Getting Ready for ‘Bus Diplomacy’

If the bus service works out then it will be really convenient for a number of people to visit India who have always wanted to go there.

Beena:

Vajpayee-- all backbone no muscle, and Sharif all muscle & no backbone meeting in Lahore.

Predictable outcome. (yawn---over to you Dr. Feroze).

Re: Beena Sarwar

Your sense of hope was really admirable, but I have to tell you; wait and see. It is too early to get excited about nothing. A couple of politicans sharing a bus ride and then discussing mutual interests over a lavish luncheon, is not going to change the misery of a billion people over night!

How is Nawaz Sharif going to sell this idea to the Islamic zealots or to the pro-Kashmiri lobby? How will his Indian opposite deal with his extermists? Both these gentlemen are playing poker and neither one of them is prepared to have his bluff called! I am not interested in how and what they talk, but I am only interested in seeing results emerge from their discussions and not more empty communiques stating a creation of another working group to study the feasibility of bi-lateral discussions!

What ever these two gentlemen agree to is crucial, but in reality it will be the acceptence of this idea, by all the political groups on both sides of the Radcliff line, which will usher in the dawn of peace upon a sub-continent cloaked within a craven night of dispair. Celebrating mustard poppies and flying kites does not mean anything even in the company of Indians.

As far as this situation goes, I have a perspective of a trench soldier: I have heard too many promises; seen too many preparations; I have hoped too often; I have seen too much time wasted and I have seen nothing change for the better.

Pardon a cynic Ms. Sarwar, this is just another tempest in a tea cup and soon after it is over, life will still plod on and all the grand gestures of this memorable event will be forgotten. This is not the first time and it is not the last time when promises are being made which never be fulfilled.

Ferozk Cynicus Maltemperate!

A well written background of the current style
of diplomacy. Loved the ``Basant`` backdrop.
One can only hope that something concrete
comes out of all this and that its not all
just for the sake of appearences.
The ball to peace is firmly in India`s court
(and has been for a while). Once Kashmir is
settled, the future can be much brighter for
all parties including the Indians.

It was great how Beena concluded this piece
with a parting shot at the fundos..
Since I`m not writing this note for national
publication in Pakistan I`d go further to
state that if Benazir had tried this move,
``Ghaddar``(Traitor) is the least that many people
including some posters on CHOWK would have called
her.
Any comments?


Ras

Diplomacy GOOD

War BAAAD

4 Legs GOOD

2 Legs BAAD

Baaaaa!

OMAR1974

Did you guys check out the NYTImes summarizing India-Pakistan relations for the last 50 years. Depressing, but true.
Moves like these (bus diplomacy) CAN ONLY be GOOD for Indo-Pak relations. They don`t necessazrily have to be effective in fixing real problems but they can never be detrimental.
However, on either side of the border (ooops LOC !) there are a lot of extremists who would rather see a war of the last-man-standing nature.

I think we should start an Indo-Pak `Death Match Contest` a la MTV. people from either side can volunteer to participate in a no-holds-barred all out Death Match. You can sell tickets for this. The passion extremists and right wingers waste on the streets while getting pummeled by their own policeman can be channelled to become a big revenue generator.
FOrget slimy proxy wars and all out Nuclear wars. Lets start this Death Match contest. It will be a positive step. If anybody has an axe to grind they can volunteer for this contest.

re: RAS
You say,``The ball to peace is firmly in India`s court (and has been for a while).``

yet, when Vajpayee makes a friendly move towards peace who protests the loudest and most violently.
Hindus gunned down in Jammu. Pak Armed forces chiefs refuse to come to welcome Vajpayee inspite of their C-in-C ORDERING them to do so. I wonder who controls the Nuclear bombs.
Come on, please....you need a more honest and candid picture of your own nation. The above is the same old story which nobody believes anyway. Sounds more like an army with a nation rather than the other way around.
Little wonder that the Bal Thackreys of the world reach where they do.
If you keep letting the extreme right wings marginalize the politics, the moderates will have no choices left. Deja VU.

