Pervez Musharraf and India Pakistan Rapproachment

Re: # 21

"I don't think so. Kargil operation was launched after nuclearisation of the two countries; indeed nuclear weapons were the raison d'etre of the Kargil opoeration; the thinking was that nuclear weapons had made an all-out war between the two countries impossible, therefore Pakistan was free to engage in proxy warfare and limited operations, such as Kargil. You may want to check several of Romair's posts at that time expounding this viewpoint."

Quite right!!

Nuclear test brought symmetry of information about each other's actual nuclear potential- since underassessment in any future conflict would have led to exchanges. Now, it was open that Pakistan could bomb any one any time. It also exposed AQ Khan's black market. It was a good thing in a way.
This was a classical nuclear black mail situation that we find even Iran is adapting when it threatened US with appropriate response and great pain if it attacked Iran.
With the information about nukes in open - there was "symmetry of information" and a realistic estimation of the situation was possible - that means covert warfare and nuclear blackmail becomes apparant and open to all!!

“The recently concluded elections in Pakistan were unprecedented in many ways. One of the less noticed aspects of these elections was the complete lack of hostility towards India during the electoral campaigns of various candidates and political parties. There was no rhetoric calling for a thousand-year war; no mention of completing the “unfinished business” of the Partition, no talk of jihad to liberate Muslim brothers suffering under the Hindu yoke nor of bleeding India with a thousand cuts - not even of providing principled support to the Kashmiris’ struggle for freedom. This was a vast change from most previous elections when political parties vied with each other for anti-Indian rhetoric.”

Give me one election in Pakistan since 1970 when any of the above mentioned issues were part of any campaign. The Pseudo-political writer in pursuing his own agenda makes up stories as he pleases. Any citation any reference that would show that India got more than a passing reference in any elections after 1988.

Otoh, give me one election in India since the partition when Pakistan was not an issue in that election. These Pakistan obsessed nutcases are found on the Indian side of the border. Pakistan has no claim on any Indian geographical entity whereas every Indian it seems has a claim over all of Pakistan. I know most idiot-bred in the Indian slums would not even understand this. The communal mindset rules the Indian politics; there is no Indian mind which can think about issues beyond the religious differences and there is no Indian who can reconcile with the fact that the people everywhere in the world have a right of self determination. Pakistani exercised that right in 1947. There might be weaknesses in the political methodologies used but once the right is exercised, it is final.

All major Indian political parties agreed with the partition and facilitated it. Once that is done, the Indians should live with that decision as any honorable nation would.
Honor and Indians??? Sounds contradictory…isn’t it?

The rest of the article is just rehashing of many ups and downs in the Pak-India relationship. Neighbors routinely interfere in each others affairs and Pakistan and India would continue to do that. The level of the interference would have peaks and valleys but it will never end.

Btw, in the recent history, the first shot, way before the Kargil, was fired by India when it tested nukes and the Indian government pointed out that the purpose of the nuke tests was to intimidate Pakistan.

tahmed#20:

"WHy would NS collaborate in making himself look like a fool?"

I do not think that he collaborated although be probably had been informed. But I also think that if the Kargil operation had not turned into a disaster and had forced Indians to withdraw from Siachen, Nawaz would have taken full credit for it.

"The nuclear bombs had made it quite clear that neither country could afford a war - so it was only natural for Pakistan and India to move towards peace after that."

I don't think so. Kargil operation was launched after nuclearisation of the two countries; indeed nuclear weapons were the raison d'etre of the Kargil opoeration; the thinking was that nuclear weapons had made an all-out war between the two countries impossible, therefore Pakistan was free to engage in proxy warfare and limited operations, such as Kargil. You may want to check several of Romair's posts at that time expounding this viewpoint.

PS: What are you doing at the computer at this time? Have you taken "parkhatti" (that's to test your expertise in punjabi) from sleep?

dost mittar: I read your article just now and I think you give mush more credit than he deserves.

