Pak Tea House » India, Pakistan, Terrorism, war » Moving on from Finger-Pointing
Moving on from Finger-Pointing
By Bilal Qureshi
A brilliant work of investigative journalism by Jason Motlagh helps us understand that it is in the interest of everyone to try to solve issues by talking to each other instead of letting the nuts take advantage of our inability to commit to a constructive dialogue. Take for example the Mumbai tragedy. Right after the horrific terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 2008, people in Pakistan declared it to be an Indian conspiracy and in India, it was generally agreed that Pakistan was behind this attack.
No need to further investigate.
However, what has emerged so far about the Mumbai attacks is much more complicated. There are details that are missing, and there are facts that don’t add up. Unsolved mysteries during the investigation have proved, once again, that at times, it is best to avoid commenting about events that are as complicated as the Mumbai attacks.
So far, we know that stateless actors were involved in carrying out these attacks. These people want nothing, but chaos and mayhem in Asia, and it is important to stop them without pointing finger at other.
Pakistan has been at the receiving end of these attacks for decades now. First, there were attacks when Pakistan was helping the West in Afghanistan while Russians were trying to conquer Afghanistan. Then, after 9/11, nut jobs from Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are carrying out devastating attacks in Pakistan against the country that is fighting nihilists. If anything, Pakistan needs help – a lot of help and understanding from not only the Western countries, but also from its neighbors. This is not the time, especially for India and Pakistan to accuse each other of ‘not doing enough’ while the viscous and brutal enemy is determined to destroy both India and Pakistan. Therefore, it would be wise for Delhi and Islamabad to engage each other without doubting each other’s intentions.
Terrorist working to destabilize the region win if India and Pakistan continue to look at each other as the source of all evils in the world (or the region) and we can’t let that happen. Judging from my recent and a very long trip to Pakistan, I can say this with confidence that most of the country is interested in living in peace with India. They don’t want war or for that any type of conflict or even an argument with India. They just want to live in peace and I am sure the same can be said about the people in India. So, in my opinion, the tragedy of Mumbai should bring the governments and the people from both countries together because coming close is the only way to overcome suspension and acrimony towards each other.
War has never been the answer when we look at history. It can, and it does suppress the issues temporarily, but in the end, all parties have to come to the negotiating table to find answers and solutions for the problems. Notwithstanding the hardcore chicken hawks on both sides of Pak-India border, there is hardly an issue that Islamabad and New Delhi won’t be able to resolve amicably, but for this, egos have to be controlled, finger pointing has to stop and honest and open environment is needed and I am sure that mature and cooler minds on both sides in both countries can make the argument for peace successfully. It is in the interest of everyone to shake hands instead of trying to slap each other.
Filed under: India, Pakistan, Terrorism, war · Tags: India, Jason Motlagh, Mumbai terror attack, Pakistan, Terrorism
118 Responses to "Moving on from Finger-Pointing"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- RajTOO
said Fingolfin,
tajender knows nothing. He just copy p... - Fingolfin
said Tajender
you poor soul Amitabh is not a Brahmin... - tajender
said ahem,truth is this that,
Corruption dents India... - tajender said It is the mainstay of islam. Islam was, is and alw...
- ahem
said to raj
Quote:
"He was ok till some muslims c... - RajTOO said I don't think posters here should make tajender in...
- ahem said In the cauldron of Pakistan everything gets cooked...
- ahem said Muslims are unwilling to accept that their god (or...
- ahem said to saad
You wrote: "Hopefully, despite Pakistan...
- ahem said to kalachakra
you ask: "how come the mullah is...
Hayyer mian et al,
Of-course the matter of the Durand Line can be settled amicably between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Interestingly on the Eastern frontier Pakistan is the revisionist power, India is the status quo power. On the Western frontier, situation is reversed with Pakistan being the status quo power, Afghanistan being the revisionist power. Although to be sure there wud be Pakistani Bonapartes who wud be willing to be revisionist on West as well, and wish to incorporate the whole of A’stan or at least the Pushtoon parts.
Regards
@Bloody Civilian
You are scaring the hell out of me.
Isn’t your argument in your post of 3:48 pm the same as Hossp realpolitik, only dressed in virginal white bridal array?
