Pak Tea House » Pakistan » Redefining national interest
Redefining national interest
Raza Rumi
Courtesy The Friday Times: – The elusive quest for peace between India and Pakistan remains hostage to the military-industrial complex at both the global and regional levels. Such is the dynamic unleashed by two imagined “nations” that their existence as states is dependent on a perpetual state of confrontation. More so for Pakistan, given its deeply embedded paranoia, which has assumed a reality of its own. Sixty-two years ago, it was hardly envisioned that the two states would erect an iron-curtain and fight forever. From actual wars to propaganda campaigns the task seems complete now. The oft-repeated phrase ‘trust deficit’ is a natural culmination of this ugly process. Of late, another dimension has been added, i.e. information-deficit as India had marched towards a new phase of its economic development, it has stopped taking interest in transitional Pakistani society and kept the time-warped framework of understanding Pakistan. However, the situation cannot remain static. Policymakers are slow to catch up on both the sides.
Mumbai factor: Twenty months ago, the Mumbai attacks changed the atmosphere created by President Zardari’s unprecedented offers of peace, dialogue and cooperation. The day Zardari made his remarks in a conclave organised by the Hindustan Times in 2008, many observers saw a Mumbai coming. The jihadis of Pakistan and perhaps their counterparts in India were quick to stop this process. Ironic that PPP, a party fed on the Pakistani nationalist rhetoric, thirty years down the road had read the writing on the wall. Pakistan’s future and survival is dependent on a reduction of hostilities with India. More importantly, this also holds the key to correcting the endemic civil-military imbalance.
Zardari’s stride: Why would a national security state apparatus bloated by an Indian threat not react to Zardari’s statements: “I do not feel threatened by India and India should not feel threatened from us…today we have a parliament which is already pre-agreed upon a friendly relationship with India. In spite of our disputes, we have a great future together.” As if this was not enough, Zardari declared that Pakistan will not be the first country to use its nuclear weapons, thus undermining a carefully constructed Pakistani nuclear doctrine of first-use.
The acts of terror telecast live for more than two days stirred the public imagination in India far beyond what is understood in Pakistan. The stereotypes of Pakistan, Muslims and their faith came into play and a hysterical media added to the worst kind of paranoia. Pakistan, on the other hand, was also shaken by Mumbai. Our media also played up the war mantra with TV shows dedicated to the readiness for a nuclear confrontation and crank calls to the Presidency spelling war. Public opinion rallied behind the Pakistan Army which had lost considerable ground due to the street agitation against General Musharraf and widespread anti-Americanism.
Truncated dialogue: All hopes for a meaningful engagement with India therefore were dashed to ground. A consensus prime minister, a powerful Presidency and a political consensus on making peace with India was scuttled in 72 hours after the attack. The attacks achieved the exact objective with which they were enacted. Perhaps, the odd gap in an otherwise well-devised and efficiently executed plan in the form of a lone survivor – Ajmal Kasab – of Pakistani nationality fired Indian public opinion as never before. This time, allegedly, a war had entered Indian homes and bazaars.
The emergence of anti-terrorism as a single point agenda sat well with the global focus and merged into the ‘truths’ manufactured by the international media and the war industry about Pakistan. The logjam was broken due to Manmohan Singh’s feeble efforts against a belligerent public mood and hawkish state machinery. It has taken a year to get to this point and failure remains a distinct possibility.
Pakistan under threat: In part, the Pakistani establishment (which includes the free courts) has not done the needful in arresting and combating the jihad factory directed towards India. On India’s part, it has also displayed indifference to the challenges which the fragile civilian government and the Army face in tackling the northwestern insurgencies. It is no longer fair to say that all militancy and jihadism is state sanctioned. The Islamist militants are on an all-out war against Pakistan and have taken the fight against the state of Pakistan to a new level by terrorising the civilian population.
Afghan endgame: The US factor, though not apparent, is now a driver of change in the India-Pakistan matrix. A workable Afghan solution cannot be devised without the active cooperation of India and Pakistan and if they refuse to talk to each other, a US exit from Afghanistan will lead to a proxy war within Afghanistan that spells doom for the region and perhaps the globe.
This is why India’s powerful Home Minister Chidambram visited Islamabad and sought assurances on potential action against the alleged Mumbai perpetrators. Confidence building measures have been talked about and the Indian Foreign Secretary was unusually positive in her last visit to Islamabad. But the central issue of Mumbai remains as it can put the Indian elected government’s credibility into question. On the other hand, the desire of Indian policy makers to achieve a faster growth rate is also influencing the peace process. The military has been in charge of the India policy in Pakistan, and the civilian government, far too pressed with its survival, has easily given away this critical policy initiative.
States under siege: Krishna-Qureshi talks need to be reviewed in the larger context of the way the Indian and Pakistani states function and the way they reinforce vested interests. The fact that Krishna had to take counsel from Delhi and Qureshi regurgitated the national security line is demonstrative of the fact that we lack a political initiative. Dr Singh is not powerful enough and remains subservient to the large party machine and of course the establishment that also rules India due to its permanence. In Pakistan, Zardari is discredited thanks to a national security obsessed media and Gilani with all his powers knows the limits of his control over foreign policy.
In this environment, the mere fact that a dialogue is taking place is nearly miraculous. It needs to be welcomed and before it is shunned as a non-starter, we have to consider the binding constraints within which the two states are operating. Hawks have had a field day in India and Pakistan after the inconclusive Krishna-Qureshi parleys. But they were surely intense and in a short span of six weeks, the high level elected officials have met twice. No breakthrough is likely but the stalemate has been broken.
