Pakistan and India - Lets Compromise

#173 by ahmadzai on May 14, 2003 6:34am PT

[However, please do note that when Indians on this board are quoting articles written by Pakistani journalists from Pakistani newspapers, they are actually doing so of Ahmadi writers most of the time. So to that extent, our Ahmadis are enjoying freedom of speech. Or else, do you think that persecution of Ahmedis is being covered by international media every day, that there is an organized pogrom against them, that when BBC, CNN and Euro News castigate Indian Government on its involvement in Gujrat or Nagaland, the program is routinely followed by one killings and rapes of Ahmedis in Pakistan also?]

Oh, so allowing Ahmadiyas to write articles in Pakistani newspapers is freedom of speech? That`s great. You just won the award for the stupidest definition of freedom of speech.

Persecution of Ahmadiyas is a fact well documented by the international media. Is it not a fact that in order to obtain a passport, every Pakistani is required to sign the following declaration that goes:

``I consider Mirza Ghulam Quadiani to be an imposter nabi and also consider his followers whether belonging to the Lahori or Qadiani group to be non-Muslim.``

Since you say you`ve traveled abroad, you must be holding a passport. Can you refute the evidence cited above? I can produce the document from which I gathered this information.

The only Pakistani Nobel winner Professor Abdus Salam was discriminated for being an Ahmadi. He wanted to establish an international institution in Pakistan for the promotion of Physics, but Gen. Zia refused permission saying that it would raise the hackles of the Maulvis. The great scientist had to finally set up a world-renowned center at Trieste, Italy. He remained unacknowledged in his own country till his end.

General Musharraf tried to get this sentence removed from the passport application, but faced furious resistance from the Islamist parties and had to back down.

The riots in Gujarat were a shame, but the very fact that they were localized and didn`t spread to other parts of India is an achievement of sorts. No one is denying the fact that the administration may have played a part in the riots, but if you go to the relief camps in Gujarat today, you`ll see a lot of Hindus working side by side with Muslim volunteers helping out the affected. At least discrimination against Muslims doesn`t go to the extent that it is institutionalized like in Pakistan.

And why do you have to cite BBC, CNN, and other western sources? Didn`t you read the Indian news sites which came up with the most scathing indictment of the Modi government?

re: #170 by Faruk

++
Could you explain why the “entire population of Kashmir” is suppressed and the entire population of Pakistan is not ?
++

Outsiders often get the wrong impression that Pakistanis are living in oppression under military rule. After all, military rule is supposed to be cruel, despotic and repressive, right?

Not in present-day Pakistan. Elsewhere people would protest a military coup. In Pakistan, people danced on the streets of Lahore and Karachi to celebrate the ouster of Nawaz Sharif by the army in October 1999. No protests were launched, no mass demonstrations.

Today in Pakistan, jobs attract more enthusiasm than democracy. Musharraf government has done a tremendous job of macro-economic reform. As a result, inflation has been contained and basic amenities of life are affordable. Although the microeconomic environment is still rough, the economic recovery is on its way albiet very slowly.

Moreover, Musharraf has not been involved in any corruption scandals unlike Benazir and Nawaz Sharif. This is quite commendable since he has been in power for almost 4 years now. Notwithstanding the ludicrous land-grabbing accusations against the Army, Musharraf enjoys a clean reputation in Pakistan.

That may change of course. But until then, it would be incorrect to assume that entire population of Pakistan is suppressed. Despite the pre-poll rigging in 2002 elections, anti-Musharraf parties are not in a position to launch any mass demonstrations because of their tarnished image and lack of emotive issues.

Regards

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

re:#175 by ZafarA
Thanks for your post.
I agree. The election was not a referendum. That is why i said `` a kind of referendum``. I am not sure whether a referendum ( i mean, a real one) can ever take place, given the political and geographical realities.
Sridhar

rsridhar at # 177:

I have absolutely no problem in accepting democracy over dictatorship any time. And I have absolutely no disagreement with what you said in the post.

However, for Pakistanis, Musharraf has been different. He delivered whatever he promised, elections in 3 years, economic stability, respect for the country abroad (relative), bringing the country`s name down from 2nd most corrupt to now 29th or so, etc. All socio-economic indicators shed positive light on his performance.

