Pervez Musharraf and India Pakistan Rapproachment

It seems the he-monkey circle-jerkers called in reinforcements. We now have an accompanying she-monkey mujra as well.

Dost Mitter,

Your article is at most a wishful fantacy. Every thing that has been acheived, the rail line, the trade etc. can be voided in a few minutes. Musheraff time has seen the rise to power of the jihadis, now they are well entrenched in the military and the madrassas. During Mushis time, the country has become jihadised more than ever, Kargill was a true jihadic war where the pak troops behaved in true jihadi fashion by mutilating and killing those who were captured, un=precednted in indo-pak wars.

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. The army has accpted teh superior fire power of the jihadis, muishy has surrendered the army to the jihadis. And that is bad news for the world and india raproachment.

#27 Posted by dost_mittar,

I would tend to think US pressured both India and musharraf to de-escalate on their common border to free Pak Army resources for support at the Western border for Bush's GWOT. That necessitated thawing of Pak's relationship with India.

However musharraf may have tricked USA there too because the army of 80,000 deployed thereafter at Afghanistan border/Fata was almost fully paramiltary i.e. Frontier Corps, while regular army remained where it was.

The struggle for independence of India was a movement encompassing the whole subcontinent and it produced an entire generation of leaders, who could steer the country in its nascent stage. So, even when Gandhi was no more on the scene, India continued with Nehru and other political leaders who had been well groomed to provide solid leadership.
On the other hand, after MAJ there was no dynamic leader who could rise to lead Pakistan, and the chaotic situation that followed gave Ayub Khan the opportunity to meddle in governance of Pakistan. The military which had tasted blood would not like to leave the political scene. Musharraf's take over of power is just another chapter in the military dominated political life of Pakistan. He is just a person of ordinary intellect ( although he has good linguistic skills which, despite his being a Muhajir, enable him to speak Urdu in Punjabi accent in front of the troops)who derived his power from the army of which he was commander. All generals in Pak army think that they can rule Pakistan better than the civilians.
Until this is corrected and the rudder is firmly in civil hands, Pakistan will not be able to make progress as a democracy.

In fact, had ZAB been strong enough, he should have put the army firmly in the barracks particularly after the humiliating defeat of 1971 which dismembered Pakistan.

As for the so called change in Musharraf's policy toward India, it is in fact the humiliating withdrawal of Pak troops from Kargil heights convinced him that he cannot mess with India. So the next best option was to make friendly overtures. Mind you, his position on Kashmir is only acceptance of what Pakistan will in any case never get.

jayp makes an important point. Under Musharraf, war for Pakistani Army has become jihadized. It was already headed that way before Musharraf came to power but with Kargil consolidated the jihadization. In earlier wars, it was two professional armies fighting each other and appreciating the other side's bravery and valour at the same time(whatever the rhetoric of war).

During Kargil the Pak Army showed that it has no compunction in mutilating and dishonoring enemy soldiers and in fighting alongside civilian jihadis who do the same to unarmed civilians and follow no professional code of fighting except absolute violence in the name of religion.

The rationale for the Kargill war is in his first address to the paki nation. He declared that the accords with India are not worth the paper it is written on. Only thing that changed was India amassing troops on pak border.

Mushy is a confirmed war monger.

He stopped the operations in waziristan only when 200 of apki troops were captured, and then he negotiated a peace deal with the jihadis. Mushy knows only the language of the bullets.

Now with the elections and the installation of a civilian govt, there will be unified command for the army and the jihadis. What we saw today is the last attack on the army, here after it will be on the ministers and civilians.

The elections are bad news for india and afghanistan, the jihadis are going to get a free reign.

#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.

#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.

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".

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.

#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...

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...

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.

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

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).