India Pakistan enmity - the irresolvable dilemma
An observation on May 8, 2003 issue of the famous "Greed & Fear"......
Dear Chris,
The May 8th issue of G&F is in my hands. As usual it is refreshing and insightful yet scary in its dire economic predictions :) What is not dire is your take on the possibility of further improvement of relations between India and Pakistan. The current thaw in relations, as you point out, is clearly a welcome relief in this newly nuclearized, yet still largely impoverished region. As much as I would like to believe things will improve even further, I'm afraid ground reality might win out against hope, once
again.
The enmity between the two countries exists almost solely due to Kashmir. The viewpoints on this issue are so diametric that it would be almost miraculous to attain a middle ground, especially when the religious parties have the gained the highest historical representation in the National/Provincial assemblies in Pakistan, and a Hindu Nationalist party is in power in India.
Rightly or wrongly, Pakistanis are unwilling to forget the very founding agreement for the creation of their country, i.e. Muslim majority provinces form Pakistan and Hindu majority areas form India. Any government that gives up Kashmir cause under US pressure will commit an instant political suicide. The same goes for India. The only solution which might be somewhat close to being acceptable to both parties is a further division (or independence) of Indian controlled Kashmir. However, this option again has
little to none chance of succeeding through Indian parliament.
The US has enormous amount of influence on both countries. But its influence is not unlimited. While the mainstream Pakistanis begrudgingly accept some US pressure in exchange for hopes of economic gains, a demand for complete abdication of Kashmir would have little to none chance of acceptance. Not only will the mad Mullahs have a field day, even the mainstream moderates will become vociferous in their criticism of the US. The best case scenario seems to be that the US will end up "managing" the situation for quite some time to come. Which might not be an undesirable outcome.
One word on terrorism. As a born-Muslim-turned-atheist/agnostic, I make little apologies for the disdain of mad mullahs who, luckily still on the periphery of the society have still robbed the country of otherwise abundant economic and cultural opportunities. (At the time of recent passport renewal, when I expressed my unwillingness to check the box of "Muslim" in my form, my passport request was denied. In the end I had to chose discretion over valor.) However, I can understand the anguish of mainstream
Pakistanis who see Kashmir fighting as a freedom struggle (even if I don't approve of the methodology), futile as it might be, considering the geo-political realities. While there is no denying the fact that Pakistan has often helped the Kashmiri militants to fight against the Indian forces, there's no denying the fact that Indian Kashmir has an active domestic separation movement. Occupation of Kashmir by force has also lead to numerous human rights abuses. Ever wonder why no journalists are allowed inside the Indian controlled Kashmir while they are free to roam in the Pakistan held Kashmir.
I realize that G&F is not a forum for political opinions and you did try to express your unbiased opinion when you alluded to Pakistan as a sponsor of terrorism. But therein lies the irony. The numbers, resources and media savvy favors India so heavily against Pakistan that the news flow and analysis on international forums is hopelessly bent towards Indian viewpoint. This is compounded by the fact that in current day and age we are willing to overlook occupation and repression if it helps us decry fundamentalism. Two wrongs should not make a right. Pakistan is an Islamic theocracy. Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Words to make anyone in western civilized world shake in fear. It's understandable why Westerners find it convenient to label Pakistan as a quasi sponsor of terrorism, while conveniently overlooking the human rights abuses, brutality against citizens, and illegal occupation of Kashmir by India - a country that adopted a secular mandate at least in theory.
Whether it’s Aceh, East Timor, Chechnya or Kashmir, there will be active militants who will commit grave crimes in the name of freedom thus tainting the otherwise legitimate cause of freedom. There's no denying that if you get an independent poll, just like civilized countries, the public at large in these places would vote for independence. You can make a case that the poverty stricken third world countries would mostly disintegrate if public were given a chance to chose if they want to stay with or break away from the mother country. Hence it might not be wise to make this choice universally permissible. However, in the instances of grave discontent it should be an option afforded to regions where people feel subjugated and repressed.
Finally, in the end even if I do not believe that Kashmir problem and hence the India/Pakistan issue would be solved quickly, I do hope that history proves me wrong. Regardless of who gets Kashmir, a final settlement would be enormously beneficial for both countries where debt burden and military spending is a crushing burden.
Hope all is going well. If you are in New York some time and would like to have a quick cup of coffee (which might be impossible considering your usually overbooked schedule) please let me know. And many thanks for sending me G&F, which is my favorite weekly read..
