No More Hiroshimas Anywhere, Ever

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 # 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!

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 # 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

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 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

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

Please disregard my post # 38. Thanks, Bilal Ahmad

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.

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).

Bilal & KRashid,

I feel our biggest impediment to peaceful coexistence is our failure to get past what happened in our history. There is a lot of bad blood & both sides are guilty.

When you see movies like ``Braveheart`` or ``Patriot``, one sees that there was a lot of bad blood between the Scotts & Americans against the British. Today ,they not only coexist peacefully, but are good friends. But then they have the advantage of the passage of time & generations. I hope with the passage of time & generations our countries will learn to live with each other peacefully.

In this nuclear age, though, I wonder if we have the luxury of the passage of time.

In response to krashid (Reply #: 41)
Dear Rashid:

Your statement: “I [Rashid] am simple minded. 2 + 2 = 4.”
Comment: There is nothing wrong in being simple. It constitutes a part of our reality and our way of comprehending reality. Reality, in my view, is both simple and complex. We cannot, therefore, be simple minded “only” if we wish to understand the complexity of our existence.

Your statement: “What is meant by social relations.”
My response: The notion of social relations seeks to capture the relationship between various segments of our reality (such as class relations or power relations). Hence, we human beings live our lives in relation to all other objects around us (which include other human beings too). This suggests that our actions are in part a product of our relationship with others. In the case of India and Pakistan, the nature of our relations are predominantly a product of our mutual dealings/actions. Peace cannot be achieved between India and Pakistan unless both parties seriously and unceasingly desire it (perhaps at all costs).

Your statement: “I see everything starting with economics.”
Comment: Social reality, even in a simple/abstract form, cannot be explained in terms of economy (or material reality) only. We need to understand the complex interrelationships between the state, economy, and civil society.

Rashid, we need to consider why we South Asians (and the neighboring countries) have not yet been able to form a supranational alliance of the kind of the European Common Market.

Rashid, we all need to read more, sort out our thoughts, and adopt a more consistent approach for dealing with our reality. I am, nonetheless, not sure if I ever tried to put you on spot (about your inadequacies) as you seem to allude.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

#39 bahmad

It is hard to think of the entire mass of people unless their lives are in immediate danger. But by then it may be too late. Anyway, we have had wars and, IMO, will have more in the future. Kargil was a war and could easily have led to a wider conflict.

#42 krashid

You haven`t given me a straight answer. You are simply justifying what happened. Why don`t you pretend to be an Indian for a moment and tell me how you`d see things. This is what needs to happen if enemies are ever to reconcile.

I believe you are also unreasonable in expecting the Indian government to drive towards a peace plan. They made a start and that has now been scuttled. Why doesn`t Pakistan say, we are willing to give independence to those areas that want it - let`s have a plebiscite. The Pak view has always been that Kashmir belongs to it. No big moral concerns there. Look at what Israel and the Palestinians are doing. They started talking and save the hardest problems for last. The momentum is unstoppable. Even Israelis acknowledge now that some sort of accomodation with the Palestinians over Jerusalem will have to be worked out.

Let`s look at what Musharraf wants on the other hand. He has an one-point agenda: Kashmir should go to Pakistan. No talks are possible when your intentions are clear from the outset. I am more liberal than most Indians on Kashmir. Even I say no talks with Pakistan unless something changes there - either a change of leadership or their position regarding the agenda.

If the current intrasigence continues and if the jihadists continue to be unleashed on India, a war will be inevitable.

