The Great Turn-On

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

A factual error:

``This is sweet, but no one stopped India from putting those conditions. (It might be prudent to point out here that when Pakistan wanted to send aid during the earthquake in Gujarat, a non-communal calamity, our government refused.) ``

India did accept aid from Pakistan. There were Pakistani planes that landed with supplies. The gesture was appreciated.

As far as the failure of Agra is concerned, the issue is the same now as it was then. Yes, Vajpayee had agreed to a statement which addressed Kkashmir and Cross Border terrorism. It was not Advani (who has been made villain of the peice) but bureaucrats of the Foreign Ministry as well as Jaswant Singh who initially spooted the loop hole. Cross ``border`` terrorism would not legelly be appliacble to terrorism across the line of control as it is not a border. The Indian team wanted to include a reference to Line of Control as well. Tthe Pakistanis were blind sided by this and the rest is history.

As far as talking about Hindus and Sikhs are concerned, or for that matter Muslims, Pakistan does not have a right to interfere in the internal affairs of India. That is an obvious truth. It may suggest as a friendly country, but right now we are not at that stage of being friends.

So, what is the point of the narrative? Kashmir is an issue, India does not deny that. Just because it is an issue does not mean that we will agree to their point of view. We have our own point of view and there is a national consensus on it. The problem is not in talking to Ppakistan about Kashmir. Tthe problem is legitimizing the Jehadi struggle their and the lack of any common ground for a solution. Not one country outside Pakistan has asked India to hold a plebiscite or transfer territory. The solution that Ppakistan wants is what a victorious country imposes to the loser in a war. And we have not lost a war to Pakistan yet.

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

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

Since this is going to be the next HOT board:-), excuse me for posting this info.

For those who might be iterested....Tariq Ali is going to be talking on Iraq war at 9:00Pm tonight on NPR radio. KQED in California.

We can run much faster economically if the Pakistan ball was not tied to our feet. Thats the point of this article. However, we also cannot give in to terrorism or nuclear blackmail. That even the Pakistanis will realize. No matter what the cost, people in the subcontinent will go to any insane level to preseve what they perceive as izzat.

But my concern is that since Pakistan is on the losing side, they will choose to escalate terrorism. Today we arent concerned too much because bombs dont go off in say Mumbai or Bangalore. And eventually they will get around to doing just that.

So we must keep talking to them so their leaders can tell the people - look guys we are getting somewhere with this.

And perhaps in the future, achieve economic suzerainty over them. Sounds imperialistic but it is inevitable. That will serve as a deterrent far more than a nuke sitting in some dusty silo in Rajasthan.

You want to compare India Pakistan poverty levels.....Excuse me...sir......Showing some lousy stats won`t help

(Poverty in India decreased from 38% of population in 1991 to 24% in 2002 , in Pakistan >poverty increased from 20% in 1990 to the present level of 36%. All this happened in the >decade in which Pakistan was supposed to bleed India with Kashmir/Kargil/Kaluchak etc.)

I have visited India myself....in 1998.....quite near the dispute i must say....and the poverty i saw alarmed me....did any body tell u my friend that the largest ``Jhoparpaty`` as u guys call it......exists in India......When i travelled from one city to another.....the road was filled with villages and shabby huts.........Poverty in pakistan is no doubt there.....But you will see the apparent difference in the level of poverty in India and Pakistan on paper and in reality once you visit Pakistan and compare India with it

``We can send model-item girl Yana Gupta, a Czech married to an Indian, to dance on a glass top table at the Marriott in Islamabad, lip-synching “Babuji, zaraa dheere chalo…” and shaking her booty``

Could you provide the exact date, time and exact location of this event......

Jhopadpattis have been around for all these years and are not going to disappear overnight. Just because India has reasonable forex reserves, we can`t start handing out cash to everyone in Dharavi tomorrow. Le bhai, ek ghar bana le tu bhi. Similarly Islamabad is not going to become a rubbish heap overnight because of the arms race.


What the country needs to do is create the opportunity for economic growth. In 5 years there will be a huge difference. There is a difference today from 1990.