Status quo machinery: The tragedy that the people of this region face is that they remain subjects of two cracking states that have failed to reform after 62 years. The outmoded bureaucracies are incapable of identifying creative solutions. The peace enterprise therefore is bound to fail if it is handled by status quo-ist bureaucratic structures. This is why the repeated references to resuming composite dialogue are neither here not there. Regional geopolitics is now driving the peace process. Paradoxically, the domestic constituencies for confrontation will have to take a backseat as India and Pakistan both cannot afford to lose out from the Afghanistan endgame.
Peace is in Pakistan’s interest: Pakistan can only benefit from peace dividends if its outdated security doctrine is revised. It is unfortunate that despite being sandwiched between two giant economies, it is facing a meltdown. More crucially, Indian growth is a chance for the Pakistani state to take full advantage of the economic opportunities. We know that the Army is concerned with the economy and it would suit its long term interests if Pakistan gains from trade and energy cooperation due to the mammoth Indian market.
Secondly, the Pakistan Army along with the civilian government has to fight a medium term battle with the home-grown militancy. Despite the semi-convincing conspiracy theories, Pakistan’s enemies lie within. The Army leadership has shown its understanding and resolve to tackle this problem, as is evident from the shifts since last year. Why should the Eastern border divert its energies and attention if there can be a peaceful settlement with India? Focus is what we need at this juncture and militant groups are now a direct threat to state power (read the Army).
Lastly, while no one disputes the validity of the Kashmir issue, it would be far better that Pakistani state consolidates the federation by alleviating the Baloch problem. Accusing India of stirring an insurgency is not enough when Pakistan is yet to bring evidence in the public domain. And, if there is such interference, then it is all the more a reason to negotiate in the context of an Afghanistan settlement with international arbiters.
Indian imperatives for peace: On the Indian side, it is clear that India’s dream of becoming another China cannot be realised without peace in the region. Similarly, the Indian state is already mired in the Naxal and Maoist rebellions, and cannot afford to have another front open. Furthermore, a workable solution on Kashmir with Pakistan’s consent can be a befitting response to another Intifada in the Valley. Back channel diplomacy had already reached a solution of sorts.
Paradigm shifts needed: All of this requires changing the definitions of security and national interest in Pakistan. In India, it requires liberating Pakistan policy from the hawks in the bureaucracy, former generals and RAW officials, who are makeshift Pakistan experts. The understanding on Pakistan needs an urgent review in India, as it remains stuck in the Pakistan-is-about-to-collapse discourse.
There is simply no alternative to information flow and dismantling the iron curtain. Let the disputes remain, but allow media access across the borders. Let the legislators take the lead and ask the Foreign Office mandarins to take a backseat. Trade and political compacts shall take care of the peace process. History teaches us that the pursuit of rational self interest is the key to progress. Annihilation is the fate of irrational states.
Raza Rumi is a writer and policy expert based in Lahore. He blogs at http://razarumi.com; and manages Pak Tea House and Lahore Nama e-zines. Email: razarumi@gmail.com
Filed under: Pakistan · Tags: Army, diplomacy, India, Indo-Pak, Kashmir, Krishna, Manmohan Singh, Mumbai, Musharraf, Pakistan, qureshi, talks, Zardari
68 Responses to "Redefining national interest"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- NDelhi
said Very well said sunny… expose the fascism inh... - Amnah Khalid
said Like they say ,the greatest need is the need itsel... - Jamaluddin
said Sunny, keep up the good work. The Islamic gang shu... - Jamal
said @Sunny
“But if meditation means self-deceit,... - Jamal said Is it not possible that Indian policy is now along...
- Jamal said @Sunny
Did my post about you derailing threads erk...
- Jamal said @Sunny
You’re a troll, the very first paragr...
- Rex Minor
said Amjad,
Well said! Indians and Americans, you got i... - Rex Minor said Amjad,
Well said! Indians and Americans, you got i...
- Rex Minor said Faiz,
No sir! Faiz was dead wrong in challenging G...
Clearly we need to redefine our national interests and in my view it should be:
a) Investing in education so that the youth does not fall prey to religious zealots.
b) Put an end to rampant hate-speech it is form here the religious extremism stems.
c) Giving minorities their due human, legal and constitutional rights.
Dear Gorki,
Thanks for your response. I appreciate the idealism in your words. A good measure of idealism is a must for any society.
You are a fellow Indian, and I respect your right to your sentiments. To be truthful, in my school years I had similar thinking.
I am flattered to be mistaken for an intellectual of the JNU types but the truth is that I am just an ordinary apolitical Indian from a small ordinary Indian town.
I have never been able to see any intellectuality in the JNU types. It is a pseudo-intellectuality, based on proposing ill-fitting semantic constructs on a society, constructs imported unfiltered from Western social and political thinkers; denying local cultural reality; using a sham outward attire to show identification with the underprivileged. If they were in USA, none of them would even be considered for a seat in a think-tank. But India has many jokers, be it the politicians or the JNU jholawallas. There is also a place for them in India.
The Truman quote is appropriate because while my post about corruption in India and its fragility as a state may have upset you but it is the sad truth.
