Yoginder Sikand is writing on the topic of Indo-Pak peace for a while. He seems to have the grasp of what the part of problem is and proposes a myopic solution based on that. Clearly, he is one of the “Aman ki Aasha” brigade. Dissenters to his solution are branded Hindu chauvinists and other colorful terms. Sikand has a lot of romance associated with Pakistan and all things in it as do a lot of old timers in the establishment. Even our Atalji seemed to mildly suffer from this syndrome.
I would like to draw the attention of Sikand and his ilk to two articles written by Pakistanis. Ms. Mira Sethi writes in her article: The failure of the political classes to initiate democratic, constitutional reform after Pakistan's separation from India in 1947 enabled the military to quickly define "national interest" as an anti-India ideology. This ideology, a type of Islamic nationalism, is one from which the Pakistan military has reaped rich dividends. It has kept civilian politicians on the defensive and the people numbed.
When Pakistan got its independence they did not know what to do with the nation probably because they were not expecting it. It took them over ten years to write their constitution. In the interim, the bureaucracy and the army became very powerful. After the constitution was written, they did not want to surrender their powers. Eventually Pakistan army became the most powerful and the only functional institution in Pakistan. This is what the articles indicate. If there were peace between India and Pakistan, the Pakistani army will become irrelevant. This is the point that seems to escape Sikand and the entire “Aman ki Aasha” brigade. Why would the Pakistani army give up its privileged position? When the BJP had hosted the Butcher of Kargil, Pervez Musharraf, they went out of their way to make him feel at home. Instead of reciprocating any of our gestures, the man sabotaged the entire event. When Atalji went to see Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan, little did he know that while Sharif was talking peace, Musharraf was hatching the Kargil misadventure. After Atalji’s trip to one of the monuments, in Lahore, Musharraf had the entire area washed. When SM Krishna visited Pakistan in the couple of years, he was upstaged rudely by the Pakistanis seemingly at the behest of Ashfaq Kiyani. These are the things that we, as aam aadmi know. There must be countless other events or equal treachery. With that in mind, even if you did talk peace with them, the biggest question is that whom do you talk to. The Paki politicians has no legs to stand on. Pakistani army who are the real decision makers are clearly is not in favor of peace. All they want is revenge. The religious leaders and the terrorists was balkanization of India and converting the entire subcontinent into some sort of dar-ul-islam. Even today, the reports clearly indicate that the entire Raymond Davis episode is because the Pakistani army do not want LeT touched. One must ask Sikand and his ilk why is that? What about the Pakistani aam aadmi? I don’t know how many of them want peace with India but we must remember one thing. Over 60% of Pakistani population is below 25 and this generation is the result of decades of anti Indian brainwashing. In fact a lot of the Pakistani youth is affiliated with one madarsa or the other. They don’t even want peace in Pakistan unless it is on their terms i.e. some sort of Sharia in Pakistan.
As long as the Paki army is in charge of that nation, there is no point in talking peace because it will be nothing other than a charade to make the Americans and the Indian liberals happy. Sooner we realize it, the sooner we will formulate a plan for progress of the nation where we would take into account the losses incurred due to Paki terrorism as cost of doing business in the neighborhood. We can then form a security set up where we do not have any doubts about who our enemies are rather than fumbling about in the maze of political correctness.
If Mr. Sikand and his Pakistani friends can convince the Pakistani army to cede all the power to the civilian government then we should talk peace. Otherwise, peace in the subcontinent will remain an unachievable dream.
How India can counter Pakistan's radical Islam
What can be done by us here in India to counter such radicalism in the name of Islam? Given that the denial to the Kashmiris of their right to self-determination, and the killings of vast numbers of Kashmiris by the Indian forces are a major issue that Islamist radicals in Pakistan constantly invoke to justify their anti-Indian crusade, it is obvious that a just solution to the Kashmir question that satisfies the people of Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ] is one thing that India can no longer evade. This will go a long way in countering anti-Indian sentiments in Pakistan and in undermining the appeal of Pakistani radical Islamists.
Of course, this is easier said than done, and one can expect Hindu chauvinists in India, counterparts of the Pakistani Islamist radicals, of both the 'soft' Congress variety and the 'hard' RSS sort, to viscerally oppose this suggestion.
The article can be read at:http://www.rediff.com/news/column/column-yogi-sikand-on-how-india-can-counter-pakistans-radical-islam/20110315.htm
Pakistan's Army Is the Real Obstacle to Peace
By MIRA SETHI
Now Zia's "children" have come of age. Extremists of all stripes—the Taliban and the mujahedeen—roam the streets of Lahore and Karachi unchecked by the security agencies who once thought it would be a good idea to arm them. Anger and frustration fueled by inequality are making young Pakistanis turn to religion for answers.
As in Egypt, over 60% of the population of Pakistan is under 25. Unlike Egypt, they want an Islamic revolution, not a democratic one. Salman Taseer's police bodyguard—all of 26 years old—killed him for "insulting" the Prophet Muhammad. (The governor had criticized a manmade blasphemy law, not the Prophet, but his assassin didn't know the difference).
The article can be read at:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703597804576194702053167720.html#
True lies
Sana Bucha
In 1965, we read in our textbooks that India attacked Pakistan in the middle of the night for no reason or because some of their generals wanted to have a non-vegetarian meal at the Lahore Gymkhana! But then I grew up and found out that we started this confrontation by picking a fight along, what we now refer to, as the LoC. India overreacted by starting a war on international borders. Why is it so hard for us to speak the complete truth? The truth is that Pakistan believes that it has a legitimate right on Kashmir and history is rife with war attempts we have made to take over what is already ours. Then why not accept it? Why exaggerate the Indian threat and undermine our own confrontational policies.