What those figures also dont tell you is the huge `can do` optimism you see in India today. There is a sense of direction that we are moving forward. Job are getting created, the consumers are getting created. That itself produces demand - but for that to translate into more than a dry macroeconomic statistic to a visible reality takes about 5-10 years. Think about it - FII investment in India has never been higher. Why would so many people be sinking so much money into a place if they didnt see the (obvious) future?

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

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

re:#1 by gujjubania
Hey kid.
Good post. Temper your hatred. Give lots of facts and statistics to prove your point. That is the way to go. We are here to interact not to hate or spill blood.
Sridhar

re: this article
First Angana Chatterjee, now Farzana bibi. As they say in Hindi ``soney pe suhaga``.
There is nothing much that stands out in this article. The same old whine. Nothing that impresses you as unique or fresh.
India and Pak discord is as old as the age of these 2 nations. Ms Versey does not offer any solutions. She has only a lot of complaints. She has balanced her criticisms well to please both Paki and Indian interctors. For this, she needs to be complimented.
Sridhar

It was humorous at times. What attracted my attention is:

[External Affairs minister, Yashwant Sinha, who has been finding flaws in every Pakistani statement, was at it again. He found Islamabad’s offer of a scholarship for 100 Kashmiri students offensive. “India has never said, for instance, only 20 children from Baluchistan or Sindh or NWFP will be given free medical treatment. All our measures are applicable to all Pakistanis.” This is sweet, but no one stopped India from putting those conditions. ]

This argument throws some light into the modernist jihadi mindset. Yes we discrimnate and care about Muslims and that too Kashmiris only but no one stops you from doing the same. That is pathetic Farzana.

re:#6 by khotasikka
I am not surprised that the military dictator of Paksitan prefers ``Kashmir talk`` over ``trade talk``. Dictators are not answerable to the public. So, Mushy is not bothered that poverty in Pakistan is actually increasing. By some deft manipulations, he may come up with statistics showing that this is acutally not true. Was it not Sadna who said in one of her posts that Mushy has never bothered to find out the statistics about the poverty level since he took over as the ruler? ``What you do not know will not hurt!`` seems to be the philosophy.

So, Pak will try to compete unsuccessfully economically in its own small sphere. Worse still for Pak is its efforts to compete militarily. Somebody needs to explain to me why Pak needs to compete militarily with India if it believes that nuclear deterrant is sufficient. By a ``theory of compellance`` (meaning: one side is literally compelled to compete with its adversary militarily even though it knows such a competitiion is not in its best interest), Pak has to compete. It is following the path that Soviet Union took many years ago. Only saving grace is: Uncle Sam still casts a benevolent eye on Pak. Pak must fear the day when USA discards it like a used condom.
Is there a solution to all this? You bet there is. Pak can make a policy change (just like it did for Taliban) and say that it is willing to shelve the Kashmir problem until relations between the 2 are on a firmer footing and basic trust is developed. Pak can start trading with India the way Taiwan trades with China and make use of the immense opportunities that a huge market in India offers. All this would have happened if Pak were ruled by politicians and not military dictator. Military dictators do not care about public opinion. Mushy will not lose his job if Pak economy goes to the dogs. He will lose his job if he goes soft on Kashmir.
Sridhar

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20031117&fname=Column+Anita+Pratap+%28F%29&sid=1
impressions

Bad Faith, Bad Taste

Pakistan`s response to India`s peace offer shows how badly it`s stuck in the old mould

ANITA PRATAP
So often Pakistan behaves as if it is India`s opposition party—criticising for the sake of criticising, rejecting for the sake of rejecting, objecting for the sake of objecting, needling for the sake of needling. Exactly as silly, immature, compulsorily confrontationist opposition parties do.

Much more than India, it was Pakistan that had been vociferously clamouring for talks. And when India produces a dozen ideas to strengthen bilateral and people-to-people ties, Pakistan`s response is so childish that it is utterly unbecoming of a sovereign nation. What is bizarre is that qualified and experienced diplomats have crafted their official response. Unfortunately, it would appear that long experience has merely transformed their officials into fossils, incapable of moving beyond the tried, tested and failed rhetoric, the puerile games of petty one-upmanship and downright bad faith that has characterised Indo-Pak relations all through the `60s, `70s, `80s and `90s.

