Tunnel Vision

re: jay

please read the article. thanks

TUNNEL VISION,

This article is the classic example of tunnel vision, seeing india through the green eyes. Since 1971, india believed in simla accord, neglected military expansion, tried to keep the Mig 21s, no new jet trainers, onal afew jaguars, good old vijayanta tanks. Lahore declaration was a watersed, every one rejoiced at the dawn of peace. If you care, go through the posts of indians and pakistanis on chowk during the lahore meeting.
If saima is not blinded and tunnel visioned she should have cared to trace the pak mind set that invaded the kargill hights. This article is a classic example of jihad under mushroom clouds. The talk of human rights, objectivity in india reporting. No ,mention what so ever of the pak way of thinkung, the penetration of jihadic world view in the military, its links to kargill invasion and now the eventual manipulation of the political system tp put MMA in power.

Befor you venture into the foreign relation one has to look at the domestic situation. Foreign policy is an extension of the domestic situation, support for taliban is no different from kashmir jihadists, it is not different from the military panick of peace that triggered kargill invasion, it is no different from the political machinations that brought MMA to power.

This is unbelievable, a femal jihadist, good luck to the jihadic border.

re: harish_hyd

why not? aakhir dar kiss baat ka hai? I think both countries should open up their media to both points of view. P`s should defend their definition of freedom fighters and India should defend its army. And oh, bring in the Kashmiri villager, dont forget the people who left Kashmir. Bring them all on board and lets talk. Let`s indeed talk. And talk in front of the world, the entire region. And keep on talking. Why this secrecy, why protect artificial borders, artificial identities and positions based on lies? Doesnt it benefit us all to lay it all out in the open? Does anybody have the courage to create an open dialogue on TV? no? yet they have the so-called guts to kill, but maybe unable to stand having their favourite positons criticised.

if they cant beam it down from india and pakistan, go to dubai.

In an open court like the above, what do you think would happen?
1. mass rioting
2. civil war
3. indo pak war
4. peace and resolution

lets vote!

#28 by SaimaShah on February 24, 2003 10:16pm PT

Saima, we do have programs aired on every major channel like Veeresh pointed out, but does it mean these channels must do a PTV? Thanks, but no thanks.

re: harish_hyd

But that is what I am saying. this is where my argument starts. I agree Pakistan is the pits, but are you sure that this perception is the complete truth? also how can the status quo change.

re: Veeresh

good to hear that. IMHO the connection between nuclear holocaust and present situation visavis dialogue b/w India and Pakistan needs to be drawn more clearly.

what do you mean, dissent for the sake of dissent? dissent is dissent and people in power hate it. As for the great game, it should stop, no?

From Ayub Khan to Zia to Busharraf (with Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto thrown in between), we’ve seen the same old story repeated like a worn-out gramophone record: “Kashmir is the core issue”, “Kashmir banega Pakistan”, et al. The level of focus accorded to Kashmir in Pakistan is truly amazing, for which other country in history has clung on to a cause while letting its own citizens down? Pakistan today is in disarray and is teetering on the edge of a precipice. Consider. No one invests in Pakistan. No foreigner dares visits the country after Daniel Pearl’s murder (except FBI agents and Marines). The country lives on grants and aids (Mushy claims he has stabilized Pakistan’s economy, and the public, of course, laps it up). Jihadis have taken over Baluchistan and NWFP. When Colin Powell asks Mushy about exporting nuclear technology to North Korea, typically he says, “we’re not doing it now”. What a joke. Admissions to Madarssas in 2002 have broken all previous records. And the ultimate humiliation: Pakistanis are asked by the INS to submit themselves for registaration and finger-printing, despite Islamabad’s protestations of being the faithful (I know it should be “trusted” but what is the difference between the two any way?) ally. Worse still, Washington’s refusal to reconsider its stand on the issue. And yet, President-for-life, continues with single minded-determination to bring up the issue at the NAM summit.

Saima, how many times does PTV talk about atrocities committed by terrorists? Newspapers and leaders still refer to these terrorists as ``freedom fighters``. Are they really? Do you remember that the only notable peace initiatives (Lahore and Agra) in recent times has come from the Indians, and yet were sabotaged by Musharraf? Why blame Indians when your leaders simply refuse to look beyond their “Kashmir banega Pakistan” position?

I can sum up Pakistan’s stand on Kahsmir thus: “Hum to doobenge sanam, par saath tujhe bhi leke doobenge”.

Saima boss media in India is positively very free very outspoken . . . as for interviews and articles and features and reports on nuclear issues and/or Kashmir please believe me there are enough episodes of Reality Bites or We The People or The Big Fight where everybody gets an option to put across her/his view.

We have Zee, Aaj Tak (India Today), NDTV (Star, soon Sony) and a wide variety of vernacular channels reporting as freely as they want to. I don`t buy this, that free expression or dissent is in any way hampered in India.

But dissent for the sake of dissent, that would be silly, no?

So, fact remains, the narco-geo-politics of Kashmir going back into say Buddhism or before make it a natural target, and the Great Game goes on, right?

Veeresh: we need dissent. Dissent from the official stances. People like Pankaj Mishra, A Roy, Asma Jehangir, Najam Sethi--these people question the state politik. Person to person contact makes Us and Them philosophies more difficult to implement. Investigative journalism reduces the chances of official distortion. Imagining an alternative through live examples, through public discourse, through even fiction helps people see alternative realities. Our docile acceptance of the hate makes hate grow. A friend of mine who lived in Kashmir for years told me that well to do Kashmiris eventually fled, because even the best of friends, neighbours living together for decades had started to kill each other. tell me, the media in India is free. How many times a week, month or year are documentaries about nuclear weapons aired on ZeeTV? How many times do you hear interviews of kashmiri villagers and their troubles?

Saima . . . a lot of people dont understand . . . a nuclear blast or two will not really make much of a difference to vast swatches/blotches of population ``elsewhere``. South of Vindhyas they are not bothered about nuclear detonations. West Coast & East Coast ditto. Mountain areas ditto. Deserts ditto. Leaves Punjab, Haryana & Delhi, maybe Bombay, people in these areas don`t seem to care either.

Presume it is the same in and around Pakistan too.

So, we bomb Lahore, you bomb Amritsar. What else is new?

Point I am trying to make here is that let us assume that partial annihilation is a given, a cyclical thing with us.

What is the role of democracy here? Well, maybe, the benefits of having elections (or making bombs) are spread wider, better?

Over to you.

Also, our slums are better than yours?

(Sung to the tune of a Hungry Maan is an Aaangry Maan . . .)

Hi Veeresh

Your slums are dirtier than ours:). Your water has more pesticides. Your people cast more votes. Your people are richer. Your people write more. Your people are more democratic. They are democratically going to their deaths.

Should Pakistan go to nuclear war democratically? yes. People should cast votes on who will detonate first. A real democracy in Pakistan isnt possible. The sense of insecurity (that also reduces the level of functional democracy in India), is so high in Pakistan that I doubt that a democracy is practically possible. Democracies become less so in insecure environments. At times of war or in case of external threats, states become less open and more authoritarian. Look at USA, the fear of terrorism is effectively reducing civil rights in that country. And also note, the threat may or may not be `real`. It can be a perception. That is why the role of positive leadership is so important. Leaders should refrain from statements that increase the level of perceived insecurity. But they dont? why? because it is a well known observation that increasing insecurity allows the leaders of a group to get group acceptance and retain power for longer. Authoritarian leaders emerge in insecure environments and then ensure that the perceived insecurity remains. Case in point USA after 9/11 till today. State of the economy? bad. Yes not as bad as a more insecure country--after all it is democratic, rich USA we are talking about.

To conclude, increasing Pakistan`s insecurity (which is India`s strategy) reduces the chances of a functioning democracy in Pakistan. Which is not a good thing visavis Kashmir and India`s desire to see peace in that part.
Pakistan`s strategy of increasing India`s insecurity also does the same. It makes India more defensive and less amenable to dialogue over long standing issues.

One can only agree with your sentiments in this article.

A very artificial hate has doomed the India-Pakistan realtionship.

They will continue to fight like dogs over Kashmir while the

Gora laughs all the way to the bank.


Ras

#19 Androscoggin (or whatever!)

YOu don`t seem to like some indian politicians. Great ! Congratulations ! I don`t like many indian politicians myself. Most politicians tend to be scuzzy people.

What do you like to so is worship left-wing nut-cases like Arundhati Roy.

Such a person, who belongs to a minority community, would probably survive only for a very short-time in your country. But india being a liberal democracy has a large supply of critics of all types. Coming from a islamic state you probably find this exciting and want to throw her in our faces. All it proves is your deep ignorance of the strengths of an open society like india.

This is very similar to your enthusiasm for Noam Chomsky. The US has a large number of such critics. But to people from closed societies it feels very exciting to have someone with such strong opinions. They are unable to understand that such critics, even the most unbalanced, basically illustrate the strengths of the societies from which they originate.

Hello Saima . . . notes from the trough:-

Our tunnel vision is better than yours. Our loot-paat democracy is better than yours. Our pesticide laced mineral water is better than yours.

A few million people vapourised in a nuclear flash will get reproduced & replaced in months.

Progress for Indians & Pakistans will happen only when we realise that we have to be strong because sure we have enemies, but that our enemies are common.

Will that happen in our lifetime?

Frankly, atleast we have some sort of popular mandate that atleast gives us some sort of picture. Where and what is that picture from Pakistan? To start with?

Saima #16
How can you tell its double speak?

`` A confedration of states is only possible if to start with the hate rhetoric is turned down. Which it isn`t.``

And Indians, quite as reasonably, say that talks are possible only if the hate killings by jihadis are turned down.

Back to Advani`s words and tunnel vision. In your article you seem to imply that Indian political leaders donot enunciate any larger vision for the subcontinent than `narrow nationalism`. That is very far from the truth. Prime Minister Vajpayee put his whole career on line to go on a bus to Lahore. Since then, repeatedly, India has said let us look at other issues of relationship and cooperation apart from Kashmir.

Even recently, the external affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha said that Pakistan should consider dealing with India along the lines of the `China model` meaning `like India and China deal with each other`. India and China have border disputes too, but they have frozen these issues for the present, and have gone ahead with trade and mutual cooperation in other fields. This suggestion of Yashwant Sinha`s to Pakistan, made in the last few weeks, cannot be called `tunnel vision`.


Re Pankaj Mishra
I take him write-up to write-up. Sometimes he is good sometimes he is totally off the mark.
One small example, he wrote in one piece that middle class Indians have no culture! Having spent all my life in middle class India and lived among middleclass Indians of culture from many backgrounds/regions, his observation is directly opposite to my experience!

I can elaborate on another more serious piece of misrepresenting by Pankaj Mishra if you are interested. There was New York Times opinion piece by him about how the current NDA central government is heavily centralist due to being `Hindu nationalist` and is not allowing regional aspirations to be realised, giving rise to tensions all over India.

In fact, the reality on the ground is the total opposite. However bad Advani and Vajpayee are or their ideology is, they have(unlike ALL the predecessor Congress govts) refused to use Art 356 to dismiss state ministeries in Bihar and Tamil Nadu EVEN on the sayso of their allies. Vajpayee lost office and general elections had to be called in 1998? because he refused to placate his ally Jayalalitha and dismiss her opponent`s government in Tamil Nadu.

One of the major factors why the `Hindu nationalist` BJP won the succeeding elections and form the current govt. is because unlike the Congress, it was willing to share power and make alliances with regional parties. So, far from being centralist, the current NDA coalition is made up of 23 parties, most of them regional parties.

Its during this NDA coalition government that we see regional parties exerting influence at the Centre.

Its for example under Vajpayee that we have seen non BJP Chief Ministers like AK Antony of Kerala(my state) and Mr Krishna of Karnataka(both Cong I) build up good rapport with the Prime Minister and Central govt, a rapport which helps them attempt unpopular fiscal and administrative reforms in their states.

Whichever way you look at it, however much we can fault the NDA govt. on other counts, India is seeing one of the most `noncentralist` government it has ever seen and this is clear to any observer of the Indian scene.

So you can see, even a New York Times oped by Pankaj Mishra was full of untruth. Took the shine out of NYT opeds for me, I have suspected all of them since that time.

So as I said, I take Pankaj Mishra from article to article. Sometimes he is good, for which I am grateful but he can even lie blatantly, and one cannot help thinking he does so to fulfil some agenda.

You know the discussion has reached la-la land when people comes up with gems like these:

[quote]
2- The presence of american troops is a security deterrance for us, and a security threat to India. So we don`t mind them, and dont need to do anything about them.
[end-quote]

Anyway, the indian establishment has no plans to invade Pakistan. The general idea is to isolate it and encourage it to overspend on its military (doesnt take much encouragement there!). The end result will be a bankrupt society run by an army. It will take a few more years to arrive at this but not too long. Payments for 9/11 services have probably reset the clock by a couple of years....