Pervez Musharraf and India Pakistan Rapproachment

Re: # 109

"...I am not sure that the erosion of the Pakistani institutions had a negative effect on neighbourly relations..."

I'll be more specific - it is highly unlikely that a freely elected parliament in Pakistan will support a Kashmiri Jehad when it know that the consequence will be unremitting hostility with India. Such a parliament has never existed for long in Pakistan because of the Army's interference. Musharraf did nothing to cultivate one either.

#129 Posted by Pew_Research on February 27, 2008 4:30:36


I'll be more specific - it is highly unlikely that a freely elected parliament in Pakistan will support a Kashmiri Jehad when it know that the consequence will be unremitting hostility with India.


YOu're completely wrong there....remember benazir's jag-jag-mo-mo-han-han? the pakis will support the "jihadi option" if they think it doesn't hurt them...support for suicide bombing only went down a little in pureland because the jihadis started whacking pakis..

don't forget, when pakis thought they were winning in kargil, they were completely supportive of that war...

Re: # 130 Arjun_5

I should have put additional qualifiers. Namely, 'it is highly unlikely that a freely elected parliament with no pressure from the Army/ISI on its foreign policy and relations with Indiain Pakistan will support a Kashmiri Jehad when it know that the consequence will be unremitting hostility with India. '

It is unlikely that Benazir's government had no pressure from the Army/ISI towards its India policy. My point: put the Army in its proper role (i.e. take orders from elected parliament) and relations with neighbors will improve.

#127 pea-brain pandit arjun: is this your latest finding? ha! ha! you are more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

Dosti Mittar:

I think you write sensible posts. It seems you are not addicted to religion to start with. I wonder if it is due to Canadian mindset, fresh snow and sleepy Canadian Parliamentary culture, rule of law and peace and finally an opprtunity to think without those fiery nationalist inspiration!

I hope you would travel to Pakistan and live there for few months and get a taste of what life there.

Kamath
Rome AJ-22

Ref anil #92

[Re: # 91

Sadna:

", would we ever have had an article from you saying 'Modi must be given credit for not having any riots after 2002'."


Don't you think you are making a case for electing gundaas?]

That is rich, coming from a brain-dead bhaiyya who voted to elect Rajiv G@ndu.

Remember "When a great tree falls, the earth shakes"?

That was a quote justifying the killing of 3,000 Sikhs after Indira Gandhi's death.

You have got three guesses as to who said that.

Ref Kamath #133

[Dosti Mittar:

I think you write sensible posts. It seems you are not addicted to religion to start with. I wonder if it is due to Canadian mindset, fresh snow and sleepy Canadian Parliamentary culture, rule of law and peace and finally an opprtunity to think without those fiery nationalist inspiration!

I hope you would travel to Pakistan and live there for few months and get a taste of what life there.]

He doesn't need to go to the Land of the Pure.

He can travel to Toronto and find women in burqas.

And Pakistanis tell us no woman even in Peshawar wears a burqa and expect me to believe it.

sadna#115:

Your analogy is too tedious for my feeble mind. But let me try to respond anyway. I do hold the entire Pakistani establishment, including the civil society which had until recently actively or passively supported terrorist activity directed against India. And since Musharraf was presiding over that establishment during this period, he certainly has to bear responsibility for it.

PS: I am surprised by your posts, it is quite unlike you to use personal pain to make a point.

jayp#various:

One needs to make a distinction between the values represented by the state and the values held by the individuals. I would completely agree with you that the values of the Indian state embodied in her constitution and laws are very different from those of the Pakistani state.

Does the same apply to the people of the two societies? Here, the answer is not that simple. First, the values of South Indians, in my opinion, are somewhat different from the values of the North. For example, the south seems to give more importance to women, there is no tradition of purdah or ghoonghat, no concept of "honour" associated with female sexuality and no female infanticide. However, there is a lot of commonality between the culture and values of the two Punjabs, especially in the rural society, although there has been steady divergence as Indian Punjabis seem to be getting more swept off their feet by western influences than their Pakistani counterparts. Still, there are enough similarities in terms of language, cuisine, tastes, etc. that a Pakistani visiting India would feel more at home here than perhaps anywhere else in the world, including islamic countries. The same is true of a North Indian visiting Pakistan.

arjun_5:

I do not have a solution; that is not to say that solutions have not been proposed. But any resolution would require some movement from both sides. I think that you would agree that the Pakistani side has moved significantly from its former position - for whatever reason. The same is not true of the Indian side although Manmohan Singh's statement of making line of control irrelevant does seem to indicate some implicit willingness for adjustments.

