Pervez Musharraf and India Pakistan Rapproachment

#63 Posted by dost_mittar on February 26, 2008 9:11:19 am

here's the bottom line:

pakis want indian kashmir i.e. they want to alter the status quo..there's no way they're going to succeed..so the only way to peace is for them to STFU and accept the status quo...which is what they're doing..accepting the status quo because they can't do anything to alter it...everything else flows from that...bus service that nobody uses..train services that run empty because visas are hard to come by...

of course, that acceptance is only because of pureland's precarious situation...the minute they think the situation is in their favor, they'll go back to the jihadi option..this isn't speculation...there's a precedence for this...right after 9/11 when dubya made mushy grease up and bend over, people like capt clueless thought pakiland would now be the bees knees in the US..and with uncle sam's wind in her sails, pakiland could afford to sic the jihadis on india at not cost to itself..the bleed india option..I can point you to his exact words if you want..

well...450+ dead pakis just this year has taught them a temporary lesson..

This article is a showcase of Indian problems in its neighborhood. India is a democracy and it is assumed that democracies attempt to resolve disputes through dialogs and persuasion. But in India’s case every dispute it has with its neighbors becomes unsolvable as soon as it emerges even on a very small scale. India has problems with Pakistan, with Bangladesh, with Sri Lanka and even with Bhutan, Nepal and that tiny thing Sikkim.

India has problems with China going back to 50 years. It has problems with Pakistan going back to 60 years and it has problems with Bangladesh going back to now almost 40 years. And if you ask India, all these problems are because of the countries in its neighborhood.

This article by DM shows how much Indians hate introspection. The smaller countries in the Indian neighborhood only have problems with India because the Indian democracy is so inept. While its failure to resolve internal problems is legendary, its failure to resolve international problems with its neighbor is perfunctory!

The strangest of democracy in the world, on close examination, would get failing grades on every issue it encountered in the last 6o years after the Brits left. The magnitude of the internal problems, unresolved by the successive Indian democratic government, is mounting with every passing year. The country has no highway system, its airports are from the 19th centuries, its railroad still has un-repaired railroad stations from 1930s.

The poverty in India is actually on the rise, the food shortages chronic, undernourishment is the norm. Social, religious and caste issues suck every ounce of political energy of any government. It is one democracy where to win elections you have to find a dispute with another religious group. Still its desire is to be the regional power.

There is no harm in having desires that are unattainable but in India’s case it truly can become the regional powerhouse. Not just the military powerhouse but the economic powerhouse that it deserves to be.

The first step in becoming a regional power is to create harmony in the region otherwise you are just a bully who would be resented, poked, chipped, stabbed and taunted at every step of the way. That is what is happening with India.

Pakistan junta dumps its problems on India in the form of infiltrators almost at will, Bangladesh allows its poor to cross borders because the Indian State would not work for any solution with Bangladesh.

Until 1992 the country had no economic policy and finally when it was bailed out by the IMF, it picked up the IMF recommended system of trickle down economy without any questions asked. Trickle down works very well when the workers are integrated in one economic and industrial system. In India’s case the trickle down would take a millennium or two to work!

Recently, the economic guru and the Shoukat Aziz of India, MM Singh was publicly heard musing over the failure of the economy to reduce poverty. Despite the great scheme of some rupees every month to families that have no visible means of income.

With a country as big as India, there may be a few things that are good or perhaps work but that happens not by some design. It all happens because some factors take a form out of chaotic policy initiatives or some international economic complications allow the trickle down effects to reach India.

But for every Indian, like the author of this article, all Indian problems are created by others…poor Indians just don’t know how to resolve them.

#66 Posted by HP on February 26, 2008 9:49:22 am


India is a democracy and it is assumed that democracies attempt to resolve disputes through dialogs and persuasion.


No amount of dialog or persuasion is going to make India give you kashmir on a platter...get over it..


India has problems with Pakistan, with Bangladesh, with Sri Lanka and even with Bhutan, Nepal and that tiny thing Sikkim.


let's see...we've got paki terrorists in india..paki terrorists in afghanistan..and the jundullah guys in iran...top top it off, you're got uighur terrorists who were trained in pakiland..

of course, there's the paki terrorism problem in the US, UK, canada, australia, spain, france australia etc etc.


Recently, the economic guru and the Shoukat Aziz of India, MM Singh was publicly heard musing over the failure of the economy to reduce poverty.