Vajra
it could be construed to be so even if all you do is remove context. however, if you go a step further, and also assume extensions and implications that are not there at 3:48pm, nor before or after, then yes, the answer to your question could certainly be in the affirmative.
for context, the discussion started with hayyer’s post of 10:47am (21/11). kindly revisit my posts on the subject since that point in time. where have i expressed or implied support for hossp’s strategy?
could it be that the one scaring the hell out of you is none other than yourself?
hayyer
if western strategic depth is also space for drang nach osten then abandoning the latter should have a calming effect in the west as well
my argument was that there is some value in the reverse too. to a limited excess. that is, the difficulty in the west can serve as an eye opener. to help recognise what you have said above. but not all the noise made by outsiders is conducive to have the right conditions to ensure a quick and ful eye-opening. we can’t do anything about the noise. but we can choose which parts to ignore.
majumdar
i doubt that a united, highly centralised india would have proved itself that much more capable of understanding afghan history (and, please, i emphatically do not mean rexminor’s version or reading of it) and internal dynamics than early pakistan. democracy (and even the subsequent ‘decentralisation’) would have of course allowed the locals who knew better a greater say. and with no drang nach osten, the all blinding effect of ‘strategi depth’ would also be absent.
“to a limited excess” = to a limited extent
vajra
if my post at 3:48 gave the wrong impression, the onus to communicate clearly is certainly upon me.
i hope the first half of my last comment helps in that direction. also, i hope you didn’t mind my cheeky-ish comment earlier
@Hayyer,
What I understand from the Kashmiris is that their main grouse is that plebiscite never happened, so unlike Pakistan and Kashmir, they never got the right to self determination.
Therefore, it is not ONLY about NGOs queering the pitch, the resistance of the Kashmiri people to accede is also a factor.
@Bloody Civilian
A good general knows when to retreat. I shall proceed to make a dignified exit from a battle I cannot win. A last thought: Italian tanks were rumoured to have two reverse gears; my plight is not peculiar, others have been outmanoeuvred and outwitted before.
@Milind Kher
I recommend you read up on this issue in the archives of PTH, especially YLH’s summation of the situation. It is not as simple as it seems; they have a legitimate plank, but you might as well state it correctly, not the way you have done.
Given below is the BBC’s take on the Kashmir plebiscite.
Of course, the views of someone who may know much more than the BBC would help me in increasing my knowledge on the subject.
“When the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acceded to India in 1947, the then Governor-General Lord Mountbatten suggested that in view of India and Pakistan’s competing claims for the state, the accession should be confirmed by a “referendum, plebiscite, election”.
But determining the wishes of the people has been far harder to achieve than was ever expected.
Kashmir is now divided between opposing armies
Fighting between Pakistani and Indian forces in 1949 left two-thirds of the state under the control of India, comprising Ladakh, Jammu and the Valley of Kashmir.
One-third remained under the control of Pakistan, comprising “Azad” (free) Kashmir and the Northern Areas.
In three resolutions, the UN Security Council and the United Nations Commission in India and Pakistan recommended that as already agreed by Indian and Pakistani leaders, a plebiscite should be held to determine the future allegiance of the entire state.
As a prerequisite they required Pakistani nationals and tribesmen, who had come to fight in Kashmir, be withdrawn.
Plebiscite abandoned
But in the 1950s, the Indian Government distanced itself from its commitment to hold a plebiscite.
This was firstly because Pakistani forces had not been withdrawn and secondly because elections affirming the state’s status as part of India had been held.
After the outbreak of insurgency in the Valley of Kashmir in the late 1980s, militants and political activists claimed that they had never been able to exercise their right of self-determination and the issue of the plebiscite was again raised.
Independence option
But there was a split between those demanding a plebiscite in order to determine allegiance to either India or Pakistan and those who stated that a third option should be added: Independence.
Ladakhis do not want to join Pakistan
Pakistan has consistently called for the issue to be resolved by means of a plebiscite and has blamed India for reneging on its pledge.
But although it supports the Kashmiris “right of self-determination,” Pakistan has never accepted the third option as a possible outcome.
It is also now evident that holding a plebiscite that assumes Kashmir becomes a united state might not produce an equitable result, given its cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity.