Believe me, I am not upset by the ‘sad truth’. In fact I am not upset at all. I am however often amazed by the conclusions that are drawn, and justifications that are made, based on the ‘sad truth’.
I have developed certain stereotypes of Indians, for getting a first impression and measure of a man. Now no stereotype, or even a set of stereotypes, can really capture the complexity of a human, but it is a start.
My intent is not to degrade anybody or hurt anybody’s feelings, but based on some of your comments, I’d like to venture a stereotype. So have some patience with me here.
It is not that I am ashamed of India or am oblivious of its successes.
The double-negatives here indicate actually a very deep shame. That thought would not even whistle past someone who feels at ease in his skin and amongst his people.
I root passionately for India during the cricket matches and anxiously await the good news of its scientific endeavors like the Chandrayaan launch with each press release.
Interesting here is not, what is mentioned as targets/objects of pride, but what is negated through this shortlisting.
The shortlisting is based not on what constitutes a nation, the culture, the faiths, the people and their customs, the history of the people and the nation. Rather it is based on a West-sanctioned political correctness manifesto regarding patriotism. Sport is considered ‘halaal’ as an outlet for patriotism. In fact it is deemed as mandatory for de-racinated-marxist-liberals, so that they not be accused of being unpatriotic. As far as scientific achievements go, that too is given a green flag. It is thought that pursuit of science, would aid in uprooting people from their culture and religion. The Western manifesto writers however forget that scientific curiosity and pursuit, have been at the heart of the Indic thought process. Scientific thought is at home in India. It can never be the trojan horse that they assumed to smuggle in. But the de-racinated-marxist-liberals buy the Western argument that it is a trojan horse and show willingness to cheer India’s scientific achievements.
I beam with pride when I see the PM represent India at the G8 meet as an equal partner
It is fine and good that India can speak with others at still another forum. But there is not the least need for any of us, to feel pride if an outsider accepts us or not. Our equality with other nations, the equality of Indian citizens with citizens of other nations, is not ordained by their reaction to us.
Most of the time I live in Germany. Half of my family is German. Would I be feeling pride if other Germans accept me and talk to me? Is that some sort of honor. My self-esteem is not a function of acceptance of me by anybody. It is rooted in my heritage, it is rooted in my culture which allows me, to be open-minded, pluralistic, rational, self-critical, forward-looking. It is rooted in my citizenship of Republic of India.
or hear western media men like Tom Freidman who once described India admiringly as a ‘showcase democracy, with a Hindu majority, its Government headed by a Sikh PM and a catholic woman as the head of its largest and oldest political Party under a Muslim President’
I am a fan of Tom Friedman. I think for an American he has the ability to transcend the self-centrism of America and look for values and trends in other parts of the world. He is able to see, salvation of the world, emanating from quarters other than the Eurocentric world view.
Pluralism has however been a hallmark of Indian Civilization, and is not something that suddenly becomes visible as soon as a Westerner sheds light on to it. Tom Friedman’s message is meant for the Westerners who know little about India. His message is not meant for giving Indians self-esteem.
or the predictions of India becoming a larger economy than the US by mid century.
The Indian economy was a giant in the past. It was not called the jewel of the British crown for nothing. Here some figures – the Indian share of the World GDP in the past (as per Angus Maddison) was:
1 32%
1000 28%
1500 24.3%
1600 22.3%
1700 24.4%
1820 16%
1870 12%
1913 7.4%
1950 4.1%
1973 3%
2003 5.5%
So a thousand years ago, our GDP was ~ a third of the world.
There is nothing extraordinary that our GDP share will rise in the future.
I am truly thrilled about all that. Yet I am also not unaware of the unfinished business we have on our hands. The same man after which the premier Indian University you mentioned is named
JLN was indeed a great man, because he gave India a vision, he gave inspiration and he gave India an industrial base. At the same time he was also allowed grave failures in leadership.
The University is there, and it instills a social conscience among the Indians, but at the same time, the graduates are corrupted by a foreign narrative of goodness. They end up becoming tools of Western interests.
laid out the task clearly for all of us in the early years of our Republic when he mentioned that ‘as long as there are tears and suffering, our job will not be done’. I wrote those words of caution in my earlier post on this forum to highlight all that still remains to be done.
That is a mission statement, that our first PM gave us. Both you and me, and a billion other Indians have to try to fulfill that.
What the de-racinated marxist-liberals of India however do is that they instrumentalize poverty and try to push ideological crap, policies which would only do cosmetic changes to poverty, instead of eradicating it. Secondly they try to wrap themselves around poverty, using it as their flag, and do moral grand-standing. Important is not how much one bi.ches about poverty, but rather how much of one’s own money and effort one invests fighting it and bringing opportunity to the underprivileged. Using poverty as a stick to beat India will not remove poverty.
When a politician like Jayalalitha decides to publicly flout her ill gotten wealth in a 100 crore wedding for a close relative or the President of the Medical council of India is caught with literally tons of gold in his possession it does not appear to me that the economic growth or the growing middle class is enforcing more accountability. If anything it demonstrates a growing corruption industry keeping pace with prosperity along with a near absence of any shame among the corrupt elite.
Middle Class empowerment is both an economic as well as an awareness issue. The development takes time. Anybody can sit on the high horse and look down upon society. It is when middle class instead of becoming a disenchanted non-voting voter group becomes a majority, politically aware and a serious voter group, would one see the changes you would like.
