Pervez Musharraf and India Pakistan Rapproachment

LOL, you know very well HP sahib, for a politically-minded person like me (just like you) that would seem a very very risky proposition. But I wouldn't mind, even if I (or people like me) keep urging caution.

So long as those contacts are not stopped (with or without caution) you (we) would get what you suggest.

Is that fair?

I doubt even Col Kool Aid aka DM will buy this BS about how the pakis don't really want kashmir...

Tahmed sahib:

You often say that India reversed its policies toward Pakistan, once it exploded the nuclear bomb, because it became worried that Pakistan will use nuclear device against India. I disagree, and let me give my reasons below.

The only nuclear attacks todate have been surprise attacks. Both sides and their Uncle Sam knew that each other had nuclear bombs. This knowledge served as the deterrent. Open explosion by Pakistan can not deter, when all scenario of first attack confirm that India will survice to hit back, and the world would come and takecare of the parties to such adventurism. Bush was not joking when he said that nuclear Iran is third world war.

Successful blasts certainly raised the passion and united Pakistanis against their nemesis. This unity, instead of being channelized productively, was destroyed by attacking Supreme Court and rest of the sequel that followed.

New reality is that all those who cheered for independence of Kosovo, prove my point that Ummah can be manipulated by the other side too.

To understand this, please look at the map of Islamic nations, all now have something going at their borders or inside their borders. Turkey and East European countries included in the north; Pakistan, Afghanistan (and couple of ...tans of Central Asia) in the east; Darfur in the south, and west is the Atlantic Ocean to contain. These conflicts will play out as war of attrition.

Iraq gives a clear platform for this turmoil to go on inside, if McCain is to be believed for 100 years. Palestinian and Israel problem does not show any urgency in resolving either. There seems to be a complete encirclement with violence (=fire), and there is fire in the middle too. One more interesting observation is that oil in the center is encircled by despotic leaders, Iran excluded. Shite Sadr keeps extending ceasefire in Iraq. When these fires go on, and locals fight among themselves, they are less likely to deal with the despotic leaders encircling oil assets.

OBL wanted to get rid of Saudis, instead look where he attacked and where he is hiding, and who is killing who. Clearly this Ummah is getting manipulated by the both sides.

Recent elections in Pakistan have shown that Pakistan is a different place than most other Islamic countries. Grass root democracy is alive in Pakistan. Why is it so, I would not know.

Even there the fire has started. Neither Musharraff nor the Taliban can sing that “I didn’t start the fire.” Next government will have to deal with it, and therefore, would be tied down.

Also, neither you nor HP Mian can figure out reality of India Inside.

Pakistanis can - just as people like me can observe Pakistani scene and mix my biases - from the outside,and can throw in personal biases. I as many other outsiders, including a couple of Pakistani friends I talked, did not see this surge of grass root democracy in Pakistan. This is a danger Pakistanis run also when they observe India.

I wrote my biased view in an earlier post on this essay about India Pakistan.

It is a generational change. Pakistanis are genuinely fed up of Army rule. You may know more than I do, if Pakistanis can now be united with a war cry against India, even when according to all in Pakistan, there is no visible progress in solving this issue.

For the future, by the time Pakistan is over with the cycle it is in, I am certain the middle class there will be vibrant, economy can be vibrant, and new reality will emerge there too. Prolonging sixty years of past is no longer acceptable to Pakistani Awam.

This new reality will be more Pakistan centric, and will not be "not-India" based identity, and in my view, this Pakistani will do business anywhere and compete anywhere with anyone.

If you need a proof, look at Shoaib Akhtar, and others. I only hope IPL does not fail.

This younger generation has very little time for old and failed romantic ideas or theories. You see a proof, right here at Chowk; just read interactions between Dost Sahib and Arjun, or Dost Sahib and Sadna. She is politer than Arjun, but equally firm.

The middle class Indians are now busy elsewhere. This group is growing faster than the Indian GDP, and hence indicates that there is upward mobility into this group.

At this rate, this group will soon be larger than the entire population of Pakistan. This is ground reality; discard it at your own peril.

Other realities include that no single party rules India. It is also safer to assume that this is an irreversible phenomenon, and therefore, no single party will come in power for a very long time.

The coalition with younger generation among its cadre, can never reach a consensus on Pakistan as the enemy to fight. Generals there don't act alone on their tetosterones.

Indian Armed forces and bureaucracy no longer attracts the best and the brightest. If democracy is allowed to settle down, the scene there will be similar. Current government could not get all members to agree on nuclear deal with the U.S. Even though all armed forces staff must have wanted the deal to go through.

Problems of Indian armed forces are multiplied by the middle class's new economic reality and dream. Disinterest in armed force officer recruitment is all time high. Middle class provides these recruits. In fact, India’s chief of army staff was asking Bollywood to make more patriotic movies, so that armed forces can be romantically viewed by talent to volunteer.

