Pervez Musharraf and India Pakistan Rapproachment

zeemax#35:

I agree.

Re. Frontier Corps, I found it only from pav's posts. I wonder how come the US does not know about it? If their intelligence network in Pakistan is so inept, how can they ever hope to find OBL or anyone else they want to find?

jayp#34:

"There can be no ondo-pak raproachment untill and unless the notion of TNt is removed from the pak mind set. Mushy did nothing to change the k for kafir education of the pak govt schools, during his time the madrassas flourished."

Well, there is as yet no removal of the tnt from the Pakistani mindset, although some people are beginning to more closely examine the costs and benefits of creating the new nation. From what I recall, Mush's education minister did ask for the revision of text books to make changes in some hateful passages.

DM ji, #52 is very well argued, but still, somehow I feel, you will get a lot of 'beating up' on this thread, and all of it thoroughly well-deserved :)

India's saving grace is the rise of South India, where people don't have hangups like you do (or partly I do too) - always chasing a non-existent bird.

We just have a find a way to pass the political baton in their hands, so we as a people can focus on things we need to focus on. Best.

sadna#32:

Yes, I was very personally affected by my friend's assasination; I am still a friend of the family and am planning to meet the widow again tomorrow.

But I do not believe that my personal tragedy should make me lose sight of the overall reality; the need to reduce more useless deaths of innocent people and, in case of Pakistan, this would happen if there is no support for jihadi activities directed at India and Indians which, in turn, would happen if Pakistanis do not consider India to be their enemy. From what I see, this is happening more and more and jihad against India is losing its supporters in Pakistan.

It is not my position that this trend is irreversible but the more we can expand the India-friendly constituency in Pakistan, the more difficult it will become for the ruling elite to reignite the old hostile passions.

ananth:

Yes, better communications do play a role and there is no better communication than people to people contact.

#26 Posted by dost_mittar

“Self-determination, I believe, was held only in the frontier province and some districts of Assam.�

It is hard to discuss political issues with people whose political understanding is based on what they read in daily Newspapers. There is so much available on the net now that if you don’t understand a political terminology, you can always Google it and learn at least something about it.

What happened in NWFP and Assam was not Self-determination. It is called referendum or plebiscite on issue.

Here is an explanation from wiki:
“Self determination is a principle, often seen as a moral and legal right, that "all peoples have the right [to] freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

Dear tahmed,

It perhaps is true that Indians are pissed off at Pakistan becomming a different country, but I have difficulty in buying this hypothesis. At least as far is today's India is concerned.

Today's India has in it two different countries in it complete with their own laws (or lack thereof), culture, fetishes etc. These countries belong to the 'haves' and 'have-nots'. The former, are at a loss when they see the 'have-nots' create trouble. After all they made it by working hard! Now some of the have nots who are creating "trouble" (or provide cannon-fodder for trouble) happen to be Muslims and are to some extent supported by the Pakistani state and cheered on by some Pakistani people. This gets the goat of the "haves" ... and you see them rave and rant in chowk.

The actual trouble brewing in India has very little to do with Pakistan (of course the Pakistani state will gladly egg this on if it can). Just keep track of wahst the Naxals are doing and what is being done to them (and the people who live in these regions). The fun is just starting in India.

D-M sahib,

1. What does "thaw" in India-Pakistan relationship mean? I do not see any dip in the "trend" of Pakistan aided terrorism in India. The key-word is trend, minor fluctuations around the trend can be caused as much by weather as the Pakistani dictator.

2. People to people contact are mostly confined to a small set of North Indians. This is positive no doubt (Yuvraj's father considers Afridi a part of his family). But let us not blow this up.

3. Democratically elected Pakistani leaders will back "freedom-fighters" in India just as democratically elected Indian leaders will provide covert support to Baluchis and perhaps even Taliban (this I am just guessing). This will go on as long as domestic "groups" become economically and politically better off, in their respective countries, due to such "interference". Of course, the cannon-fodder will be provided by the easily manipulable "unwashed".

4. In short, Indians will not be worse off without the Pakistani dictator. Pakistanis sure will. So it is a Pareto improvement. (Point 4. is not a comment on your article, it is just my opinion).

DM,

The peace process would have happened with or without Musharaff. The idea that two nuclear armed neighbors
should pursue war is not logical. Nobobdy would win!
Peace is the only way to go.
The Kashmir issue is taking a rest. But it will return
unless a lasting solution is found.

Ras

DM,

Your analysis is quite accurate. There were several factors responsible for the Indo-Pak thaw in the past few years. India's booming economy and domination of the knowledge economy has been a huge factor in changing pak mindset about India. It is now looked at favorably as a place to do business and make money. Secondly the nukes on both sides made any warfare, including covert warfare, meaningless. It was just a waste of resources with no chance of a return on investment. Thirdly the WOT had changed things upside down in Pakistan with the jihadis becoming a target rather than a parter of the pak elite.