It is perhaps considered old fashioned or in poor taste to bring up such things and call them shameful but I cannot help it because I know of no other way to improve things if we do not shine a spotlight on it or are repulsed by it.
No there is nothing wrong with increasing awareness of the problems in our country. However you are talking to our Pakistani cousins here. Do you think, they will come over and bring us democratic and good-governance heaven?
Discussion of Indian poverty on a Pakistani forum is meant for only one purpose – to preserve the illusion that India and Pakistan are equal nations sharing the same problems and doomed to the same fate. This forms the basis of Pakistani arguments why India should come to the table, and treat Pakistan as an equal. The Pakistanis feel falsely reassured when Indians show the same despondency, the Pakistanis feel at the moment for their country. The Pakistanis want to be reassured that they did not make a mistake at the time of Partition. The Pakistanis want to be reassured that the ideological basis of their state, Islam, is just as effective as a political and social ideology, as any state ideology that Hindu India comes up with. You are only feeding their appetite for reassurance, instead of telling them to do some open-minded introspection outside the bounds imposed by Islam.
I post such things not out dislike for India but as a word of caution out of my love for my Republic.
India is more than just a Republic.
I beg to differ here. There is a reason for concern, very great concern here.
I could not care less about what the Arabs or the Indonesians think but when I see our own teenagers dying on our own streets throwing rocks at our own security forces I am concerned at what our republic is coming to.
I wonder why there are no Kashmiri Pundit kids throwing rocks amongst the teenagers you mention from Kashmir!
Perhaps for an extreme nationalist it is not a problem; it is India, right or wrong and a ‘little mayhem’ as you mention it is nothing new.
As for me, I believe in the Republic of India, founded upon noble principles of tolerance and justice for all, and held together with the implied consent of all its constituents.
It is not an Indian Empire, to be held together by force.
India is neither an empire, nor just a republic. It is a nation, and this nation was there long before it became a republic. Depending on the time period, it may have been politically consolidated or fragmented. The sages and rishis gave this land a common life-philosophy and values; and imbibed the rulers of the land with the same political philosophy. India is the custodian of a 5000 year old civilization.
If you want to feel India, you have to close your eyes and meditate on the billions of souls around you, their aspirations and their vibrancy; on the land that has seen so much history flow through time; on our forefathers, and their fathers and mothers, who toiled this land and poured love onto their children. We are the bearers of their legacy.
The Indian Nation is like a Carriage, and the Indian Republic, our Constitution, our values are the Horse. This Horse has to take the Indian Carriage in a forward direction, in the direction of social peace and prosperity, in the direction of individual achievement and and scientific progress.
However I get the feeling some would rather get up on Horse and start giving sermons and berating the Carriage. The Horse is in the service of the Carriage, and not for bearing on it with its hooves.
Moral Grandstanders may like to mount the Horse and they will feel good about themselves. They may even find a few cheerleaders, but all in all they do the Nation no service.
The Republic of India has my utmost loyalty and will have it till the last breath in my body, but if you take away that idea of it then what remains is not a nation. Neither was it ever a nation in the past nor can it be a nation in the future and then I feel nothing for it. Moreover I am not alone many more Indians feel that way.
That is what I mean. Some people think, it was the British who gave us India. In fact, this is an idea, that is so vigorously propounded by the Western academics, that it would make one laugh, were it not for the tragedy of so many idiots who would fall for something like this.
After all, it all comes from a colonized mind. You have accepted the White Man as your superior, as the only one able to impart to you rational thoughts. The White Man gave us history, and before that we were all just apes jumping from tree to tree.
The ideas of secularism, pluralism, just political system, consensus building, rational dialog all have their roots in Indian philosophy. It is the White Man, who is trying to sell you Indian goods with a made-in-West label, because the Western World Order needs a Western narrative.
It is Indian Civilization, the Indian Nation, that has allowed the Republic of India to be realized. Why else would Indian democracy survive in a land with such diversity and after having survived a thorough plundering by Central-Asian Turks, Persians, Arabs and Brits alike?
The Indian Republic is not a book given by the British Gods to Jawahar Lal Nehru, according to which India had to be ruled!
Without the Indian Nation, the Indics, there would have been no Republic of India.
What I fear is that you wish to understand the Indian Constitution as a new ideology, in the process becoming just another ideologist like Communist, Islamist, Capitalist, etc. The Indian Constitution is a living embodiment of the aspirations of a nation, but the nation is much more than just the Constitution.
If you want to come along on the Indian journey, you should come in the carriage. Nobody should ride the Horse and do meaningless grandstanding. Fighting for the Constitution and not the people, it is supposed to protect, is, I believe, another compromise a man with an inferiority complex would make. Love the Constitution but hate the Nation, because Constitution given by nice White God.
Once the constitutional guarantees and the covenants that bind us together are stripped away, we have no India; only a geographical expression, as an Englishman once remarked.
Exactly, what I mean. “As an Englishman once remarked”!
I think you got a wrong impression. I am not afraid of the Pakistanis. What I am afraid of is the Jihadist ideology misleading our teenagers and interfering with our own process of nation building.
Jihadism is simply the natural evolution of Pakistaniyat. There is nothing to fear from evolution, one just needs to be prepared for it.
In fact, Pakistaniyat is a mid-way house between Indic values and full-throttled Islamism. As such the Indian Muslims are far more susceptible to Pakistaniyat than Talibanism. With Pakistaniyat, they get the feeling that it is Indian version of Islam, which it is not. Pakistaniyat has the extra aspect, that Muslims are a nation apart from all others. But that difference can get lost in the bonhomie.