Dear Chris,
The May 8th issue of G&F is in my hands. As usual it is refreshing and insightful yet scary in its dire economic predictions :) What is not dire is your take on the possibility of further improvement of relations between India and Pakistan. The current thaw in relations, as you point out, is clearly a welcome relief in this newly nuclearized, yet still largely impoverished region. As much as I would like to believe things will improve even further, I'm afraid ground reality might win out against hope, once
again.
The enmity between the two countries exists almost solely due to Kashmir. The viewpoints on this issue are so diametric that it would be almost miraculous to attain a middle ground, especially when the religious parties have the gained the highest historical representation in the National/Provincial assemblies in Pakistan, and a Hindu Nationalist party is in power in India.
Rightly or wrongly, Pakistanis are unwilling to forget the very founding agreement for the creation of their country, i.e. Muslim majority provinces form Pakistan and Hindu majority areas form India. Any government that gives up Kashmir cause under US pressure will commit an instant political suicide. The same goes for India. The only solution which might be somewhat close to being acceptable to both parties is a further division (or independence) of Indian controlled Kashmir. However, this option again has
little to none chance of succeeding through Indian parliament.
The US has enormous amount of influence on both countries. But its influence is not unlimited. While the mainstream Pakistanis begrudgingly accept some US pressure in exchange for hopes of economic gains, a demand for complete abdication of Kashmir would have little to none chance of acceptance. Not only will the mad Mullahs have a field day, even the mainstream moderates will become vociferous in their criticism of the US. The best case scenario seems to be that the US will end up "managing" the situation for quite some time to come. Which might not be an undesirable outcome.
One word on terrorism. As a born-Muslim-turned-atheist/agnostic, I make little apologies for the disdain of mad mullahs who, luckily still on the periphery of the society have still robbed the country of otherwise abundant economic and cultural opportunities. (At the time of recent passport renewal, when I expressed my unwillingness to check the box of "Muslim" in my form, my passport request was denied. In the end I had to chose discretion over valor.) However, I can understand the anguish of mainstream
Pakistanis who see Kashmir fighting as a freedom struggle (even if I don't approve of the methodology), futile as it might be, considering the geo-political realities. While there is no denying the fact that Pakistan has often helped the Kashmiri militants to fight against the Indian forces, there's no denying the fact that Indian Kashmir has an active domestic separation movement. Occupation of Kashmir by force has also lead to numerous human rights abuses. Ever wonder why no journalists are allowed inside the Indian controlled Kashmir while they are free to roam in the Pakistan held Kashmir.
I realize that G&F is not a forum for political opinions and you did try to express your unbiased opinion when you alluded to Pakistan as a sponsor of terrorism. But therein lies the irony. The numbers, resources and media savvy favors India so heavily against Pakistan that the news flow and analysis on international forums is hopelessly bent towards Indian viewpoint. This is compounded by the fact that in current day and age we are willing to overlook occupation and repression if it helps us decry fundamentalism. Two wrongs should not make a right. Pakistan is an Islamic theocracy. Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Words to make anyone in western civilized world shake in fear. It's understandable why Westerners find it convenient to label Pakistan as a quasi sponsor of terrorism, while conveniently overlooking the human rights abuses, brutality against citizens, and illegal occupation of Kashmir by India - a country that adopted a secular mandate at least in theory.
Whether it’s Aceh, East Timor, Chechnya or Kashmir, there will be active militants who will commit grave crimes in the name of freedom thus tainting the otherwise legitimate cause of freedom. There's no denying that if you get an independent poll, just like civilized countries, the public at large in these places would vote for independence. You can make a case that the poverty stricken third world countries would mostly disintegrate if public were given a chance to chose if they want to stay with or break away from the mother country. Hence it might not be wise to make this choice universally permissible. However, in the instances of grave discontent it should be an option afforded to regions where people feel subjugated and repressed.
Finally, in the end even if I do not believe that Kashmir problem and hence the India/Pakistan issue would be solved quickly, I do hope that history proves me wrong. Regardless of who gets Kashmir, a final settlement would be enormously beneficial for both countries where debt burden and military spending is a crushing burden.
Hope all is going well. If you are in New York some time and would like to have a quick cup of coffee (which might be impossible considering your usually overbooked schedule) please let me know. And many thanks for sending me G&F, which is my favorite weekly read..
posted by madinmanhattan | 2:26 PM
|
0 comments