People like me want him in the Government for at least 5 more years for the purpose of continuity of policy, for protection against rising extremism in Afghanistan and Pakistan and for fight against terrorism. Any other current day leader in Pakistan will fail on at least 2 of these 3 areas.

If his Government is not able to deliver economically alongside Karzai`s Government in Afghanistan, extremist forces will have a breeze in next elections solely on the basis of religious emotionalism. As it is, Talibans are gaining again in Afghanistan and in Pakistan Islamists have gained some ground too. In the days to come, Pakistan`s politics would be polarised between extreme right (Islamists) and right (current Jamali led Government). All other parties will be marginalised, as can be seen the fast braking-up of much touted Imran Khan`s TI (with due apologies to some chowksters). In case, Jamali`s Government fails, Islamists will gain ground. Similarly, if Karzai fails, Talibans will gain momentum there.

The best course of action for Pakistan is to let General Musharraf lead economic revival and give moderates a competitive edge against Islamists along with Karzai`s Afghanistan. Thus Musharraf and Karzai are an absolute minimum requirement for both the countries to Keep extremists at bay, at least till such time that highly emotional people of these two countries are able to make intelligent decisions for themselves in the light of improved standards of living.

re:#173 by ahmadzai
If i have offended you in my last post addressed to you, i apologise. My posts (though addressed to a person) are never pesonal. A common theme in my posts have always been: it is better to have a democracy, however bad it is (than a dictatorship) simply because the gains of democracy are longer lasting than the gains of a dictatorship. Latter has the stamp of autority of a single person and fade away when that person is gone.
What happens if this dictator is ovethrown and the next one comes along? Will he not do away with all the good things (if any) that Musharraf has done during his rule? Is what Musharraf doing any different from what General Ayub Khan did during his rule, which BTW is considered the golden age for Pak`s economy as Pak was developing much more rapidly than India at that time? Are any of the institutions that remained during Ayub`s time still standing?
It is my humble contention that institutions are longer lasting than rulers and personalties. You Sir, who have lived outside in places like US, Malaysia etc should know better.
Sridhar

I was just forwarded this petition, which may interest Chowk dwellers.

Isa Daudpota
9:20 pm, 14 May 2003.


Petition to the citizens of the South Asian subcontinent
and peace loving citizens or the world
7th May 2003

This petition is intended to seek the civil society`s
support in encouraging the governments of India and
Pakistan towards finding a permanent peace. Both
governments have taken some steps in the right direction;
with support from the civil society, they will find it
easier to move forward by shedding the baggage of the
past and bringing peace and prosperity to over 1.3
billion citizens of the subcontinent.

It was about one year ago when the standoff between India
and Pakistan was threatening us with a nuclear holocaust.
Thousands of ordinary people of the world then endorsed a
petition demanding of the governments of India and
Pakistan to find a peaceful solution. Most signatories of
the petition were from Indian and Pakistan. The gist of
the comments made were that people of the subcontinent
had a lot in common and wished to live in peace with
economic well-being as the primary concern. The petition
was put up on the Internet on 27th May 2002 and may be
viewed at:


http://www.petitiononline.com/bawabeg/petition.html



As a follow up of the sentiments expressed by the
thousands of persons signing the earlier petition, this
petition is addressed to the civil society and urges
ordinary citizens to endorse a ``Friendship Treaty``
between India and Pakistan, which proposes a road map for
peaceful co-existence.

You are requested to add any suggestions in the comments
column and very importantly, after signing the petition,
select ``Send this to a friend`` at that bottom of the page
and send the petition to as many contacts as you can. You
are also requested to propagate this petition in any
other manner you can; you could run signature campaigns;
draw in local citizens groups; involve the local press
and the electronic media and find support from NGOs etc
where you live. The idea is to get the civil society
involved in a dialogue towards an ultimate solution that
governments can adopt once they are aware of public
support for the solution.

Friendship Treaty - The Proposed Declaration

1. Peaceful co-existence - Both countries
hereby declare that they wish to live in peaceful
co-existence, respecting each other`s sovereignty, with
the principle of non-interference in each other`s
internal affairs;

2. Economic co-operation - both countries
shall work towards economic co-operation with a view
towards gradually removing trade barriers and ultimately
creating a common market under the auspices of SAARC.
Both countries recognise that it is imperative to
allocate the maximum resources towards human and economic
development and that this can only be achieved through
curtailment of military expenditure.