Going back to Pakistan, pleae look at the election results. This tally is quite like breakdown of regional parties in India. PML-N and PPP may not like to be called regional Punjabi and Sindhi parties, so be it the result speaks for itself.

Therefore, I submit that India-Pakistan can no longer fight each other. This has nothing to do with testosteronics of nuclear or non-nuclear armed forces.

Generational change; new ground reality, as I mentioned above, in the Islamic countries; and shifting priorities require a new paradigm for India Pakistani relations.

Indian Kashmir cannot be central to this paradigm. Shoaib Akhtars, Adnan Samis, Romairs (yes our Romair), and a new crop of entrepreneurs (and not lawyers of old time Jinnah, Gandhi and Nehru) will define this paradigm from Pakistan side. After all it was a group of entreprenuers who rushed to Delhi, to plead a case against breakout of hostilities when India piled up 1-million armed forces at the border.

These Akhtars, Samis, Romairs & Co. will deal with people who will include persistent and tough Sadnas, Arjuns and red-necks like Laddus too. Ganesh mutants, mother burners, pedophile etc. cannot be the currency in this deal.

I confident this will happen in our lifetimes.

Re: # 161
Re: # 160
Re: # 158 etc

Tahmed, you do have a point let globalizaton force the issue. If there is one place where India and Pakistan compete, it is at the WTO. There it seems the views are completely congruent.

Eklavya and HP,

Alas, in the end, it will be the political people who will end up resolving the issue.

Why not practice what you preach. Lets ignore the zees and the arjuns etc when the discussion invariably turns to contenious issues on chowk, and lets focus instead on how the discussions and contacts can move forward in a postive way first on chowk and then on the ground.

From the daily times...doesn't seem like pakiland's bleed india strategy is going so well...turning out to be a death by a thousand self-inflicted wounds for pakiland..

of course, we all are now expected the accept that pakiland was never interested in kashmir..just like the fox wasn't really after the grapes(which were sour anyway).

Second Editorial: Zardari’s message to India

The PPP co-chairman Mr Asif Ali Zardari
has repeated his party’s commitment to the improvement of relations with India to bring about an era of peace between the two countries. Speaking to an Indian daily Monday he said his party had a special relationship with the Congress party whose leaders were personally friendly to the late Ms Benazir Bhutto.

The current misfortunes of Pakistan are a consequence of bad policies adopted to counter India. The false search for “strategic depth” in Afghanistan was India-driven just as the current Afghan policy is driven by fear of India’s comeback into Afghanistan after 1996 when it was driven out by the Taliban. Equally, Pakistan’s refusal to bring about a change in its India policy is an internationally isolating act. That is why Islamabad must begin free-trading with India after ratifying the treaty that President Musharraf has blocked. The “option” of jihad in Kashmir must be irrevocably abandoned in favour of normalisation which is what the people of Pakistan want. And Pakistan must stop defying the WTO and agree to reciprocate the grant of Most Favoured Nation status by India to Pakistan. Far from being made a conditionality of bilateral normalisation, Kashmir should be the object of free-trade cooperation between the two occupied zones. President Musharraf erred on normalisation by dithering; the PPP must move forward after taking the new parliament along. *

Re: # 164

the statement should read "completely agree"

HP # 105

``Pakistan's survival depends on not having the army as the uniting force. I hope you agree with this!''

I entirely agree. This baboon must be put back into its cage. There are some good chances of doing that now.

NHK

anil #163 you cover so many topics and my brain is so tired.. but let me try to respond to at least a part of your post :-(

on nukes: you disagree with my contention that nukes brought 180 degree change in indian govt attitude towards pakistan. However, you ignore the simple sequence of events i have been presenting below and getting only disagreements from indian posters but without pointing out why it is unreasonable to reach the above conclusion. Let me try again:

1. India explodes 5 bombs.
2. Advani (no. 2 man in india) makes extra-belligerent remarks towards Pakistan, saying the Kashmir situation was now totally changed.
3. Pakistan government agonises for a few days - Clinton pushing NS over the phone to take the so-called "High Road" by not responding to India, Pakistan generals pushing NS to give a "fitting response". Finally, NS relents, and Pakistan provides the "fitting response".
4. Indian government suddenly stops making belligerent statements.
5. A few months later, the Indian PM himself visits Pakistan Memorial in Lahore and declares Pakistan is here to stay.(Lahore Rickshawallah Bulleh Shah wonders why the Indian PM thinks anyone in Pakistan was waiting for him to say this).

Now please tell me if there is anything incorrect in this sequence of events, and if I am being unreasonable in reaching the conclusion that BJP learnt the virtues of peace when it discovered it could not threaten Pakistan anymore.

anil: I shall read the rest of your post later and may respond further.

Maharana#141:

"But as some have already pointed out that this rapproachment was perhaps more due to forced circumstances than Pervez Musharraf."

