No More Hiroshimas Anywhere, Ever

Anamika #37

Let me give you the current example.

India wanted to talk to Hizb-ul-Mujahideen and probably cut a deal with them on Kashmir, bypassing APHC, probably Sheikh Abdullah and Pakistan, important players in the game. And if Indian politicians cannot think straight that they cannot achieve their objective by such move. Instead of blaming others, they should do their reality testing.

Same with trip to Lahore by Vajpayee. Nawaz Sharif was loosing his popularity. Pakistan army (and Vajpayee will be knowing this) is very strong in decision making (particularly on as big issue as Kashmir) and would not approve anything short of giving rights to Kashmiris. Psyche of Pakistani people particularly Punjab, which historically as far as Kashmir is concerned are brothers. (people in Punjab proudly tell their Kashmiri origin). Punjab has borne the main brunt of wars with India. And I am pretty sure such a politician as Vajpayee knew all these. So you can understand that he played his cards well and Pakistan was labelled as not interested in peace, and he gained popularity as a peace maker and got votes. If he was really serious knowing the whole situation, I would advise him to do a reality testing. And as far as Nawaz Sharif is concerned, he probably was Euphoric as leader and thought the whole nation will follow him. He does not need reality testing. It is confirmed.

Why Vajpayee is not interested now.

Only Government which can bring peace can be Army in Pakistan and BJP Government in India, who can take decisions without being LABELLED.(Particularly if the other decision maker is Italian (I think), who is already a foreign born liberal).

BAhmed # 36

I am simple minded.

2+2=4.

What is meant by social relations.

I see everything starting with economics.

Major issues resolved between India and Pakistan. It is a very big market for both of us. Plus access to the market East of Pakistan for India. And other countries East of Pakistan to India can effectively form a good starting point for the weak economies of the region. Inter trade.

In fact I had posted an article still in queue/dust bin of chowk where I have mentioned few points.

De Dolarization of economy of TWC. i.e for our intertrade we can use a common currency, related to our economics in some form.(Buying in Dollars is too hard on all of us and makes us subservient to Western Interest who dictate their terms and condition i.e string attached with Aids.

At least meeting the basic needs of our people like food, clothing and shelter with our own resources i.e TWC.

It will effectively put not only India, but other TWC in a better position to have a better bargaining position vis-a-vis North.

The North South divide is not only going to worsen with time, but people of our countries will be poorer in buying power with each passing day and slave of the North.

I think that is not only beneficial to the people and economy of the region, but also Industrialists trader and agriculturist, who will have access to a larger market without the quota etc etc.

This in no way will come in the way of expanding in any other direction economically by any country of the region.

I think South Indians probably will be more appreciative considering they want to expand further than more jingoistic North Indians.

You are right that I have to read a lot, to form my thoughts more maturely and consistently.

Please disregard my post # 38. Thanks, Bilal Ahmad

In response to anamika (Reply # 37)
Dear Anamika:
Your statement: ``I am extremely skeptical that another war can be avoided.``
Comment: A war could be avoided if we realize that a policy of peaceful coexistence is a prerequisite for ensuring a mimimum level of social justice to over a billion unfortunate human beings in South Asia.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to anamika (Reply # 37)
Dear Anamika:
Your statement: ``I am extremely skeptical that another war can be avoided.``
Comment: A war could be avoided if we realize that a policy of peaceful coexistence is a preremay help ensure a mimimum level of social justice to over a billion unfortunate human beings in South Asia.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

krashid #33

Regarding peaceful coexistence of India and Pakistan, are you forgetting that the ``jihadis in power in Delhi`` undertook a historic trip to Lahore even as the jihadis in Pakistan were quietly preparing for Kargil? Please answer this question as objectively as possible: How could anyone in power in India risk another peace overture with Pakistan given that the Lahore Declaration was unceremoniously dumped by Pakistan, or that you don`t hear about Simla any more? What is clear to Indians is that Pakistan will not settle for anything other than a complete control of Kashmir. And that any treaties or agreements that Pakistan signs is worthless unless such turn over Kashmir to Pakistan. If you WERE an Indian, how would you see things differently?

I am extremely skeptical that another war can be avoided.

