top to bottom.
In India, ex-military generals become defense contractors for foreign weapon suppliers. They become middle men in getting their commission for every deal struck between the politicians and the defense companies.
Corruption has destroyed this region. Look at the 2G scam that swindled the country out of 40 billion dollars. No one is going to recover this money. And this corruption is not new. It was prevalent in the past as well. The British exploited it as well.
South Asia is one land where mothers are for sale. And in corruption we all stay united. That is the real Akhand Bharat. All divisions, caste quotas in India, feudal lordship in Pakistan etc are based on swindling others. So Kashmiris can sit and day dream about their utopian land of freedom. Even there there are those ready to sell their mothers. Welcome to IPL!