Pew_Research:

"I should have put additional qualifiers. Namely, 'it is highly unlikely that a freely elected parliament with no pressure from the Army/ISI on its foreign policy and relations with Indiain Pakistan will support a Kashmiri Jehad when it know that the consequence will be unremitting hostility with India. ':

I think that these conditions have never existed in Pakistan since mid-fifties in the previous century and one cannot blame Musharraf for destroying institutions which were not there to start with.

Kamath#133:

Thanks.

Although I have not stayed in Pakistan for a long time, I was there for two weeks (more time than most Indians are allowed visa for) and have travelled there extensively and have perhaps seen more of that country than most Pakistani chowkies.

Dost Mittar,

I read your article but found time to respond only now. You have characterised the improvement in relations between the two nations and all the related events very well. But as some have already pointed out that this rapproachment was perhaps more due to forced circumstances than Pervez Musharraf. The official stance of GOI after emergency spoke very well about the reasonable response to their situation and our improvements with them. I think it went something like "It does not matter who rules pakistan as far as policies towards India is concerned. Whether army or civilian rules, they have consistently been the same."
I believe you are giving more credit to mushy than he deserves. Yes he is decisive, but that does not mean his decisions were always good. He was forced to bring about this rapproachment decisively only due to external circumstances. He is thorough bred army walla who puffs his chest up at the mere mention of India.
In general on the policy of rapproachment with Pakistan I think the cautious line taken by the GOI in my opinion is reasonable. There is a lot of bon homie between the two peoples today. But it is best not to forget times like Kargil also. If you would like, check the posts of some of our 'friends' who are ridiculing musharraf today. They were in absolute glee when musharraf came to power dislodging the same man who has been elected today. They were praising him to heavens for his brilliant move in kargil.
I think that if the new leadership of pakistan can manage to stop this jehadi buisness at their homes we can talk of rapproachment. Until then let them blow each other up. We have got enough problems of our own to take care of.
I don't believe I'm a hardliner, but do think of the Indian jawans who laid down their lives fighting the jehadi maniacs over the years. That too is a reailty and should be considered before any rapproachment.
Adios

#138 Posted by dost_mittar on February 27, 2008 8:01:11 am



I do not have a solution; that is not to say that solutions have not been proposed.


What solution has been proposed?


But any resolution would require some movement from both sides.


yes..I think India should STFU about the whole of kashmir, turn the LoC into the border and let Indians buy property in kashmir...that's the best the pakis can get..whether they like it or not has no bearing..it's their ability , or the lack thereof, to affect the situation on the ground that matters..even that would take a resolution in the indian parliament


I think that you would agree that the Pakistani side has moved significantly from its former position - for whatever reason.


Two things.. It's the reason that's the most important..If the situation gets better than the current civil war, they'll move away from that. And movement away from a position of demanding the whole of indian kashmir to only demanding the valley isn't a concession...my toddler tries to pull that kind of shit..demands the whole jar of candy and then says he'll be fine with 2..doesn't work in either case..


So unless you have a solution, we're back to square one..india has something..pakis want it..pakis can't do anything about it..

and another thing...it's the kuldip nayyar types who told india in the late 90s that india couldn't progress if it didn't "compromise" on kashmir...turns out india has done quite well without giving up anything..to the point where it's in a completely different league now..

Re: # 139 Dost

Yes, but you can blame him for destroying what little there was and for not cultivating any civil institutions. He did remove an elected government after all. Far better for the Pakistani voter to vote them out than through a coup d'etat. Improved ties with India will not come through the whims of one man, but through an organic process starting at the grassroots.

"I think that these conditions have never existed in Pakistan since mid-fifties in the previous century and one cannot blame Musharraf for destroying institutions which were not there to start with."


Wonderful. So, there is an entity whose survival depends on:
1 - keeping the stranglehold on 'a' people by brute force,
2 - superimposing a militarist posture on 'a' society
3 - keeping the conflict with india low/high intensity going

... and this entity's head Musharraf/guy'X' is to be expected to respond in a self-destructive manner by signing on to a definitive pak/india resolution of the so-called "conflicts"?

DM: Did you support Indira Gandhi's "emergency" or came up with explanations for it?