MMS is the shaukat aziz of india? so he maniuplated GDP numbers to show a higher growth rate? used the meaningless per capita income(instead of the PPP basis) to tout increasing incomes? told everyone things were peachy when inflation was more than 10%...

dm #57 sorry to have mis-read your post where you in fact had the the correct sequence of events on nuclearization and kargill.

Nevertheless, my basic point remains valid: the BJP attitude with Pakistan took a 180 degree turn after nuclearization, with threats and public statemetns following indian explosions being replaced with talk of peace and Vajpayee visiting Pakistan within the year or so.

Nawaz Sharif has strong business roots and was never one for saber-rattling with India (it is a fact that even after the Indian explosions he was in two minds, being pushed by Clinton to take the so-called "high road" and not respond in kind and by the Pakistan military to give India a "fitting reply" - and NS then took the latter). So, it was only natural for him as a man with a business background to respond positively to BJP's change in tune after the "fitting reply".

So, if you must write an article praising a military dictator for a peace process, then you need to give due emphasis to 1. the structural change in military equation due to nuclearization which caused BJP to magically see the light wrt the existence of Pakistan; and 2. the fact that it is this same military dictator who put the process on ice for a few years with his sabotage of the peace talks through kargill.

Re: # 68
That Pakistan had nuclear weapons was known to India. The explosions conducted by India were a successful attempt to get the Pakistanis to reveal what they had, so this talk of Indian leaders going soft on their posture on Pakistan consequent to the explosions is just bullshit.

"The explosions conducted by India were a successful attempt to get the Pakistanis to reveal what they had,"

Wow! India had to test nukes to make Pakistan go public with its nukes. That has to be one of the best diplomatic coup or the strategic move ever witnessed in the international arena. Indians are really strategic geniuses!

Was the Indian government really this idiot? All it had to do was ask the US. They knew Pakistan had the bomb!

#69 Posted by muqaddam on February 26, 2008 10:26:08 am


Indian leaders going soft on their posture on Pakistan consequent to the explosions is just bullshit.


That's prophetboy in a nutshell...bullshit...

D-M sahib,

"When was the last time that we had so many confidence building measures taking place?"

And what do "confidence building measures" do? Have they they decreased violence? Why can't a peace process not be reversed? How many people use the trains etc. to cross the border, and how does it reduce the propensity of states to induce violence in each other's countries? Who cares as to now much Punjabi traders make in carting goods over the border? (Perhaps the customs people do because now they get lesser bribes).

D-M sahib, the dictator does not matter. Holding candles does not matter too. The US or Pakistan will not solve the problem of "terrorism" for India. Indians will have to do so by themselves. Furthermore, to do so effectively we do not need to become a global power. We can start by small effective steps: (i) Increasing the budget of the IB; (ii) Cracking down on corruption in the Border Security Force; (iii) Cracking down on the cowboys in the Indian army and rewarding "intelligence" both in the army and police; (iv) discard socialistic land laws and introduce genuine property rights; (v) revitalize democracy in panchayats; (vi) force politicians to demand a law whereby MPs, MLAs etc. can be recalled before their term ends.

These measures will help India much more than the dictator and candles in the border.

Dost Sahib:

Musharraff has been a catalyst for change in Pakistan. He did not create conditions for change between India and Pakistan. Almost all visible conditions were external.

Internal changes in India, and Pakistan (HP’s travelogue) are very significant.

Today’s India, and it seems today’s Pakistan also, have little interest in war making.

This to me is a generational change. Aspirations and dreams are different. Shell-shock, hatred, anger etc. are replacing in the generation of grand kids of parition, with adversary yes, enemey may be not.

Middle class is now sizeable and quite vibrant in both countries. It is ready to compete without being a cannon fodder. I read somewhere here that now Shahid Afridi is treated as part of the family by Yuvraj's father. This demonstrates adversary not enemy spirit.

According to my personal experience in India, and my readings of Pakistani viewpoints mainly here at Chowk, middle class in India is busy in acquiring consumer products, education, and wealth.

IT has given many Indians new success models and role models of success through entrepreneurship. I know for fact fashion design (30% of Victoria's Secret production comes out Sri Lanka), automobile and healthcare services are well in line.

Pakistani middle class is in no mood to support their Army. Middle class there now seems to blame Army for impeding progress and now bringing the nation to the brink. Once the blame game is over in Pakistan, you will find younger Pakistanis to be as keen to discover their magic bullets, as today's India.

A few Pakistani success stories tied to India connection need to happen next to put this equation between the two countries to the next orbit. Can anyone stop this from happening? I do not think so.