3. Arms reduction and nuclear disarmament - In order to
avoid any future threat of a nuclear conflict and in
order to divert resources towards economic development,
both countries agree to work towards reduction of both
conventional and nuclear forces. Both countries also
agree to co-operate in working towards an ultimate
elimination of nuclear arms from the region and the
world.

4. Protection of the environment and sharing
of natural resources - Both countries wish to co-operate
towards protecting the environment in the subcontinent,
including the oceans around it and towards equitable
sharing of natural resources and this regard reiterate
their commitment towards sincere implementation of water
sharing treaties.

5. Enhanced role for SAARC - Both countries
wish to see an enhanced role for SAARC, including the
development of an ultimate common market in the SAARC
region, which will protect, compliment and enhance the
existing economic activity in the respective member
countries; a move towards an open-borders policy
facilitating travel and human contact and interaction
within the region; a supervisory role for developing and
implementing an environment protection policy for the
region; and a role in developing minimum standards for
human rights within the region.

6. Conflict resolution - both countries commit
themselves to:

a. Using peaceful means, with maximum public
participation, in resolving any current or future
disputes;

b. Co-operation in working towards elimination of
religious, sectarian, ethnic and all other forms of
communal extremism;

c. Resolving the Kashmir dispute through sincere
dialogue, with public involvement and with the following
simultaneous steps to be implemented immediately:

i. Recognition that both countries are in disagreement
as to the de-jure sovereignty over Kashmir and that
pending resolution of this issue through dialogue, both
countries recognise the de-facto sovereignty each country
has over the territories under their respective control -
such territories are separated by the Line-of Control
(LoC).

ii. Urgent steps towards a complete de-militarisation
and de-weaponisation of both sides of Kashmir. With joint
policing of the LoC.

iii. Formation of a Common Market
of Kashmir, with free trade between the two parts;
economic co-operation between the two sides including
promotion of tourism, Kashmiri culture arts and crafts;
and freedom of travel between the two territories for
persons domiciled in either part of Kashmir.

iv. Dialogue to commence between
the two governments, with meetings every three to four
months. However, an essential principle of all dialogue
between governments shall be on the basis of ``public
participation``. This would be achieved through a process
of public disclosure of the discussion after each meeting
followed by public debate. Both governments would
disclose the position taken by each, with the arguments
and counter arguments on both sides and also the
disclosure of any fears and apprehensions if the position
of the other side were accepted. The public would have an
opportunity to debate the matter in the media and through
their representatives in the parliament. Cycles of
meetings and feedback will follow with the benefit of
public participation, which will remove the fear of
agreeing to something not acceptable to the public at
large.

v. Encourage continuation of dialogue on ``Track-2`` and
also possibly on a new ``Track-3`` between Kashmiris on
both sides of the LoC.

Reply rsridhar #171

``You gave an interesting reply in that post. But consider this. Why a referendum? Is a free election in Kashmir not a kind of referendum? ``

To be fair, rsridhar, it actually wasn`t a referendum on whether Kashmir stays with India, accedes to Pakistan or gains Independence.

It WAS, however, a free and fair election, and as such something of an achievement. (It`s also undercut APHC`s standing to speak for Kashmiris - whatever Geelani et al might say, Kashmiri`s elected representatives are the one`s who have the greatest claim to that.)

``Pakis keep repeating the word ``referendum`` ad nauseum without understanding its true meaning.``

Vaisai we can do a Musharraf style referendum in Kashmir if people insist, but uss se kya fayedah?

(sorry, sorry, couldn`t resist...yaaron, mujhe muaf karo...)



Reply Ahmedzai #173

``However, you need to tell this to posters like arjun, jay and m-souza, who happen to be exceptionally critical of Islamic parties elected in the NWFP.``

Free speech yaar. Being freely elected doesn`t mean people are not going to be virulently criticised. Check any Indian magazine and read what Indians have to say about Vajpayee, LK Advani, Jayalalitha, Laloo Prasad Yadav, Mayawati, Antony...heck, any politician in India. Being elected means that you now exist to be maligned and blamed for everything from Bollywood flops to rains failing.

rsridhar at # 120

I hope that you and other Indian friends are able to read this:

Your passage:
``Welcome to democracy. I need to give you a little pep talk on what democracy is all about. You Pakis have little idea how democracy functions....... I did not hear any such thing happening. ``

My response:
Even though I have lived in the USA, Spain and Malaysia and have played a prominent student level role in organizing NYC Campaign for Regan/Bush in 1984, I agree with you.