Diverse views
The Muslim majority of the inhabitants of the state of Jammu and Kashmir live in the valley, but their demands are not universally shared by the minorities living in different areas of the state.
The Buddhist population of Ladakh has never supported the movement either for independence or accession to Pakistan, nor has the majority Hindu population of the Jammu region.
Activists want the right to self-determination
The inhabitants of the Northern Areas would, however, be most likely to support officially becoming part of Pakistan, as would “Azad” Kashmir.
The contentious issue remains the status of the Kashmir Valley, whose inhabitants are divided between demanding independence or allegiance to Pakistan, with a proportion opting to remain within India.
Because of the lack of unanimity among the inhabitants, it has been suggested that if ever the issue were to be resolved by a plebiscite or referendum, a fairer solution might be to hold the plebiscite on a regional basis.
Those supporting the independence of the entire state reject this suggestion because it would inevitably formalise the division of the state which they want to see re-united as one independent political entity.
To date, the Government of India has refused to reconsider the possibility of holding a plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir.
Without, however, holding a plebiscite or referendum it is impossible to determine exactly what proportion of the people support which option. “
Hayyer
Of-course the matter of the Durand Line can be settled amicably between Pakistan and Afghanistan
apparently, even ‘our own boys’ refused to oblige their sponsors when it came to the Line.
Vajra
i still owe you a clarification. and hayyer an apology for extending the context for longer than it was strictly necessary, and needlessly repeating a point. i’ll try and keep it brief.
@Milind Kher
The BBC is an electronic news medium, not an authentic source of analysis or academically acceptable information.
In what way is quoting the BBC better than quoting Zaid Hamid?
Having said that, its account is close to the account which emerged out of discussions in these posts.
@Vajra,
You cannot compare apples and oranges. Zaid Hamid and BBC do not stand on the same footing in terms of either competence, knowledge or credibility.
And even if the BBC is not a historical source, it essentially draws its information from sources that can be said to be eminently trustworthy, for the most part
BC:
“my argument was that there is some value in the reverse too.”
Undoubtedly there is.
Milind:
I will not comment on the BBC summation. It would take too long to do that. But I will say a few words on your comment of 9:22.
“What I understand from the Kashmiris is that their main grouse is that plebiscite never happened, so unlike Pakistan and Kashmir, they never got the right to self determination.”
My views below are only my own and can be contested by anyone who knows better.
The larger majority ofKashmiris have held different views at different times. But there are three main periods. The Kashmiri view between 1947 and 1953, the Kashmiri view of 1953 to say 1989 and the Kashmiri view thereafter, though I dare say a fourth perspective is now emerging.
In ’47-53 Kashmiri Muslims could have gone either way, but they generally supported Sheikh Abdullah, (Alistair Lamb’s opinion notwithstanding). Sheikh Abdullah was against plebiscite. The Mahaz Raishumari (plebiscite front) came into existence only after his arrest, and it served as his platform till he disbanded it in 1975.
I suppose ‘Pakistan and Kashmir’ above is in error and you actually mean Pakistan and India. Self determination only happened in the NWFP I think no where else. The Kashmiri right to self determination is as valid as that of any one of the 512 states or the other provinces of British India i.e. null. The concept of self determination arose from Mountbatten and the UN. If the Maharaja had quietly acceded to Pakistan there would have been no Kashmir problem, or any talk of self determination. The Hindu Dogras would have been like other Punjabi refugees and that would have been that.
Please remember that Sheikh Abdullah is on record as opposing Plebiscite and when it was not held till 1953 Kashmiris did not make a fuss about it.
“Therefore, it is not ONLY about NGOs queering the pitch, the resistance of the Kashmiri people to accede is also a factor”
Kashmiris became hostile after 1953 and have remained hostile thereafter. The cause of the hostility is not the denial of self determination.
The cause is the political arrogance of the establishment. There is a Kashmiri grievance, but rather than applying remedies India responds by getting offended that it is expressed at all.
Denial of self determination is only a discovered grievance or a convenient one. The actual grievance lies elsewhere.
@Hayyer,
Yes, I meant Pakistan and India. You could be absolutely right. It may not be just about self determination, but also the behavior of the government.