I still think a `Death match` is the only way out. Will please everybody.

Re: Rana Ransher Post # 7

Just who is the CinC of Pakistani armed forces?
Are you talking about Nawaz Sharif or the Chief of Army Staff?

If it is the former, the military might be giving him the proverbial finger for getting it involved in the extra-judical military court crisis in Sind. The Supereme Court of Pakistan just invalidated that idea and the army did not like being caught with its dicks hanging in the wind. That high court decison was a slap in the face of the military and the military in Pakistan rarely admits that it was wrong. This was a public rebuke and there are lot of rankled people in khaki at the present time.

Other than that, I agree with you: keep the numbnuts in check and lets hear what the moderates have to say!

Did you read the latest pronouncements from the meeting: same old words, different day and a different time! Do not pay any attention to the western media either, because these idiots have no idea what they are talking about either!

For a comprehensive understanding into Indo-Pak relations, I would suggest a classic: Alice in Wonderland. Read the chapter on Mad Hatter`s Party and you`ll see the absurdity of this coeur-a-coeur. While you are reading that, I would suggest listening to Jefferson Airplane`s White Rabbit in the background!

re: Ferozk
I am referring to a new report (News International) which said that the heads of the 3 armed forces refused to abide by Nawaz Sharif`s order that they join him in welcoming the Indian PM at Wagah Border. THe report said that they refused to salute a PM from an ENEMY country and instead attended a banquet given by Sartaj Aziz for the Chinese Defense Minister. The fact that Vajpayee was coming on a `peace` mission was irrelevant.
The fact that they may be wagging a finger at Nawaz Sharif for whatever reasons is besides the point. There message is loud and clear for the takers. NS is the C-in-C isn`t he ? You may not like him, but can you defy authority like that ? Who is in-charge afterall ? Is there anybody in-charge ? Why doesn`t the army just take over ?
And why does Vajpayee even bother wasting his time with someone who is obviously not in-charge.

Meanwhile in Kashmir. Terrorists go on a killing spree in protest to Nawaz`s `betrayal` by talking to Vajpayee. Sheikh Abdullah is busy trying to stop this so talks can go on.

Daaaacter saab ab aap bataayen whose court the ball is in.

Re: Rana Ransher #9

First of all, please accept my sincere apologises for the unfortuneate incident in Kashmir.

If you would have read the TheNews articles, the service chiefs did attend the ceremony at the Lahore Governor`s residence and were formally presented to the Indian Prime Minister. Their refusal to attend the border ceremonies was not, and should not, be taken as a rebuke of Vajaypee`s visit. Yes, their comments were regretable and should not have been uttered.

There was a slight misunderstanding on the nature of the Vajaypee`s visit. Was it a formal visit or an informal one? Protocol dictates that if the visit is informal, the service chiefs do not have to be present and even in formal situations, the presense of the military brass is highly unusual. In such cases, the military is represented through the proper cabinet minister. Even in the United States, an arriving head of state government is not greeted by the Joint Chiefs, but later in a formal setting such as the White House reception etc.

As to the rest of your queries, I would have to say NS is in charge, but the military is too tradition bound. Besides, do you really know if a flag officer said those words, or someone was ``attributed`` as saying those words. In politics, if I were you, I would not pay too much attention to what some ``unidentified source`` said. Unless you have the name of the officer responsible for saying those words, this just heresay.

The military is not interested in taking over the country. It has the common sense to stay away from the present mess.

RE: Reply #: 7 RanaRansher

Rana Sahib,
first of all it is difficult to say that Pakistanis are somehow responsible for the murder of the 22 Hindus in Jammu. I would like to remind you that the Pakistan cannot even control such killings of a sectarian nature in Pakistani Punjab. How can Pakistanis stop these killings across the LOC?