However, you need to tell this to posters like arjun, jay and m-souza, who happen to be exceptionally critical of Islamic parties elected in the NWFP. Democracy applies there too, doesn`t it?

You wrote
``Now, what is happening in that benighted nation called Pakistan? What rights do the Ahmediayas have?``

My response:

I partially agree.

However, please do note that when Indians on this board are quoting articles written by Pakistani journalists from Pakistani newspapers, they are actually doing so of Ahmadi writers most of the time. So to that extent, our Ahmadis are enjoying freedom of speech. Or else, do you think that persecution of Ahmedis is being covered by international media every day, that there is an organized pogrom against them, that when BBC, CNN and Euro News castigate Indian Government on its involvement in Gujrat or Nagaland, the program is routinely followed by one killings and rapes of Ahmedis in Pakistan also?

You wrote:
``Why are sunnis killing shias in Karachi? Was not Pakistan made for muslims like you, so that you can breath freely without hindus breathing on your neck? Why are you guys killing each other now?``

My response:

I don`t agree with you at all. Note the following:

1. Killings of both Shias and Sunnis has been highly targeted by the terrorists. The attacks have a stamp of classical hit and run element. After Talibans, there has been a drastic reduction in the killings.

2. Have you noted that the two people (Sunnis and Shias) have not clashed enmass. The scholars and leaders of both the communities have condemned the killings.

3. Have you noticed that neither community has ever blamed the other or the involvement of the Government in the killings. Yes, both of them have blamed the Government for its failure to provide security.

You wrote:
``Right now, enlightened people in Pak must concentrate on how to get rid of this Whore who is ruling your country. But, then i believe he is still popular and will continue to bleed your country until it is beyond redemption. You may continue to blame India for all your ills until then.``

My response:

1. Indians should note that this ``whore`` is most supported by Muslim minority sects like Shias, Agha Khanis, and other minorities like Christians, Hindus and Ahmadis on taking a U-turn on our self-destructive Talibani policy. This intensity of support is followed by moderate Muslims (PML Q, GNA, MQM, etc.). Only the extremist Muslims are dead set against him. Muslims of PPP show a proverbial fight of the head and heart and Muslims of PML Nawaz have their axe to grind and have decided to side with extremist Islamists. So to this extent, there is a dilemma for you. Indians tend to sympathize with our Shias and other minorities, who are the biggest supporters of Musharraf, who in turn is hated the most by Indians. Conversely, it is the Indians and our extremist Muslims who hate Musharraf the most. What do we infer from this?

2. Its Musharraf`s policies that have brought the respect back to Pakistan and have helped it achieve some stability. All improving socio-economic indicators are reflective of his good policies. Pakistan is on the way to revival, except for some hurdles being put in place by extremist Islamists at home and by hawks in Indian Government outside of our home.

arjun_m at # 150:

``The question should be...Now who is more dangerous according to your self-deluded reasoning... If Dr Germ was educated in India, thats just a fraction of the number of people educated in the US. Mohammad Atta got his flight training in the US...that doesnt mean doodly squat... ``

Now always remember to post this prophetic answer of your goodself whenever you or your buddies like jay, pmishra2 or m_souza post some thing about some terrorist activity some where that is done by a Tom, Dick or Harry that you trace to Pakistan or Afghanistan.

;-)

Reply Ali87

``so muslims are not suppourting this method [terrorism] of settling political issues...Trying logic as per your suggestion I would say spare the muslims the lectures and calls for soul searching(since there is no suppourt by your admission ).``

Not so fast my wily one.

Since Muslims do not support Al-Qaida terrorists (do you agree?), whom are Al-Qaida representing apart from themselves?

And if the Al-Qaida terrorists represent nobody but themselves, what is the political issue which can be settled politically and which will then remove the terrorists motivation?

Is it something the Ummah (on whose behalf Al-Qaida blows up buildings) wants for itself?

#154 by HisExcellency on May 13, 2003 10:44am PT

Thank you for your reply. Its good to know that you believe in democratic rights for the Pakistani people and are affiliated with a political party. You said

“Social and political reform are a normal ongoing process.Suppression of an entire population and killing of 80,000 civilians is not.”