In response to anamika (Reply # 45)
Dear Anamika:
With reference to the plight of over a billion people in South Asia, you maintain “[it] is hard to think of the entire mass of people unless their lives are in immediate danger. But by then it may be too late.” You indeed are right because time is flying and both India and Pakistan are engaged in a policy of mutual self-destruction. This policy, however, may prove more destructive for Pakistan than India.
You also maintain that “we have had wars and, IMO, will have more in the future. Kargil was a war and could easily have led to a wider conflict.” I don’t doubt the power of your observation. But, aren’t you diagnosing the problem without any “apparent” concern for the solution? What kind of future do “we” want to have for a region that provides “us” some sense of identity?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Shankar (Reply # 43)
Dear Shankar:
I agree with the spirit and content of your post. I, however, think that the problem is more at the level of the state than the common people. If this statement has some merit, we need to express our views as clearly and loudly as possible to provide necessary resistence against the follies of our so-called leaders and the state apparatus.
Although the state of affairs between India and Pakistan may hurt Pakistan much more than India, the future of India appears no less bleak to me given the size of her growing population.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Bilal and Rashid

Fascinating discussions going on here and I commend you on persevering with this board while the rest of the chowkies have moved onwards. Still, it allows us to have a rather interesting discussion, perhaps not interrupted with ``rude`` messages. Perhaps I could use Rashid`s ``economic`` framework to express my hypothesis that nuclear weapons are here to stay in the subcontinent. Economics and Financial theory and modelling assume that markets do not change their fundamental behaviour. In other words, if you model the market/system properly, the residuals are independently and identically distributed across time. Unfortunately, this does not happen. To carry on with the analogy, the impact of computers, or the mobile phone, or e-commerce, or railways, or the Euro, WTO, etc. etc., has had dramatic effects in changing the entire system. Bringing the analogy back to the nuclear weapons and substituting market with social reality, it is my hypothesis that nuclear weapons are here to stay until and unless there is a equal or more than equal social reality change. This bigger change can arise, unfortunately, due to the following reasons: 1. nuclear war, 2. conventional war, 3. economic implosion, 4. extremely significant social movement (arrival of a Jinnah or for India, a similar situation as to when Rajiv Gandhi was elected by a stomping majority right after Indira Gandhi`s assassination), etc.

Your comment that until and unless India and Pakistan become friends or desire peace, nukes will not be removed. I suggest that there is a intervening stage, that is of strengthening of the command and control systems with a system of hot-lines, graduated response levels and the whole nuclear control structure (not going into details here - go read a tom clancy novel :-) ). Since they cannot be removed, make it as difficult as possible so as to obviate accidental release. In any case, if someone wanted to chuck a weapon of mass destruction NON ACCIDENTALLY (HA!!!), its quite easy to get a CBW weapon in a small aerosol canister and dunk it into the headwaters of Indus, jhelum, ganga, bhramaputra.

In any case, friendship will NOT obviate the need for nukes nor the desire to retain them. Taking your example in #44, even though France, Germany and GB are in an extremely tight relationship, I would find it extremely surprising if GB and France would get rid of the weapons. Nukes are considered (and excuse me for being crude but very appropriate considering south asian skewed notions of honour and masculinity) national genetalia. Leaving jokes apart, you would very clearly see the relationship between nukes and countries in South Asia. When you add to this potent mix, the lingering miasma of colonialism and imperialism, one gets reminded of the quote, ``The Gulf War would have never happened if Iraq had a nuke``. Interesting enough, it was said by an Indian General. Again, I let you draw the obvious conclusions from this.

The above hypothesis and proposed solution may sound cold blooded, but I am trying to address the short term issue here. Longer terms issues of national reconciliation or even international reconciliation is a generational game. A quick look at Sarkar`s Law of Social Cycles is fascinating. Sarkar proposed that societies have major systemic changes when generations re-cycled every 30 years or so (he used the classical Hindu caste system - Brahmins - kshytriyas ....) to illustrate his thesis. There was a book published on this, just before the 1987 crash, and the author used Sarkar`s law to great accuracy. Given his in sample and out of sample predictive accuracy, he became quite famous back then. Right now, we have the genetalia waving crowd in control right now, once it moves down / up to the ``business`` class, Rashid`s hypothesis should kick in. (30 years??? - moves to mars)

On a separate note, and this is rather important, Harmonic #21, could you please give me the references to your reply? I have tried to search for the decrypted messages or other references, but perhaps I am not looking at the right place. I would highly appreciate if you could provide those references. It seems to be akin to the Thule incident and the American / Danish reaction thereof.

Sincerely

bd