On the issue of the Service Chiefs not meeting
Vajpayee Ji at the border, let Indians be rest
assured that this visit by the Indian PM would
NOT have taken place WITHOUT the approval and
SUPPORT of the people in uniform in
Pakistan.

I still say that ``The ball to peace is firmly in India`s court (and has been for a while).``
But what the final shape of this peace will be
is anyone`s guess. Lets give ourselves some time
(at least 6 months)to think this over. If
Tendulkar can be clean bowled for a duck on the
first ball of a cricket match, miracles are
possible even when they may appear impossible.

Ras

PS: I strongly condemn the killings of the 22
fellow human beings.

re: Ferozk

Your points are well taken. However, I was trying to point out that NO DEMOCRACY in the world should take this kind of flagrant violation of authority lightly. Ultimately, it comes back to haunt you. You seem to take it rather lightly, though.
Your point about ``sources`` for comments is also well taken.

re: Ras
I am sorry, but your whole view on Indo-Pak issues is, at best, naive.
With regards to the massacres in Kashmir, I am not trying to blame anything on Pakistan. However, I would like to point out that you need to take your blinkers off and look at the big picture. Stands like yours, on either side of the border (Ooops LOC !, I love doing that) are what has led to the current situation.

You say the ball is in India`s court. You offer no explanation for that. Yet you completely chose to ignore the following facts:
- There are people on either side who would rather see every person from across the border dead than talk to them. (Bal Thakre who violently tried to prevent the Cricket team from playing, Jamaat violently protesting against Vajpayees visit)

- Within Kashmir there is no united front. There are:
1. groups that want more autonomy within India (Sheikh Abdullah`s National Front which holds democratic elections)
2. groups that want to secede to Pakistan
3. groups that want an independant Kashmir (not Islamic)
4. groups that want an independant Islamic Kashmir (all infidels out !)
5. groups that want an end to militancy at ALL COSTS
6. Pan-Islamic mercenaries (foriegners from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sudan, Bosnia, Jordan, etc.) that just want to wage JIHAD and kill infidels, with no real idea of what the future of Kashmir should be.

FOrget the fronts within Kashmir. I was just trying to point out that even within Pakistan there doesn`t seem to be one opinion of what should happen to Kashmir, or for that matter POK.
Within India there isn`t one either. However, Vajpayee was trying to answer that on behalf of India by thumbing his nose at his own co-alition members (Shiv Sena, RSS) and proceeding to Pakistan for this trip.
What disturbed me about Pakistan was not the Jamaatis (I expected that ) but the reaction from the Armed Forces. What amazed me even more was your support (almost admiration really) for their blatant disregard of authority and institutions.

You said, ``let Indians be rest assured that this visit by the Indian PM would NOT have taken place WITHOUT the approval and SUPPORT of the people in uniform in Pakistan.``
What is that supposed to mean ? Is that a threat ?
back to the same question ``is it an army with a state or a state with an army``. Little wonder that the army has taken over so many times.

To say the ball is in Indias court is trivializing the whole issue. What about the voice of Kashmiris ? DO they matter at all ?
I would be all ears if you could actually explain how the ball is in India`s court sans the rhetoric.

regards

Re: Rana Ransher # 13

My friend, way are you causing me a heart ache?

I still to this day think Harry Truman, whom I admire as a president, was wrong in firing General Douglas MacArthur, my one of favorite battlefield commanders, but then again that is another story....

I agree with you, those remarks and the actions of the military brass were in poor taste and as military men, they should have respected the chain of command. My friend, what is done is done. Do not let that one incident distract you from what actually happened. Rana, my friend, the unquestioning obedience of the military towards the democratically elected leadership is crucial, as you point out, but as I have repeatedly pointed out, Pakistan is not a democracy! The ancien regime of yesterday still lingers in the mindsets of many of key political participants.