Once Pakistan makes the irreversible transition to Talibanism, the proposition in front of the Indian Muslim youth would be far more clear – to be part of the Indian mainstream or to ape the Talibaniac Pakistanis.
Each time we have to suspend civil liberties in any part of India or an Indian under trial is killed in an ‘encounter’ it interferes with our own process of nation building. It corrupts us as people and weakens our republic and its values. It takes away our legitimacy and more importantly the loyalty of our own citizens. Such situations are best avoided.
All this is true. Mostly this happens in areas where the Indian nation has become too diluted through the infiltration of foreign ideologies. As India rises, the pull of these foreign ideologies would weaken, as the people are reconnected with their roots.
I have no doubt in my mind that separatist movements in India are wrong and need to be countered. It is only that how they are countered will decide whether we end up with a Quebec or a Chechnya on our hands.
One of the main tools of secessionists is propaganda. Truth is one thing, propaganda is another. In war, truth is the first casualty. If there is a huge pool of people telling the world that gruesome atrocities are being committed, then you are batting for the secessionists. It is as clear as that.
As soon as the Kashmiri Pundits were thrown out of Kashmir, it stopped being ethnic separatism and became a Pakistan-induced insurgency, who again were willing to use religion for political purposes.
Kashmir was a part of India long before Islam came to the subcontinent. It will also stay that way, as the Republic of India has the instrument of accession in her favor. How soon the current inhabitants of Kashmir with their alien pan-Islamist thinking come to their senses is up to them. Otherwise the Center has been pumping more money into the development of the Valley far in excess of funds other parts of India receive.
I don’t think the peace lobby in Pakistan can convince it to let go of Kashmir. It is only the Kashmiris who can do it; if they demonstrate unmistakably their own preference for India.
Kashmir remains part of India because the Indian nation owes it to the memory of the Indic ancestors of present-day Kashmiris, as well as the offspring of present-day Kashmiris, whatever their faith may be, who would want one day to enjoy some music once in a while and not want to carry beards, like in the country next door.
Pakistanis can keep on craving for Kashmir until the sun goes out. It doesn’t make a difference. Perhaps Kashmir was indeed an issue JLN left behind to unmake Pakistan. Very very clever indeed. The abyss the Pakistanis are seeing approaching is because of their determination to stay on the Kashmir course. Without Kashmir, there would not have been so many Jihadis roaming around in Pakistan.
The current troubles in the valley don’t help and must come to a peaceful end. They are in part driven by an ideology that has rightly or wrongly, captured the imagination of a large number of Muslim youth across Asia and it does not recognize international boundaries.
You are talking about the same ideology on which Pakistan is founded.
That ideology has to be defeated decisively; once and for all. In that we share a common interest with those in Pakistan who want to take their own country into the 21st century rather than the 7th.
What makes you think you share a common interest with Pakistani liberals?
What Pakistani liberals want is a soft-Islam, which allows them the privileges of the modern world, their freedoms. That much is ok. But hardly any ‘Pakistani Liberal’ is going to question the Two Nation Theory. Hardly any Pakistani would go ahead and say, that Kashmiris should remain in India, because the Indian Constitution is willing to provide them with full civilian rights.
The Pakistani Liberals are staunch Muslim nationalists, who think that religion can be a basis for nationhood. They only want that the ensuing nation should not start asking them to stop hearing music and carrying long beards.
On the other hand, they look for Indian ‘peace-lovers’ who are willing to totally eschew their Hindu faith, call themselves atheists, distance themselves from the Indian Nation itself, and bind themselves with some abstract values of humanism, constitutionalism, secularism, Marxism without the context of their applicability for the nation, people.
These Indians/Hindus accept the Pakistanis despite their Muslim chauvinism all in the name of secularism, whereas the Muslims only promise support for reform in Islam, for moderation.
And the Indians think both of them are meeting half-way. Now that is a joke.
I, (along with Raza and Tilsim among others) have been misunderstood so far by every one (including Hayyer Sahib) when we talk about an Indian engagement with Pakistan. No one is asking for a peace summit with the GOP or a meeting with the ISI etc. Such talks are bound to fail even if there were the best of intentions on both sides because the necessary mind set is not there among the ordinary people who have learnt to reflexively consider the ‘other’ as an enemy.
Indians consider Pakistan as the enemy not reflexively but because of a history of attacks, facts on the ground. Pakistanis consider Indians as the enemy because of establishment propaganda from childhood – very effective propaganda, especially as it is built on fears, rumors, hate of the Kufr and hardly any truth.
There is no need to consider them as equivalent.
While media and business contacts among such people can not deliver Kashmir or bring Mumbai attackers to justice,
It almost sounds as if one is equating the righteousness of finding justice for Mumbai Attacks and delivering Kashmir to the Pakistanis on a platter.
it can, if initiated and sustained over time, help each to see the other side as something more than a single dimension caricature that neatly fits in a stereotype of the ‘enemy’.
For the Indian, the ‘enemy’ in Pakistan is based on historical facts, Mumbai 26/11 just being the latest of such facts. When the ‘enemy’ is as such very real, is it of any interest to know that in Pakistan there is also ‘qawwali’ and ‘mujra’?