In response to krashid (Reply # 35)
Dear Rashid:
Your statement: ``Peaceful co-existence is only possible if we respect other individual groups or nations.``
Comment: I concur.
Your statement: ``The behaviour of India vis-a-vis all its neighbours is against all norms of peaceful coexistence.``
Comment: I personally don`t appreciate the role of both Indian and Pakistani administrations (ruling elite). If the state of India has failed to behave like a good neighbor, so has the state of Pakistan. A short and simple, yet critical, history of the Indo-Pak relations is sufficient to come to grips with our ``mutual`` weaknesses. In short, we need to understand the ``social relations`` of our existence (not just one-sided allegations and counter-allegations). We need to develop critical scholarship, not just a knowledge that is based on heresay, misunderstandings, unfair values, and unwise everyday social actions and practices.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed!

I see it like this.

I have many differences with my family member.

But in all these differences, whether we fight or keep quiet, we respect the individuality of each other. Differences of opinion, harsh words etc happen, But in the end we live happily together.

Peaceful co-existence is only possible if we respect other individual groups or nations.

The behaviour of India vis-a-vis all its neighbours is against all norms of peaceful coexistence. And it will be a folly to think, that there can be peaceful coexistence in such atmosphere.

In response to krashid (Reply # 33)
Dear Rashid:
Your statement: ``Peaceful coexistence is very important.``
Comment: In view of the nature of our polity, it seems highly improbable that we may prioritize peaceful coexistence in our dominant national discourse(s).
As individuals, we may much more easily prioritize the need for peaceful coexistence in our everyday lives.
Peace (or its lack of) is actually a social relation between ``two`` or more parties. A necessary condition for lasting peace is, however, the recognition and establishment of justice and fairness. What do we need to transform this world into a just place for all kinds of people around the world?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed!

Peaceful coexistence is very important.

And sooner or later both parties viz India and Pakistan are going to realize this. (Hopefully before the opportunity slips).

Although on surface it might appear that Pakistan is putting hindrance in this process. I think we have to look back at 52 years old history to see that it is mutual destruction of each other.

It is just a matter of luck for India that in last 8-10 years that it has come economically forward, and has started to realize what an irritant Pakistan is for its progress. But shirking away the 52 years history for Pakistanis and probably thousand year history for Indians will not be an easy job. Particularly, since the Jihadis on both sides have reins of power.

In my opinion, regionally ball is in India`s court and old age idiom is true that you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

In response to Krashid (Reply # 31)
Dear Rashid:
Your apology is a sign of your good nature. I, however, have no bad feelings/memory. We all need to concentrate on more important issues, like the peaceful coexistence and global unevenness. Are`nt these issues intertwined?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed #30

Subah Ka Bhoola Agar Sham Ko Ghar Aa Jaye To Use Bhula Nahin Kahte.

I apologize for my remarks made months ago.

I hope you accept it.

I miss your posts very much.

Regards.

In response to KRashid (Reply # 29)
Dear Rashid:
My reference to a global social contract was simply an utopian desire. I personally do not see the possibility of such a contract under a predominantly capitalist world.
If Emmanuel`s theory of unequal exchange between the rich and poor countries has some merit, greater trade and exchange between somewhat equally developed nations ``may`` (it seems) be more beneficial for the less-developed parts of the world.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed #25

What kind of social contract you are proposing between economic giants and dwarfs.

It is better if we have some reconciliation between TWC and increase in trade and exchange between them as much as possible.

bahmad #27

bahmad, here is a simplistic reply, as I have no knowledge of theory.

You may have seen this news item:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_874000/874490.stm
South Asian brokers urge ties

Present-day European countries and the interlinking of their economies may be a good example of one country`s well-being invested in another`s? Hope it willnot take a war like WWII to accomplish something similar on the subcontinent.

Sadhana

In response to Sadna (Reply # 26)
Dear Sadhana:
Thanks! In my post, I used the word ``social`` in its widest possible sense. Marxist scholars describe antagonism as an essential product of the nature of the capitalist mode of production. Why (under capitalism) would any country invest in the well-being of any other country? This brings us to the issue of exchange and use value of the world we live in.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad