Tunnel Vision

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Sadna at # 158:

Perhaps Saima has given up after too many of your unnecessary reservations. But I would like to take the opportunity to ask and clarify certain things from you:

You wrote that, ``Pakistanis also need to think about whether the 1965 war and Kargil conflict were about expanding the WE?``

My response:
Why anchor on Kargill and 1965 when we only attempted, and like you are suggesting, failed? How about a sneaky expanding the WE by India in Siachin in 1984? I would definitely like to hear from you on Siachin.

Should we continue to look back or move on here to a better future?

You wrote, ``Whether their Army and security apparatus was involved in Afghanistan and is involved in J&K purely for the reason Saima says, that is to include India in a big WE?``

My response:
According to an article written by M.J. Akbar of India in late 2001, Pakistan`s position was generally accepted by the West for as long as the Jihadis were active, India was trying to come to the table. Their PM visited Lahore, Pakistan`s President was invited to India, and India even attempted to broker a deal with HM.

Do note that as soon as Kashmiris decided to wage a peaceful movement, India went back to its original headstrong position.

Finally you said,``And where does India fit into the big WE for Pakistan, which threatened to leave the OIC if India was given membership on account of Indian Muslims?``

My response: What is the source of this information? Could you kindly refer me to that?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

PS to Saima
Pakistanis also need to think about whether the 1965 war and Kargil conflict were about expanding the WE?

Whether their Army and security apparatus was involved in Afghanistan and is involved in J&K purely for the reason Saima says, that is to include India in a big WE?

And where does India fit into the big WE for Pakistan, which threatened to leave the OIC if India was given membership on account of Indian Muslims?

Well, I had planned to respond to Sadna`s posts at # 152, but after reading Saima`s response at # 153, I thought whatever I had in my mind would be dwarfed. Suffice is to say whereas Saima is talking about optimism, participation, pluralism and creativity to solving the problem, I would have delved into a doom and gloom picture that I normally see for this region in the long-term range in case India and Pakistan don`t bridge our differences.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

SaimaShah #153
``I ask that if India respects the desires of its neighbour, wont it grow bigger rather than smaller? borders are not just on land but in our perceptions of us and them. Let us include each other in a great big WE. What is the harm? ``


The desires of the neighbour for J&Kashmir stem from EXCLUDING each other in a great big WE, namely from TNT and Partition, going by the justifications given at all levels of Pakistani activism in J&K. Musharraf and other Pakistani leaders/opinionmakers and other Pakistanis keep harking back to Partition and talking of J&K as the `unfinished business of Partition`. Jihadis keep talking of driving out the infidels, as if J&K doesnot have composite culture of Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and Buddhists.

All you folks, India respected the wishes of the neighbour and agreed to Partition. Neighbour desires even more. Sorry, but Partition was the final settlement, now go home! It is only the desires of J&Kashmiris and Indian Muslims that India needs to care about now.

Pakistan`s desire for Kashmir date back to Independence when Hindu and Muslim majority areas were going their separate ways and 2 million died as consequence who happened to be living in their ancestoral homes like everyone else but were excluded from the WE.

Why are the sacrifices of those 2 million not being respected by Pakistan which persists in stoking the same fires even 57 years later? ahmadzai`s point out Pakistan losing out not due to Muslim-Muslim affinity but due to economic reasons is also flawed. India has almost or as many Muslims as Pakistan.

Kashmiris are not the only Muslims in India, and Indian Muslims` future, safety and security are also part of the stakes for India. It is obviously not so for Pakistan, its obvious from the fact that Pakistanis talk so casually of the need for India to break up.

Where is the concept of WE coming from Pakistan in all this?

re: sadna #146

Of-course the suggestion is on the assumption that India wants to resolve the issue to bring peace and prosperity to the region...and wants to maintain the plurality of the various communities in South Asia...

the background is in this article and various arguments put forward supporting the need to democratize that region of the world.
to summarize:

The idea that Pakistan is a community of people, not a demon. And the idea that India is a community of people, not a demon.

That they stand to gain mutually more than apart.

That Pakistan and India share each other`s histories

That the historical governance of South Asia suited its plural culture

That any attempt to destroy diversity is tunnel vision.

That Pakistan holds Kashmir sacred and that perception cannot be changed by India`s army, which worsens the conflict, but through an active future oriented strategy that includes Pakistan. The realisation that Kashmir is not a piece of land to kill and be killed over, but a responsibility for BOTH countries. Once both realise that the Kashmiri does NOT need to be conquered but must to be included in decisions that impact him or her. Than and only than can we avert war and secure a better future for our children. Theoretically, India can do this on its own...but I think it would have better success if Pakistan is included for the time being. Over time, as ahmedzai says, the economics would rule. Meanwhile it would help diffuse a lot of bad blood and forge ties that have been sundered with each war. Ties that fundamentalists on both sides would not be able to break.

People who have grown in Pakistan have seen what tunnels look like--a long dark suffocating path that promises an ever elusive greatness.

you mentioned once that we can be plural even inside the nations of Pakistan and India. I ask that if India respects the desires of its neighbour, wont it grow bigger rather than smaller? borders are not just on land but in our perceptions of us and them. Let us include each other in a great big WE. What is the harm?

ahmadzai #147
You are right about how Indian and Pakistani viewpoints differ.

``let us replace everything in terms of `India and Pakistan` by `3rd parties``

Sorry to be pesky but the difference you point out goes even further, because it can again be asked why India would agree to a 3rd party getting a foothold in Indian J&K?

Even during the recent J&K elections, international observers from a number of countries were certainly present to assess the elections for themselves but India didnot grant them any extraconstitutional `accrediting` /`vetoing` powers over its own constitutional election process.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Saima and Sadna:

In response to Saima`s creativity unleashed in long post # 145, we have Sadna`s concerns in a brief and terse one at # 146.

These two posts also bring out the difference between Pakistanis` viewpoint and that of Indians. Whereas Pakistanis are over-concerned about the plight of Kashmiris, Indians have nightmares if Kashmir is to secede from that. For India, secession spells a chain of disintegration.

Samina, I agree with you, but because of Sadna`s concern, let us replace everything in terms of `India and Pakistan` by `3rd parties`. So for example, one of your paragraphs will change to:

`Kashmir in my opinion is a truly porous border--the problem can be resolved if both countries allow 3rd party monitoring of Kashmiri borders. Under 3rd party facilitation it buys and trades with all the countries. Neither country should be allowed to buy property here. However displaced Kashmiris may be encouraged to move back and build a life again. Tourism must be promoted again. Facilitating countries can invest in kashmir vis a vis hotels, other infrastructure. `

But I don`t think that Indians will even agree to this as they have their own internal compulsions (e.g. elections all the time). And India can wait for eternity to do any thing positively about resolving the issue.

Pressure will be on our Governments, as we have too much of aspiration about Kashmiris joining us. Problem is that due to our own economic instability, we should wait for the right moment too.

My action plan for achieving what you have said:

1. India should agree to dialogue for nothing can be resolved unless both the parties come to the table, including Indian claim that Pakistan is involved in cross-border terrorism.

2. First priority on the matter of alleged cross-border infiltration through mutually agreed methodology - joint patrolling as suggested by you or by 3rd party (UN, USA, etc.), as has been suggested by Pakistan.

3. Kashmiris to reunite and Kashmir to be opened up for investment, etc. under 3rd party much like Bosnia, Kosova, Afghanistan. India would enjoy the advantage that all economic lines run from Kashmir to India, not to Pakistan so the latter will not have much say in Kashmir in any case.

4. Over a long-term period, Kashmiris will themselves forge various alliance(s) with India, Pakistan and/or other countries, depending upon their own preferences, needs and what other countries can offer them. Example is, although not a perfect one, Afghanistan. That country is now approaching other countries (Pakistan, India, Iran, etc.) that can benefit it the most.

Saima:

Having proposed a most advantageous plan for India, I believe that this still would not be acceptable to it for its inherent guilt on the matter.

The biggest advantage for India would be that in the present day people and countries do not make decisions on the basis of religion alone. The key word is economy. In Kashmir, If the `farq is unnees bees ka ho jaey gaa to faida musalman Pakistan ko hay`, but in case of information technology and 4 wheel drives for example, `koi Kashmiri Pakistan ko contract naheen day jaey gaa sirf hamaray musalman honay ka wajah say`.

In this case, if Pakistan would like to influence Kashmiris, then it would be for us to prove through our economic potential to do so. Only religion will not feed and bring prosperity to Kashmiris. Yes, in only fair situation where both the parties are almost balanced the advantage may go to religious co-practitioners.

Ref SaimaShah #145

[I wonder if pakistanis can buy property or invest in india?...hmm]

Can`t buy property. You have to be an Indian citizen to buy land, buildings, etc. Investments are OK as foreign investments are allowed.

Ask the other question: can Indians other than Kashmiris buy property in Kashmir (Jammu and Ladakh included)? The answer is `No`. Just India`s way of preserving the unique Kashmiri culture. Right now, one has to be crazy to want to buy in Kashmir unless your plans are for the real long term.