On the other hand, in Pakistan, the ‘enemy’ in India is based on institutional brain-washing. Many institutions in Pakistan, many vested interests in Pakistan are based on keeping the ‘enemy’ in India. The Pakistani liberals, I concede, may not wish this trend. However I think, this has a lot more to do with the predicament of their country, rather than some holistic sentiment.
So the single dimensional caricature of the other has a justification – for India it is to not allow distraction from reality; and for Pakistan it is to not allow a weakening of the institutions.
For example an Indian on the street must learn that a Pakistani is not only either a cricketer or a fiyadeen but can also be a journalist and a secular thinker like Rumi or even an uninteresting and uninterested clerk or a school teacher who is concerned with nothing more than everyday life.
I think the common man in India is generally aware of the diversity in any society, both in opinions and in professions.
The Pakistanis similarly must find out for themselves how few Indians know or care about the RSS or Varun Gandhi and how many of them have similar concerns about power shortages and rising food costs and honor killings.
Ah yes, .. they need the assurance that the Indians too are sharing Hell with them.
It is only after a prolonged period of such benign and ordinary but increasing contacts across the border, between media, business people etc, when we small town people start recognizing each other for what we are; can you intelligent and important people then start talking big words like ‘summits’ and ‘national priorities’.
Yes, wish you success!
PTH seems like an ideal watering hole for such contacts and Raza’s call one such call for more of these. That’s all!
Well then, don’t let anybody stop you!
Regards
What the other Raj is saying is that India is what it is because it is Hindu and Pakistan is in trouble because it is Muslim. He is the kind of Indian spammer most unlikely to learn anything new because he knows it all.
I have to agree with NAS and Hayyer here. Other Raj seems to imply that there is something special being Hindu and Indian. Well, its as special as it is being Christian and Moldavian or being Buddhist and Mongolian. It doesn’t become “magical” like Steve Job’s iPhone just because he says it so.
Edit: I meant to say “the iPhone doesn’t become magical just because Steve Jobs says it so”.
Couldn’t help making that snide remark on Apple hehe!
“Kashmir remains part of India because the Indian nation owes it to the memory of the Indic ancestors of present-day Kashmiris, as well as the offspring of present-day Kashmiris, whatever their faith may be, who would want one day to enjoy some music once in a while and not want to carry beards, like in the country next door….”
I guess the consent of the present day Kashmiris has nothing to do with it….;-)
Androidguy wrote:
Other Raj seems to imply that there is something special being Hindu and Indian. Well, its as special as it is being Christian and Moldavian or being Buddhist and Mongolian.
I guess Moldavia and Mongolia also face similar challenges like India. having to integrate over 1.1 billion people speaking more than 122 languages, 7-8 major religions, tens of thousands of castes/tribes and a people, coming right out of poverty, all in a secular democratic system providing a vigorous economic growth.
If not, then I guess we are special.
By that logic, most countries in the world are special, except the most homogenous ones. I still don’t know what you are trying to say here. Indians are as much good or bad as the next country, and the country next to it. There is nothing special about it. Its a different matter that you are proud of India, just as I am too. But had I been Mongolian or Moldovan, I would have been just as proud of my country as I am as an Indian. No special powers need be ascribed to India as you are trying to imply, if I have understood you correctly.
Dear NSA
Now we are getting into the ‘historic homeland’ argument. The present day mess in erstwhile Palestine should give one pause in this regard. I will stay away from it.
Coming back specifically to your question though, I think we all know that the present day Kashmir was messed up by politicians several times starting in 1947-48 and (later in 1989). All of us; Kashmiris and the non Kashmiri alike are living with its consequences.
It goes without saying that under the ideal circumstances everyone should have a say about all parts of India; not only people considering themselves Kashmiris living in Karnataka but also Punjabis living in Patna or the Biharis living in Mumbai. That it is not always so and people get into parochial arguments over such issues goes on to show how much of a nation building task we still have before us, Raj Sahib’s fantasy world notwithstanding.
The Tamils and the Punjabis of today have much less in common than the French and the German descendants of the Frankish clans of Raj Sahib’s native Europe. These Europeans fought bloody nationalistic wars over little pieces of territory their common bonds of history, culture, kinship etc. (all that Raj thinks made up India in the past) notwithstanding.
Kashmir today has become an explosive and an emotional issue for all Indian; Kashmiri and non Kashmiri. In this we are now seeing an additional factor of a malignant ideology that is more of an international phenomenon.
The job before us (at least those who feel they owe it to India, having received a decent and often subsidized education at its expense) is to address these issues calmly and legally while appealing to everyone’s sense of reason and fair play. We should be able to explain to all our countrymen why we should be one nation and the benefits that come of it to us individually as well as collectively rather than harking back to an imagined reality which never was.
Regards.
Minor diversion – there is an article on Pakistan Railways in Huffington Post by Saad Khan, which reminds one of the collapsing railways in the Ayn Rand novel “Atlas Shrugged”.
@ gorki
for the young audience ,can u please explain why kashmir is a special case.all of us understand kashmiris are alienated,no doubt about it..but why is it so….
as i ve asked hayyer b4,taking over a state guarenteeing its autonomy and den gradually swallowing it has been ‘india’s policy towards most princely states.chief ministers being dismissed,economic mismanagement or human right violations by state has taken place in virtually all the states of india.i need not tell u how invalid the culture argument is as there is no homogenous pan-india culture for kashmir to differ frm…from north east to south each state has its own language,caste structure,festivals….so other than being a muslim majority state,what is particular about kashmir.but then lakshadweep is muslim majority.there are many districts in up,assam,kerala,west bengal,andhra and bihar that are muslim majority.there is a sikh majority in punjab.there are significant percentage as well as districts with xian majority in kerala and north east.and we in india,have never accepted that india is a hindu state.
again i am in no way denying that a good number of kashmiris believe that they are not a part of india.but my ignorance often fails me to understand the exact reasons.forget the present murders on the streets,but why are the aspirations for independance that the kashmiris have is different from that of a tamilian or a punjabi.