Two elected PMs were meeting to discuss peace - and Mush does Kargill and pulls the carpet away from under them. Common sense would say this was a deliberate act to sabotage the peace effort. WHy would NS collaborate in making himself look like a fool?

The nuclear bombs had made it quite clear that neither country could afford a war - so it was only natural for Pakistan and India to move towards peace after that. So, please dont credit Musharraf for moving towards peace - he is very good at patting himself on the back for all kinds of things anyway.

#17 arjun: you should have stopped when you were ahead ("not that I care for your opinion"). You then proceed to seek my opinion..ha! ha!

arjun_5:

I won't disagree that situation changed after 9/11 and have referred to it in my piece. But I also recall the unrelenting pressure on Nawaz Sharif from Clinton over a period of three weeks. I have a feeling that a military leader would have buckled under the Clinton pressure even at that time.

#11 Posted by tahmed32 on February 25, 2008 7:45:31 pm

prophetboy...not that I care for your opinion, but there are a ton of pakis who have openly admitted to supporting the jihadis i.e. the islamic terrorists..

heck..your great analyst capt clueless is a great example..during the t-shirt with paki flag days, he was telling us pakiland had uncle sam's wind in her sails and was threatening to sic the jihadis on india if it didn't hand over kashmir...

tell me prophetboy...if you pakis are pure as the wind driven snow, why were you put first on the register/fingerprint list? why are the visa applications of paki males of a certain age cleared in DC? why does atif get the TSA danda treatment...

greetings dost mittar. didnt mean to mess up your board, but seriously..some of your countrymen have serious issues, as dr. phil would say.

tahmed32:

Have you read the article, sir? You may have a different comment after that.

#8 Posted by dost_mittar on February 25, 2008 7:39:13 pm

The consequences were completely different in both cases...Post 9/11, the US govt was mighty pissed and would have bombed pureland if he had refused..heck,...he basically had a very easy choice..

heck..they agreed and the US government is still dropping hellfires without permission from his army...

and as far as the paki people's mandate goes, they're all hat and no cattle...they don't have the b@lls to stick with their jihadi buddies...love for allah only goes so far...

oh, and i forgot the lad who has been turned into a laddu and can talk about nothing but how he is an idol worshipper and all the muslims on chowk are out to kill him. jesus christ!! you need a million shrinks in India!!

IslamIslam:

Was that a serious question?

We have a saying in the North,

Dulha nahin banay tau kya baraat bhi nahin gaye?

Roughly translated, it means, that you don't always have to have a ringside seat to witness the spectacle.

#5 bjkumar: show me a pakistani who calls himself "IslamHinduism" to match yuour "IslamIslam". Show me a pakistani who has written a quadzillion posts starting with "hindoo.." to match our "Arjun". Show me a pakistani who talks about the imminent demise of India for the past 8 years to match Uay.

Then come and tell me the slap in the face does not hurt. I refer of course to SOME indians. so keep that in mind when objecting.

bjkumar#2:

As I said in the article, it is difficult to predict what would have happened if Musharraf was not there; a peace process was already in progress and there was a great deal of optimism in the air after Vajpayee's trip to Lahore. But we also know that there had been many such attempts in the past but they had been thwarted by the men in khaki. Musharraf, too, had tried to pour cold water on Vajpayee's Lahore visit by not showing up to welcome him.

#6 arjun - admit it. you dont have a life. you dont even have a decent indian site to go to saturday nights when the world is having fun, you are sitting before your keyboard piling your misery on chowk. ha! ha!

arjun_5:

"he was given a choice..get on board or stone age...seems like a pretty simple choice to make"

Musharraf's response was because of his unique situation as a military dictator. This was both his weakness and his strength. his weakness was that he did not have a mandate from the people and could not resist the US pressure like Nawaz Sharif did when confronted with similar pressure by Clinton not to explode a nuclear weapon; his strength was that he did not have to look over his shoulder to see if the army would support in agreeing to the US demand.