Pervez Musharraf and India Pakistan Rapproachment

Col Koolaid:


but Musharraf, in my opinion, can also take a large measure of credit for this change. This was not an easy road for Musharraf to travel


there's a saying in bombay..majboori ka naam maatma gandhi..loosely translates to making a virtue out of a necessity...


He was the architect of the Kargil adventure and immensely proud of his role in it.


Immensely proud of his role in an operation where, according to nawaz sharif and others, 4000 paki soldiers died without an inch of territory to show for it?

mmkay..



indeed Shoab Akhtar is as popular in India as in Pakistan and Sachin Tendulkar so in Pakistan.


here's the kicker..indian kashmir is as desired in india as it is in pakiland..and therein lies the rub..pakis want what they can't have...everything else is moot..



Musharraf’s personality, especially his penchant for taking quick decisions and decisive actions under the changed circumstances in which Pakistan found itself following the US “war on terror”

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

DM-jee,

The reapproachment between the two countries was inevitable and was dictated by the circumstances around the world. Mushy (although a benign dictator as dictators go) deserves no credit for it. In fact, the way I see it, he did everything he could do to delay the process and to buy time for himself hoping that eventually it will all "blow over". Without him, under a civilian leadership, the reapproachment could probably have happened earlier. The Pakistanis would perhaps have gotten more concessions on Kashmir valley (from India) than now they are ever likely to even see in their dreams - thanks to all the stunts that Musharraf pulled when he was a "bad boy"!

[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-yearwar; 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]

Were you there to witness this or are you depending on news reports?

#3 take away indians from chowk, and see how much discussion there is on india.

trouble with indians like you is that you are obsessed with the slap in the face you received in 1947. thus - 60 years later you are defining your entire existence on chowk as "slamming islam". you people are pathetic.

tauheed sahib, the partition caused hundreds of thousands to get butchered. There were rivers of blood! And all that you remember is a "slap" in whoever's face!

You are absolutely wrong, of course!

Who are you kidding! The people who really suffered the worst effects of the partition were the Pakistanis themselves - and even now, they are not out of the woods, by any means.

Therefore, referring to a "slap" is like cutting your own nose to spite your neighbor!

And Jinnah did nobody any favors, and you know it! He caused some serious damage, in fact.

#4 Posted by tahmed32 on February 25, 2008 5:38:50 pm


#3 take away indians from chowk, and see how much discussion there is on india.


Stop terrorism and see how many indians are left on chowk.

take away pakistanis from the world and see how little terrorism there is in the world..

photo of the general who got whacked.

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.

#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!

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.

#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.

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.

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!!

#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...

tahmed32:

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

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