Dear Lal
You ask a good question but from the wrong person; I have never made a case for Kashmiri exceptionalism either as individuals or as a sub-nationality. However Kashmir stands out as a test case for our Union for reasons not the least of which has to do with the circumstances of its somewhat messy accession into it. Hayyer wrote an exceptionally thorough account covering the historical peculiarities and the complexities of that issue earlier so I will not cover the historical aspect. (Besides I can’t even begin to have a fraction of his encyclopedic knowledge in this regard.)
Therefore a short answer to your question is that there is nothing special about Kashmir or the Kashmiris that does not applies to the Punjabis, the Nagas the Assamese or other separatist aspirations elsewhere. However I believe how we handle the Kashmir issue will decide what kind of a Republic we will become in the coming years. As Hayyer also mentioned, India can no more afford to give it up merely to buy peace with a belligerent neighbor than it can Kerala.
However we cannot afford to keep it the way we have tried so far; by subterfuge and rigging elections as the congress did under Mrs. Gandhi and her son before or by brute force under Jagmohan later.
Nor can we afford to subdue the ruthless militancy by a greater ruthlessness of the state as we did in Punjab in the 1990s. (The circumstances were very different there and we got lucky that once but luck can not be made a state policy).
If we continue on that path we may or may not keep Kashmir for ever but we certainly will not become the Repulic that the founding fathers envisioned in 1950.
Something has to change. There is no question that the current unrest has to be dealt firmly and people attacking public property or those inducing others to do so will have to be isolated, arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law; even in special courts if necessary; in the long run an average Kashmiri has to believe in the Indian Union. The laws on the books have to come out and protect the innocent even as the guilty will have to be punished, very severely if they must be; but in full public glare.
Though it is often tempting or even satisfying at a visceral level to eliminate the obvious criminals quickly in ‘encounters’ and forced disappearances; at the end of the day such tactics weaken the very state they claim to protect. One invaluable casualty of such short term tactics is the state’s credibility.
It is a sad legacy of such inept measures exercised as a state policy over the years that we are seeing a situation where even an accidental drowning of a couple of young women can cause the rumor mongers to incite an uprising as happened last year.
We took decades to slide into such a sorry state and it will take years of patient and brutally honest yet firm handling to get out of it.
That Pakistani army or the ISI found an opening in Kashmir is our own fault; they are a symptom of our callousness; once we fix what we need to then they will have no role to play even if they liked.
If we do it right this time, the rewards are enormous. It would be a big step towards making India a truly representative democracy of equals; bound into a Union by shared belief in the integrity of the state based on just laws and secular values.
Regards.
Pakistan has been lying about the role of the ISI in fomenting terror in the region
Vir Sanghvi
************************************************
There is an increasing disconnect between the government of India’s attitude to Pakistan and the view of most educated Indians. The disconnect has been most apparent in the recriminations that have followed the failure of the Indo-Pak foreign minister’s summit. And each day brings new evidence – such as the Wikileaks documents – that seems to undermine the government’s approach.
To be fair, the official Indian approach sounds reasonable. The government says that India cannot hope to be one of the great powers of the 21st century if it continues to engage in pointless hostility with a small neighbour. It is, therefore, important to improve relations with Pakistan. Obviously, this will not happen overnight. But it is vital to continue with a process of engagement that results in confidence-building measures, in such symbolic gestures as the release of fishermen and in tiny incremental steps that improve the overall atmosphere. When both sides narrow what Manmohan Singh calls the ‘trust deficit’, then perhaps some real progress will be possible.
Educated Indians take a different view. They argue that there is only one compelling reason to talk to Pakistan: to put an end to cross-border terrorism. If Pakistan is serious about improving relations with India, then there is only one confidence-building measure that matters: a crackdown on those who murder and maim innocent Indian civilians.
What’s worse, say many Indians, is that the Pakistan government is not only unwilling to stop terrorists from coming across the border but that elements within the regime are actually master-minding the terrorist operations. It makes no sense to talk of people-to-people contacts and cultural exchanges when Pakistani interests are already waging a proxy war against India. Any talks that do not result in an end to terror are worthless.
This position is the exact opposite of the government’s. For instance, the foreign ministry now suggests that the collapse of the last round of talks had something to do with the home secretary’s statement that the 26/11 Bombay attacks were – at least, according to David Headley – an ISI operation. The foreign ministry says that the home secretary’s assertion was ‘hundred per cent correct’ but that he should not have said anything about Pakistani-inspired terrorism on the eve of the talks.
That view demonstrates the distance between the two positions. The Indian public will only support the talks if we tackle the issue of terrorism head-on. The government of India, on the other hand, believes that we should not even mention terrorism for fear of upsetting the Pakistanis and damaging the dialogue process.
The government’s position would have more credibility if the foreign ministry could offer us any assurances that an incremental approach to improving relations will lead to a reduction in terror. In fact, the government is in no position to offer any such assurances. There have been so many confidence-building measures over the last two decades that by now both sides should be brimming with confidence. But the terrorism continues to get worse.