The Indian govt. says 30,000 the Pakistani govt. says 70,000 and you say 80,000 people have lost their lives in the last 13 yrs in Kashmir. I don’t know the exact figure but a lot of people have died there. The Indian govt’s handling of the situation there is terrible. But I believe things are improving there. I cant even imagine how we will compensate the people for the loss of their loved ones. I think Panjab can be used as a model. You are right about the fact that India has failed to protect the lives and property of her citizens in Kashmir. But I don’t remember this happening before 1989. So I do believe that a acceptable solution is possible there.

Could you explain why the “entire population of Kashmir” is suppressed and the entire population of Pakistan is not ?. The last I heard there was a free and fair election in Kashmir. That is more than what can be said about Pakistan. You appear to wish the world for Kashmir but are not fighting for it in your homeland, why ?


I also agree that communal riots still take place in various parts of India and at least in two cases 1984 Delhi and recently in Gujrat the political party in power has been involved or at least facilitated the riots. But I look at this as a need for what you call social and political reform and I may add judicial reform. Even today nearly 20 yrs after the 1984 riots people are fighting cases and have yet to get justice.


“What is your point in quoting India`s defence potential ($40Bn)? Are you saying that it is okay for India to occupy another people`s land, just because India has a bigger army and more weapons. You are simply espousing the doctrine of ``Might is Right``. “

I am not espousing the doctrine of “might is right” just stating it’s a fact. If you have watched the recent world events you will realize that it’s the new world order.


Regards,

Faruk

re:#146 by Faruk
You gave an interesting reply in that post. But consider this. Why a referendum? Is a free election in Kashmir not a kind of referendum? Pakis keep repeating the word ``referendum`` ad nauseum without understanding its true meaning. Referendum by definition is `` a legislative act referred for final approval to a popular vote by the electorate``. Popular vote has already been cast in J and K. Mufti Md is the new leader approved by the electorate after a popular vote was cast. If Hurriyat did not participate, tough luck. It has only itself to blame.
Sridhar

re:#154 by HisExcellency
`` It is a pity that even educated Indian chowkies have no sympathy for the thousands of Muslim civilians who were simply tortured, raped and killed for demanding a right that was promised to them by India itself in the UN``
What came first? The egg or the chicken. Tough to answer, eh?
Now, the easy question: What came first? Terrorism or the State repression? Read your history and you will know that it was only after the terrorists started violence in the valley that the state repression started. No state,especially a powerful state like India, will sit and watch guns taking control of the valley. Violence will be met by violence. That is the only way. Why did your muslim brothers, who took to violence, not think of a Gandhian way of protesting. Did not Gandhi win independence for an entire nation by peaceful means? Did not the British grudgingly accept Gandhi as a leader of importance? Why did the terrorists killing innocent civilians not think of Gandhi before they took to guns? What were they thinking? That the Indians are sissies and will not be able to fight back, used as they are to Gandhian way of resistance?
Well, you have seen the will of a nation that does not want to succumb to terrorism. What the so called freedom fighters are doing is terrorism. Make no mistake. It is so even when Tamilians in Sri Lanka were fighting for their rights. I am a Tamilian and i know fully well what i am saying. I have no sympathies for these LTTE cadres even though i believe Tamilians have been a lot more repressed in Sri Lanka than Kashmiris in India. Kashmiris have their own land, they have special rights by which no outsider can buy property in Kashmir. And on top of that, they enjoy all rights that rest of the Indians enjoy. No such thing exists for the hapless Tamilians in Srilanka. Yet, i say that their cause, however right it is, was addressed by wrong means. Violence never pays in the long run. LTTE is learning it the hard way now. Perhaps, those who believe terrorists in Kashmir are doing a good job will learn it the hard way too.
Sridhar

re:#153 by dionysus
``ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ``
What the heck is that? Don`t tell me. Let me guess.
Rolling on the Floor Loaded with Marijuana, Amphetamine and Other drugs. Right?
Sridhar

re: 154
``I am afraid if Kashmir, Chechnya and Palestine continue to suffer, liberal Muslims like myself will not be able to prevent a complete Jihadization of Muslim world.``
If you are really liberal, you should have no problem in condemning violence. I, for one, condemn violence in any form: whether by terrorists or security forces. All i am saying is that as long as terrrorists are there, security forces are justified in using violence to defend their turf.
Now, let me see you condemn the violence of terrorists (aka freedom fighters by Pakis).
Sridhar