Indian military has a half a century`s worth of democratic tradition behind it and ours, the Pakistani military, has a mere ten years of democracy behind it. This would explain my attitude, which you refered to as ``lightly``, but I assure you it is far from that! Rana, do not be too hasty to judge us against a standard which even we do not claim to have attained!

Re: Kant Patel # 12

Interesting points and well taken!

To return the compliment, I was bemused that we, Pakistanis and Indians, still attache a great deal of importance to ceremonies and pomp and circumtance. I grant you the argument that this was an offical visit. Could it not be an offical visit without the color guard or the 21 gun salute? It is time we moved beyond symbolism and gestures in our mutual relations.

As to your concerns about the Pakistani military`s response to Nawaz Sharif, you raised some critical concerns which need to addressed. I have friends who are in the military and I can tell you personally that compared to our Pakistani politicans, they are a lot more wiser and saner! Now, if you want to discuss their tact or subtlety, that is a different story.... :)

Pakistan is like Alice in the Wonderland...things do have not to make sense! It is like that Budweiser beer commerical, ``why ask why?``

re: Ferozek
Bhraa ji tussi thaand raakho. I mean to cause no trouble or heart ache.

I consider you a Gyaani in these matters and hence solicited your opinion. I raised the military issue (among others) to point out, that to say `Indo-Pak relations hinge on Kashmir and Kashmir`s solution lies fairly in India`s court` is being tunnel visioned. This, in my opinion, has been Paks official stand for a while. Mind you, I am not even maintaining India`s official stand of `Kashmir is an integral part of India`. Simply because I believe ground reality prevents me (an Indian) from even visiting Kashmir.
I am surely not trying to get into an Indo-Pak penis contest comparing the relative democratization (that would make another interesting debate )

Regarding the pomp and show in most state sposored stuff. India is still nauseatingly Angrez. All the ceremonies (Republic Day Parade and stuff) are left overs of the Angrez and now the kala Angrez touts it.

regards

Re: Rana Reply # 13

I do claim to be naive but I believe
that the following comment shows an uncalled for
knee jerk reaction:

``You said, ``let Indians be rest assured that this visit by the Indian PM would NOT have taken place
WITHOUT the approval and SUPPORT of the people in uniform in Pakistan.`` What is that supposed to mean ? Is that a threat ?``

What I meant was quite the opposite in fact.
I believe that the Pakistan army also wants to
give this Peace Bus a chance.
As you wrote, there are several groups operating
in Kashmir and what I was hinting at was that
I doubt that Pakistan can fully control any of them.
An finally on my comment that the ball is in India`s court, there is absolutely nothing new
there. Kashmir is India`s problem and a Pakistani
aspiration at best. And in the end, besides the
additional suffering caused to the Indian and Pakistani masses due to the wasteful spending
on arms, the Kashmiris want this nightmare to end
(one cannot ignore the Hindu Pandits in our discussion here). India needs to settle this issue
with either the Kashmiris and/or the Pakistanis.
What a royal mess you have created there (Pakistanis are great in that department too).
Army occupation does not an ``integral part`` make.
Autonomy, Independence or LOC adjustment, the
problem is not going away.

Ras

PS: My naive vested interest is to see an end to this problem in a peaceful manner, because from
this distance it appears that India, Pakistan and
the Kashmiris are not the only party in this miserable picture.

Re: Rana Ransher # 15

Before I begin, I must offer my apolgises to you Rana. That reference about Truman-MacArthur was just a tangent...that is different story for another day!

As to your point about Kasmmir being a part of India, I wrote a reply on that issue under Rohan`s article. I agree that both sides have an acute case of tunnel myopia on this issue. Right now both India and Pakistan have to decide whether to transform the Line of Control into a fixed border or to grant Kashmir independence. It is highly unlikely that Kashmir will be returned to its pre-partition status in either nation`s favor.

As an aside to Ras, I think the ball is neither in India`s court nor Pakistan`s for that matter. I think that we both have dropped and lost the ball and now no one knows the hell it is! :)