I call it a "what if" question in my article because I am not sure if a civilian govt. would have been able to take unpopular decisions as done by Musharraf. He did encounter stiff opposition from several quarters in Pakistan when he did do an about-turn on India policy; even moderate columnists like Ayaz Amir criticised him for abandoning Pakistan's traditional stance on Kashmir; a popular leader's ability to take unpopular decisions is limited; Indian leaders have more than once negotiated a settlement of Siachen with their Pakistani counterparts but had to go back because of the checks and balances that a democracy imposes upon an Indian leader.

"In general on the policy of rapproachment with Pakistan I think the cautious line taken by the GOI in my opinion is reasonable"

I agree. I used the words "cautious optimism".

Missile hits Pakistan's Waziristan, 8 suspects dead
Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:24pm EST

Email | Print |
Share
| Reprints | Single Page
[-] Text [+]

By Hafiz Wazir

WANA, Pakistan (Reuters) - A missile struck a house in a Pakistani region known as a safe haven for al Qaeda militants early on Thursday, killing at least eight people, residents and intelligence officials said.

The attack took place near Kaloosha village in the South Waziristan tribal region on the Afghan border.

"The blast shook the entire area, about eight people were killed," Behlool Khan, a resident of the area, told Reuters.

A security official said he believed the missile was fired by U.S. forces, who are operating in neighboring Afghanistan.

U.S. forces have fired missiles at militants on the Pakistani side of the border several times in recent years, most recently in late January when one of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants, Abu Laith al-Libi, was killed.

That missile was believed to have been fired by a U.S. pilotless drone.

However, neither U.S. nor Pakistani authorities officially confirm U.S. missile attacks on Pakistani territory, which would be an infringement of Pakistani sovereignty.

Pakistan, an important U.S. ally despite widespread public opposition to the U.S.-led campaign against al Qaeda and the Taliban, says foreign troops would never be allowed to operate on its territory.

Many al Qaeda members, including Uzbeks and Arabs, and Taliban militants took refuge in North and South Waziristan, as well as in other areas on the Pakistani side of the border after U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001.

From sanctuaries in the lawless border belt, the Taliban have orchestrated their insurgency against the Afghan government and the U.S. and NATO forces supporting it.

Increasingly, so-called Pakistani Taliban have been mounting attacks in Pakistani towns and cities, many aimed at security forces and other government targets.

(Additional reporting by Alamgir Bitani; Writing by Zeeshan Haider; Editing by Robert Birsel and Sanjeev Miglani)

#168 Posted by tahmed32 on February 27, 2008 7:52:27 pm

6. Paki army launches an invasion of Indian Kashmir thinking it's nukes will prevent India from attacking it.
7. India says not so fast, counter attacks and kicks the paki army back.
8. pakis still not getting indian kashmir

Kashmir and Siachen issue is definitely taken by Armed Forces (In India side). Regarding Kashmir, India has invested so much that, it is not possible to backtrack now. School, Engineering College, Medical College etc...If India backtracks, they needs to get some financial incentive from UN.

arjun_5#142:

"What solution has been proposed?"

The most talked about solution has been a sort of condominium status; apparently there has been some sort of European precedent for it.

"I think India should STFU about the whole of kashmir, turn the LoC into the border and let Indians buy property in kashmir"

I consider myself to be not a peacenik but a realist; I do not believe in leaving festering wounds unattended. I would have supported the solution you propose (let Indians buy property in Kashmir and presumably able to settle there) if it was done 40-50 years ago; too much water has flown down Jhelum for India to reverse its policy in this regards without raising both domestic and international howls.

"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.."

Not me. I am on record saying that this was a false argument even before India started making economic stride; I had seen China make both economic progress and become militarily strong at the same time.

Raw_Dust#144:

"... 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"?"

I may be wrong but I happen to believe that Musharraf is more committed to the state of Pakistan than to the army; in any case, if, as is frequently state, the Pakistani army is an army that has a state, its own interest are very much tied to the survival of the state. I believe that when Musharraf had to choose between Kashmir and Pakistan, he made the obvious choice.

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

I would have supported the emergency if Indira Gandhi had imposed it at any other time than when she did; at that particular time, it was Indira who was facing an emergency.

I also think that she was defeated for the wrong reason; her emergency was quite popular in India until she (or rather her son, Sanjay) took forceful measures to control population growth.

giani240#145:

"Thirdly, this big brother would rather have the Indians focus more on new bully arriving on the scene - china. Since the big brother cannot handle this new bully by himself. So he prevents the distractions by managing the leash, while pushing the indians to focus more on the strategic ie the new big bully."

Regardless of what the big brother wants, I think that the Indias are too smart to fall for this trap; they want to have friendly relations and even more booming trade with China and have no desire to do America's dirty work vis-a-vis China. At the same time, they do have their own regional ambitions and the US and Indian interests do coincide to some extent. I think that India's stance with Pakistan has not changed under the US pressure (except for the withdrawal of forces from the border during 2020); all Indian govts. have favoured normalisation of relationships with Pakistan without changing the status-quo in Kashmir.

I think I have responded to your other points in other interacts.