The article can be read at:http://thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=35854&Cat=9
I would like to draw the attention of Sikand and his ilk to two articles written by Pakistanis. Ms. Mira Sethi writes in her article: The failure of the political classes to initiate democratic, constitutional reform after Pakistan's separation from India in 1947 enabled the military to quickly define "national interest" as an anti-India ideology. This ideology, a type of Islamic nationalism, is one from which the Pakistan military has reaped rich dividends. It has kept civilian politicians on the defensive and the people numbed.
When Pakistan got its independence they did not know what to do with the nation probably because they were not expecting it. It took them over ten years to write their constitution. In the interim, the bureaucracy and the army became very powerful. After the constitution was written, they did not want to surrender their powers. Eventually Pakistan army became the most powerful and the only functional institution in Pakistan. This is what the articles indicate. If there were peace between India and Pakistan, the Pakistani army will become irrelevant. This is the point that seems to escape Sikand and the entire “Aman ki Aasha” brigade. Why would the Pakistani army give up its privileged position? When the BJP had hosted the Butcher of Kargil, Pervez Musharraf, they went out of their way to make him feel at home. Instead of reciprocating any of our gestures, the man sabotaged the entire event. When Atalji went to see Nawaz Sharif in Pakistan, little did he know that while Sharif was talking peace, Musharraf was hatching the Kargil misadventure. After Atalji’s trip to one of the monuments, in Lahore, Musharraf had the entire area washed. When SM Krishna visited Pakistan in the couple of years, he was upstaged rudely by the Pakistanis seemingly at the behest of Ashfaq Kiyani. These are the things that we, as aam aadmi know. There must be countless other events or equal treachery. With that in mind, even if you did talk peace with them, the biggest question is that whom do you talk to. The Paki politicians has no legs to stand on. Pakistani army who are the real decision makers are clearly is not in favor of peace. All they want is revenge. The religious leaders and the terrorists was balkanization of India and converting the entire subcontinent into some sort of dar-ul-islam. Even today, the reports clearly indicate that the entire Raymond Davis episode is because the Pakistani army do not want LeT touched. One must ask Sikand and his ilk why is that? What about the Pakistani aam aadmi? I don’t know how many of them want peace with India but we must remember one thing. Over 60% of Pakistani population is below 25 and this generation is the result of decades of anti Indian brainwashing. In fact a lot of the Pakistani youth is affiliated with one madarsa or the other. They don’t even want peace in Pakistan unless it is on their terms i.e. some sort of Sharia in Pakistan.
As long as the Paki army is in charge of that nation, there is no point in talking peace because it will be nothing other than a charade to make the Americans and the Indian liberals happy. Sooner we realize it, the sooner we will formulate a plan for progress of the nation where we would take into account the losses incurred due to Paki terrorism as cost of doing business in the neighborhood. We can then form a security set up where we do not have any doubts about who our enemies are rather than fumbling about in the maze of political correctness.
If Mr. Sikand and his Pakistani friends can convince the Pakistani army to cede all the power to the civilian government then we should talk peace. Otherwise, peace in the subcontinent will remain an unachievable dream.
How India can counter Pakistan's radical Islam
What can be done by us here in India to counter such radicalism in the name of Islam? Given that the denial to the Kashmiris of their right to self-determination, and the killings of vast numbers of Kashmiris by the Indian forces are a major issue that Islamist radicals in Pakistan constantly invoke to justify their anti-Indian crusade, it is obvious that a just solution to the Kashmir question that satisfies the people of Jammu and Kashmir [ Images ] is one thing that India can no longer evade. This will go a long way in countering anti-Indian sentiments in Pakistan and in undermining the appeal of Pakistani radical Islamists.
Of course, this is easier said than done, and one can expect Hindu chauvinists in India, counterparts of the Pakistani Islamist radicals, of both the 'soft' Congress variety and the 'hard' RSS sort, to viscerally oppose this suggestion.
The article can be read at:http://www.rediff.com/news/column/column-yogi-sikand-on-how-india-can-counter-pakistans-radical-islam/20110315.htm
Pakistan's Army Is the Real Obstacle to Peace
By MIRA SETHI
Now Zia's "children" have come of age. Extremists of all stripes—the Taliban and the mujahedeen—roam the streets of Lahore and Karachi unchecked by the security agencies who once thought it would be a good idea to arm them. Anger and frustration fueled by inequality are making young Pakistanis turn to religion for answers.
As in Egypt, over 60% of the population of Pakistan is under 25. Unlike Egypt, they want an Islamic revolution, not a democratic one. Salman Taseer's police bodyguard—all of 26 years old—killed him for "insulting" the Prophet Muhammad. (The governor had criticized a manmade blasphemy law, not the Prophet, but his assassin didn't know the difference).
The article can be read at:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703597804576194702053167720.html#
True lies
Sana Bucha
In 1965, we read in our textbooks that India attacked Pakistan in the middle of the night for no reason or because some of their generals wanted to have a non-vegetarian meal at the Lahore Gymkhana! But then I grew up and found out that we started this confrontation by picking a fight along, what we now refer to, as the LoC. India overreacted by starting a war on international borders. Why is it so hard for us to speak the complete truth? The truth is that Pakistan believes that it has a legitimate right on Kashmir and history is rife with war attempts we have made to take over what is already ours. Then why not accept it? Why exaggerate the Indian threat and undermine our own confrontational policies.
The article can be read at:http://thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=35854&Cat=9
No comments:
Post a Comment