The response of the Pakistanis to India’s overtures this time around also suggests that Islamabad has no real interest in tackling the terror problem. The Pakistan foreign minister spoke insultingly about his Indian counterpart and – most revealingly – compared the Indian home secretary to Hafiz Sayeed. When a politician can no longer tell the difference between a bureaucrat and a terrorist, you know that his country is in serious trouble.
But even if we were to accept that the Pakistanis are serious about improving relations, there are practical problems. First of all, the official position of the government of Pakistan is that it is also a victim of terror and is, therefore, unable to stamp out the terrorist threat to India, largely because it lacks the ability to do so. Secondly, it is not clear that the civilian government – the people we speak to – counts for very much. Real power appears to reside with the army whose chief was given an extension shortly after the summit collapsed. Thirdly, there is evidence to suggest that many of the terror groups are led and financed by retired Generals who pursue their own private foreign policies. They do not consider themselves bound by their foreign minister’s commitments.
And fourthly, there is the most obvious problem: the Pakistanis have a history of lying about their support to terrorist groups within the region.
Last week, a huge cache of 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports from the Afghan conflict was leaked to the Internet site, Wikileaks. While this is raw intelligence that has not been fully processed, some revelations are worrying. The documents suggest that Pakistan has been secretly supporting the Taliban and sheltering such leaders as Osama Bin Laden while simultaneously lying to the Americans about its activities. These intelligence reports also indicate that the ISI has been using the Haqqani network to launch terror attacks on Indians in Afghanistan. One such attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul resulted in the death of 54 people, including our defence attaché.
Moreover, the documents record the movements of such figures as General Hamid Gul, an India-hating former head of ISI, who appears to be pursuing his own agenda while liaising with terrorist groups.
The consensus in the US is that while every bit of intelligence in the raw files cannot be treated as gospel truth, the sheer mass of evidence that Pakistan is financing and arming terrorists to attack Indians (and Americans, for that matter) is too strong to be dismissed.
These revelations will confirm the worst fears of most Indians. Every doubt we had is justified: the military does call the shots; retired Generals pursue their own agendas with private armies and Pakistan has been lying to both India and America about the role of the ISI in fomenting terror in the region.
In the light of all this, the government’s approach makes less and less sense. Why bother with a polite step-by-step engagement with Pakistan when the situation is so grave? Pakistan is busy sending terrorists to kill Indians while cheerfully lying to the world about the activities of the ISI and its army?
It is not necessary to be a Hindu communalist or a Pakistan hater to recognise that India is wasting its time. The government needs to listen to the views of its own people. We do not want war. We do not believe in needless hostility.
But equally, we simply do not see the point of this pointless charade. Peace with Pakistan is a laudable aim. But one country cannot make peace by itself. And as long as the other continues to kill our people, all attempts at a high-level dialogue come across less as peaceful initiatives and more as signs of weakness.
If not outright stupidity.
RSS will destroy India – and the Mullah will destroy Pakistan.
That is the destiny of SE Asia. No amount of intellectual input / capital / corrective-measures will help… why ? Because the people have been fed .. (brought up) on manufactured hatred for “the other”. This cyanide-injection 24×7 over the years will extract a price.
And what will the price be ? Total Destruction or Sarva-Naash.
Our supreme national interest lies in fighting religious extremism which has plagued our society. Unless we transform Pakistan into a vibrant, tolerant progressive society the current turmoil is unlikely to end.
@ Sadia
Well said. It would be good to come up with a practical list of things to do on a day to day individual level. Here is a start:
1) Educate yourself about Islam – at least enough that you don’t need a mullah to teach your kids.
2) Challenge everything that one hears that sounds literalist or unethical in the name of Islam.
3) Don’t vote for extremist parties.
4) Treat religious gatherings with an open mind; don’t leave your critical faculties at the door. Listen carefully to what is being said, what is the motivation. Does it make sense and enhance you?
5) Challenge bigotry everywhere whether it’s against other muslims or non-muslims.
6) Don’t fund charities without asking questions.
7) Protest against extremism at every opportunity -even if it’s in blogs/newspapers
8) Know what the extremist ideologies say. Identify their suited merchants. Point them out to others.
9) Try to develop a community of like-minded people.
10) Take a poor child (or more) out of madrassah and pay his fees in a proper school.
Good one Raza. Caught my eye only today.
@Vijay Goel, I agree and disagree with your contention that “religion now plays no role in Indian Society whatever effort RSS may try to rope in the NRI IT professionals.”
On one hand, yes we have indeed managed to steer clear of the saffron brigade at the political level, I am sorry to note that this neo-rich IT crowd is right behind the sangh, and what’s more, pumping in funds from all over the world!
I see it as a serious threat in the long-term, although we could afford to laugh them off in the short-term!
@Gorki
“However I believe how we handle the Kashmir issue will decide what kind of a Republic we will become in the coming years.”
It’s not only applicable to Kashmir. I have recently written an article on my blog. You can find it here. http://www.indianliberals.org/?p=253
The question I ask there is what’s in it for the Kashmiris or any other state or separatist movements for that matter, the remain with India? And I believe the answer is in autonomy – a governance structure similar to the USA or the EU.
It is a vast issue and I don’t know whether I have articulated my argument well but it sure tries to address your question.