I cannot believe Shoaib Akhtar, and other Pakistani players with their riches coming from Indian Premier League will want to go back and fight in Kashmir to compete. Indian Kashmiris are not blind they too will see and read about them. Barrier to entry is their own talent and capabilities, much as in IT.

The competition needs to change from competing with India to competing in India, or for better marketing competition in South Asia.

I can see this handwriting being written on the wall as we debate.

Shoaib Akhtars are not just performers, they are star performers. In today's world star performers are not limited within a nation-state. Bill Gates & co proved it a generation ago, and are the role models for these start performers.

Their successes have potential to become talk of the town, and drown, Ganesh mutant and mother burner rants of HP mians of Pakistan. If this older generation does not have to the new tune, HP Mians run the risk of being dumped in a dumpster. Younger south asians of the middle class have no patience for such rants.

These trends are called secular trends. They produce changes which are phenomenal. These changes do not happen all the time, but when they start, they change the landscape so completely and in the process produce new leaders and new stars. Romair may not realize, but he is in a similarly unique position with regards to integrated services (not IT) phenomena that is unstoppable in south asia.

Adversarial spirit is still alive and going strong. Hopefully this spirit will bring a new competition among South Asians. Musharraff is a mere catalyst. The changes that forced his hand may soon be responsible for his demise too.

Musharraf is the Gorbachev of Pakistan, who is hell bent on dismantling the geographical as well as ideological borders of state of Pakistan - not to mention the culture, values, history, and livelihood of Pakistanis. Therefore, Musharraf is important to all those forces that have been and are enemies of state of pakistan. Enough said.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Actually, when I ask the most important question about the "Jazba-e-Jehad" of the Pakistanis now they are feeling better after elections- one can see the shrug as if it is a foregone conclusion.

#75 First IslamIslam, now ALlah mian himself - another indian clown defining his entire presence on chowk with his hindu-chauvinism!!

the monkey show goes on..present a little bit of reality to the monkeys and watch the monkeys hop in horror!! ha! ha!

HP #70 What you say is quite reasonable. Please dont be cruel to our islam-obsessed hindu pandit-hates..you know their allergy to reason and facts and they start sneezing uncontrollably like Allah-mian and arjun below.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dost Mittar:

I read your article carefully (twice!). You were careful to not directly praise Musharraf for the changed relations between the 'two twins separated violently at birth'. But, you undoubtedly implied that the change is due to Musharraf when you write, 'But what one can say, with some degree of certainty, is that another leader could not have made a complete about-turn in his policies towards India as Musharraf did…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” undoubtedly played a significant part in changing the direction of Indo-Pak relations.'

Your assessment of Musharraf is half true - the other truth is that India-Pakistan relationship nosedived with Musharraf's ascent. Nawaz Sharif and even Bhutto had cultivated better relationship with India. This omission is a serious one. You did not pin blame on Musharraf for reckless adventurism, without which any analysis of his impact on neighborly relations is incomplete.

You also gloss over the decay of Pakistani civil society and the systematic erosion of Pakistani institutions that Musharraf presided over - this alone has a tremendous negative impact on neighborly ties.

Last, but not the least, you did not analyze Musharraf's mindset for the Pakistani turnaround on the Taliban in his 'India - Lay Off!' speech after 9/11. Specifically, Musharraf alluded to the ultimatum that Richard Armitage gave him - "Pakistan is facing a very critical situation and I believe that after 1971, this is the most critical period. The decision we take today can have far-reaching and wide- ranging consequences. The crisis is formidable and unprecedented. If we take wrong decisions in this crisis, it can lead to worst consequences... The negative consequences can endanger Pakistan's integrity and solidarity."

This speech is also interesting because it clearly illuminates his thinking about India as a 'threat' and 'competitor', not a 'partner'.

If plainspeak about the US ultimatum was not enough, then Musharraf went one step further by referring to the 'Treaty of Hudaibiya'. This reference is critical. The Treaty of Hudaibiya was signed by Prophet Mohammed with the 'non-believers' of Mecca and brought temporary truce with his enemies while he focused his attention on the Jews. By referring to this treaty, Musharraf was highlighting the need for expediency over shared values (which the Prophet did not share with 'non-believers').

So, in sum, Musharraf as a statesman is a pretty short one. Don't be fooled, and worse, do not talk him up by ignoring the expedient shifts in position that he is capable of.

Source of Musharraf's 9/11 speech:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/pakistanpresident.htm