Lastly, every feud has a life cycle. If the feud is unable to continue with tit for tat attacks, it dies out a natural death. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Now that India-Pak are in no position to harm each other militarily, the feud had no future. OTOH, after 60 years, people were tired of the same old thing and wanted a change.

However, all said and done, Musharraf did the right thing and he deserves the credit. There is no two ways about it. Would someone else have done the same? I doubt it. No civilian PM could have talked about moving away from UN resolutions on Kashmir. So Musharraf has contributed to Indo-Pak peace more than any other Pak leader to date.

No question that Musharraf has allowed some positive things to happen...he deserves credit at least for not getting in the way...

But I am much less hopeful about the future. Pakistan has a 60 year history of being for "rent" by the highest bidder. Whoever will pay the elite class, will get the country to follow them.

So at various times it has been rented by USA, Saudi Arabia and China. Odd though this is, most pakistanis seem to view this with pride and not with shame. I assume this has to do with some psychological need to be "equal" to india - the means employed and lack of dignity dont seem to matter.

So why would this change? For example, Saudi Arabia is now sitting on trillions of $ and it would be happy to have 100 million wahhabi fanatics - and the pakis would be happy to oblige and in fact have more or less eliminted their traditional indic/sufi/syncretic islam for this money. For example, declaring the shia non-muslim alone could lead to 10-20 billions in payment and I know this has already been hinted at.

I think the last few years are an aberration in that no paymaster was available for pakistan other than the US and, post 9/11 the US finally realized that its "allies" had something to do with 3000 dead in NYC. But that period is finite and is probably ending anyway...

#22 Posted by HP on February 25, 2008 9:08:28 pm


Otoh, give me one election in India since the partition when Pakistan was not an issue in that election.


Umm..the price of onions are more of an issue in India than pakiland...

What is typical Brahmin arrogance? I am a Brahmin and I don't remember seeing a Brahmin more arrogant than anyone else. You must have met more Brahmin samples than I as one have met all my life.


I think he was referring to the "harimau" types. of the "old Brahmin" school. I should admit that I have not seen any peculiar trait of arrogance with Brahmins (mostly young) that I have not seen in others.

Chowk is an excellent example. It has the ability to take the most gungho of the "lets sing kumbaye" South Asian types in Pakistan and turn them extremely anti-Indian.


This is true.

But I think the "initial feeling" was based on romantic notions after watching a few "Bollywood movies" and not based on facts or truth.

The more you learn the truth, the more you can appreciate why the "animosity" exists and there are very good reasons for maintaining that "animosity".

#40 by tahmed32

What is typical Brahmin arrogance? I am a Brahmin and I don't remember seeing a Brahmin more arrogant than anyone else. You must have met more Brahmin samples than I as one have met all my life.

#21 dost mittar: if you are going to a business lunch with the shopkeeper next to your shop, and your employee tells you he plans to break into that shopkeepers shop while you are having lunch - would you still see any sense in having a business lunch?

Replace yourself with NS, the shopkeeper next door with Vajpayee, and the employee with Musharraf and you will see the absurdity you think happened.


As for your saying Kargill happened before the 1998 explosions - instead of my correcting you here I suggest you simply google to correct this impression. The sequence of events (as I have been repeating once in a while to jog Indian memories) was this:

1. BJP tries to bully Pakistan by conducting 5 nuclear explosions on its doorstep, followed up with threats from Advani saying this changes the picture on Kashmir. In typical brahmin arrogance, BJP assumes Pakistan cannot do what India has done (i.e. develop nuclear technology, even though it has been around for decades).

2. Pakistan knocks Advani out of his lungi by giving India a "fitting response".

3. Indians discover the virtues of peace with Pakistan - Advani comes running to Pakistan and assures Pakistanis that Pakistan is a reality (as if Allah Ditta ricksha driver of Lahore really cares what vajpayee thinks). Nawaz Sharif graciously acknowledges Vajpayees return to reality and proceeds to meet him.

5. In the meantime, India's gift to Pakistan (Musharraf), figures peace with India will sideline the military. After all, who needs a large standing army if you have already gotten rid of your worst enemy by making him your friend?

6. Musharraf attacks Kargill, thus outsmarting Nawaz Sharif and Vajpayee and sabotaging the peace process (and getting hundreds of brave soldiers killed).

Hope this clarifies where I am coming from. Dont mind the bit of Pakistani chauvinism tossed in (for the benefit of some of your countrymen to help feed their spite for Pakistan). ;-)

PS I was up late last night indeed.