But now we are into the 21st century. Those who don`t respond to the winds of change will be blown away into the dustbins of irrelevance. Nobody has the time or the patience to put up with antiquated ideological fixations and crusty behaviour patterns. Pakistan`s establishment must come to grips with this—9/11 ushered in a new era of international priorities and codes. Nobody supports terrorism. Everybody wants peace. Platitudes bore. Actions impress.

India offered medical service to Pakistani children not because Pakistani medical services are inferior but because of the groundswell of goodwill in both countries triggered by little Noor`s experience. It`s only the weak, the inferior or the paranoid who habitually attribute malafide motives to every action. Still, Pakistan is entitled to feel weak and paranoid vis-a-vis India. Just our size on the map is sufficient to make our neighbours feel understandably small and overwhelmed. If we are truly confident of ourselves, why should we feel small or less to accept Pakistan`s offer to treat Indian children in the Karachi heart institute? The best in Pakistani heartcare may not compare with the best in India, but the best there is better than the mediocre and inadequately equipped heart hospitals that dot the Indian landscape. So why shouldn`t a few Indian children benefit from Pakistan`s offer, even if it stems from a silly sense of one-upmanship. By accepting this offer, India is not only being large-hearted as an elder statesman, but also shoring up Pakistan`s self-esteem. As with human beings, nations with high self-esteem behave in a more responsible and mature fashion. So it is in our interest to boost Pakistan`s self-esteem.

Low self-esteem induces obsessive one-upmanship, which explains to some extent Pakistan`s immature response to India`s peace offer. To India`s suggestion about reviving sporting ties, the response, in a nutshell, is: ``Fine, but hey may we remind you, it is our prime minister`s idea!`` But more than anything else, Pakistan`s response shows how badly their establishment is stuck in the old mould, their perspectives warped by several chips on their shoulder. Scuttling India`s proposal for a direct bus service between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar on the grounds that it must go through UN checkposts reflects Pakistan`s insincerity to the Kashmiri cause—it`s not to better the lives of ordinary Kashmiris but to keep kicking Kashmir as a political football to score points with India. What Pakistan does not realise is that everybody—especially ordinary people—see through these shenanigans. Such misguided responses reflect Pakistani insincerity and not Indian intransigence as they hope.

It`s not a farce but a tragedy that the establishment fails to realise how much like dinosaurs they look in today`s changed world.But there is hope, only if they have the humility to take a cue from India. A few years ago, India`s external affairs ministry also resembled a Jurassic Park. But in what has been a swift but understated turnaround, Indian diplomats are moving with the times. Even Prime Minister Vajpayee is moving on by boldly turning his back on his own hawkish, war-mongering, anti-Pak Hindutva constituency. As he admitted candidly, ``By our recent measures, we have silenced the whispering campaign that the requirements of the forthcoming elections dictate a harsh Pakistan policy. The political leadership of this country is well aware that the constituency for peace is much larger than that which favours hostility.`` If such turnarounds can happen to the seemingly ``impervious-to-change`` Indian establishment, so can it across the border.

But the Pakistani officialdom`s street fighter mindset must change first. To offer free medical treatment to disabled Kashmiris, widows and women raped by Indian soldiers is not provocative. It`s downright cheap. If this is the response to a peace offer, then how can anyone take Pakistan seriously? This response is so utterly lacking in taste, so grossly misplaced in serious bilateral negotiations that if Musharraf had any sense he would fire those responsible for coming up with such ridiculous ideas that not merely are malafide, but more importantly, lower Pakistan`s dignity. Being obstructionist and deliberately stoking the embers of hostility is one thing. But being cheap and damaging your nation`s dignity is another matter. Pakistan`s foreign secretary Riaz Khokar says, ``We want to improve our relations with India, but this is going to be on the basis of dignity and honour.`` But honour and dignity are earned, not granted. If Pakistan wants to be treated with honour and dignity, it must behave with the honour and dignity expected of a sovereign nation and stop acting like a wannabe, foolish, reflexive opposition party.

---

(The author can be reached at post@anitapratap.com.)