The Kashmiris are not a fundamentalist or militant, and with proper handling, could have been won over
Vajra
this is the clarification. it might be redundant, and, i’m afraid, it’s not exactly brief.
A path was being cleared towards an honourable peace if these non-state actors did not muddy the waters every time[hayyer]
Lets see. This must have been post zia/soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan/start of gul+beg. pakistan made a new start in 1988. It was different from feb 18 2008. Lawyers’ movement vs bahawalpur plane crash. 50+ private tv channels vs ptv. Neither is much to go on, but..
The other false start in terms of indo-pak relations was sharif-vajpayee travelling to Lahore. I’ve already alluded to where or how kargil fits into the argument that I was trying to develop.
the argument is a marginal/peripheral one. But neither is it entirely unimportant nor a case of special pleading.
We’ve had a degree of introspection since 9/11, accentuating in the past two years of blood and mayhem. Lately, almost coincident with the kerry-lugar controversy, there has been some serious self-deception too. And, yes, it has given some false comfort, too, to many in desperate need of making some kind of sense of all the senseless mayhem. D_a_n had recently explained it on these pages. Unlike hossp, he sees it as postponing disaster. But he thinks to expect that an alternative exists, given the full breadth of his argument, is wishful thinking. It’s hard to refute his claim.
My argument has been nothing more than to clarify that there is a difference between pakistan’s internal and external discourses. It is only natural that it should be so. I am arguing that some of the noises made in foreign capitals are best ignored… which does not mean they’re not to be noted, in some cases at least. It just means they either must not be or cannot be responded to without unnecessarily making our task more difficult.
In internal debate you can assume the worst with a view to preparing for the worst. You can (purely) politically act against your own on the basis of strong suspicion alone. There is a collective sharing of destiny (much stronger than regional or global) that ought to naturally ensure caution and due diligence of a commensurate level. But you cannot allow another to act on such a basis only. if others are acting purely politically in a direction that you consider hostile or otherwise counter-productive, then you can try and put your case to them, or try to counter (purely politically) or ignore. Others are free to say what they wish. One can only choose what to ignore.
also, you can take so much for granted in the domestic discourse, that you cannot in the int’l debate. you’re up against an entirely different set of preconceived ideas, or ignorance, indifference, even callousness and variety of angles and interests. While the latter two can be and are totally legitimate, and the former-most two a valid topic for discussion and debate, faced with a war we have to filter things out as far as responding is concerned. That’s not burying one’s head in the sand, but trying to raise it above the rest – in order to be able to see more clearly – when it comes to matters concerning your country more directly than any other, since it is your country, your loved ones’ lives at stake, your democracy, your army, your struggle, your war etc.
P.S. I must admit, that although here at PTH we’ve learnt to ignore the fly-by dumpers, denouncers and name-callers… even hate-mongers, albeit it took a while, ignoring is not the same as being insulated. Regardless, it leaves an effect on a mere human. Speaking for myself, I’ve always been a (single-issue, domestic) activist. So I find it difficult to entirely abandon passion. Try as I may. Totally detached analysis does not come easily to me.
there are others who really should know better but come in with preconceived ideas. for example, we had the visitor recently insisting that secularists in the subcontinent are exclusively indian. You can engage someone like him, a secular person a million miles away from hate-mongering, but not from the same starting point and common ground as you can assume in an internal debate. perhaps, it ought to be possible for this difference to disappear. If it is at all possible, it will be through discussion and debate… one that acknowledges rather than ignores these difficulties.
@Bloody Civilian
This is one of the most lucid, limpid arguments I have read. It would have been an embellishment wherever it was first propounded; I am sure PTH will in later years smile with satisfaction that your explanation of the dynamics of political debate, and its essential difference when the interlocutor is a fellow citizen, and when not, first appeared here.
While an engagement with it may lend it maturity and burnish it further, I prefer to spend a few more minutes reading it again, letting its clauses roll over my tongue, allowing it to fill the reaches of my mind.
More later, much later.
vajra
i re-read my post. it was full of typos and worse. so i’ve had to edit it. i had meant to post the edited version as a new post… but i’ve ended up editing the original. so if you’d kindly re-read it… thanks!
…….. and apologies for the typos galore in the original.. and the headache it must have caused. yet to say what you did is a tribute to your own generosity