Forget The Neighbour

[s90]

---

---

I was surfing and this caught my eye...wanna share with you guys.

July 20, 2009,Diptosh Majumdar - CNN-IBN

Occasionally, foreign policy commentators view Indo-Pak relations through the prism of the diplomatic environment prevailing in the early Nineties. Those days the Indo-Pak hyphen was a key aspect of the dialogue process. The universal assumption was that with the US and Western Europe backing Pakistan, India was a socialist relic, yet to snip its umbilical cord with Russia. Americans thought of India as an impoverished republic practicing some kind of fake democracy with excessive state control. It was in American interests to look at a bracketed Indo-Pak relationship and be committed to Pakistan at a time when Russian forces had invaded Afghanistan. India was nowhere near being a strategic or a market ally of the US.


That is why I ask the disappointed commentators, depressed after the recent Indo-Pak negotiations at Sharm-al-Sheikh in Egypt not to worry too much about what many insist is an inexplicable Indian capitulation. Let me explain what I am suggesting here. There's no doubt that whatever be the ingenuous spin, which the Indian foreign policy establishment tried to give to our Egyptian blunder, the fact is we have given hell of a lot more than we should have. Like the befuddled rest of the world, I have not been able to figure out how on earth we have suddenly become geographically enmeshed in a godforsaken Balochistan. It required fantastic imagination on the part of those who drafted the joint statement on India's behalf to meekly surrender to the Balochistani pressure from Pakistan.


Yes, we have given more. Yes, we have given them some reason for diplomatic glee. But my humble and somewhat cynical question is: does it matter? How do you define Pakistan now? It is a nation run by an apparently democratically elected politicians whose spines are held together by its unchallenged army, the mischief-making intelligence establishment, the controlled ****** groups, the uncontrolled Taliban and above all by everybody carrying a star-spangled banner. Its sovereignty is as purchasable as the pride of a man who's declared himself bankrupt. Pakistan's only hope is that the Taliban melt away, the Army swears to pay its obeisance to the political establishment and its American donors continue to be smiling -- a wish-list that's impossible to meet. Pakistan is a nation desperately fighting disintegration. It doesn't have a proud middle class. The country's poor has nothing but religion to feed on.


So, does it matter what we give away in pledges and on paper? I think the Delhi establishment tends to suffer from a hypersensitive Pakistan-phobia. True, the country has a nuclear arsenal. And geographical misfortune, which can never be changed, has made large swathes of India sitting ducks. But then in a globally connected world, it's not India alone, which is frightened of Pakistan's unstable democracy giving way to chaos and the nuclear bombs falling in the hands of insane clerics or genocidal maniacs guided by fundamentalist zeal. In such unpredictable times, you don't negotiate with such a country with seriousness. The negotiating table is to be cleverly used only to impress upon the world that you are being kind and noble enough in entering into a dialogue with a nation harboring criminal intent towards you. After all, Mumbai is still fresh in popular memory the world over.


Diplomacy, even bilateral diplomacy with Pakistan, has to be used to convince the world how a potentially dangerous nation Pakistan has become. That is how the crafty Chanakya would have gone about his business. Pakistan is to be carefully portrayed as a failed state, as an almost rogue state, a description - which we are all aware - is precise and not an inch away from the truth. Sharm-al-Sheikh was to be used as a platform to subtly keep the world informed of India's status as a world power and that of Pakistan as a pariah. To some extent, we achieved that. At least in the eyes of the selfish American and the West as a whole, the perception of India is being altered with every passing day. We are no longer wannabes. We have arrived and occupying the global center-stage. The Americans will be happy with Sharm-al-Sheikh but we must not be seen to be too eager and greedy for that endearing but condescending pat from Washington. We need Washington; everybody needs Washington in a uni-polar world. That's reality and pragmatism. But there's a difference between rushing in and treading with one's head held high. It's about time Manmohan Singh realizes there's no diplomacy in begging for an autograph from a fellow chief executive.


Yes, we should have been firm with Pakistan and we should have been equally firm with the Americans. Prime Minister Singh occasionally appears to be going out of the way to convince the Americans that India should replace Pakistan as the US's strategic partner. For geographical reasons and for the militarily significant location of Pakistan, that won't be possible. India must rise above the narrow confines of these petty bilateral exchanges and let Washington know that we are on equal footing not with Pakistan but with the principal superpower of the world. We must convince the Americans we have long walked away from that stifling Indo-Pak hyphen. We must acquire the art of mingling in the world stage as an proud, sovereign nation --- not a country looking for acceptance and respectability. We must look the part we want to play, that of a nation on the threshold of greatness.

[Khajur]

It couldnt be more precise...i hope Manmohan singh reads it.

[Patriot]

So much for a peace loving country...

[s90]

Sheer arrogance

[Imran2006g]

We must acquire the art of mingling in the world stage as an proud, sovereign nation --- not a country looking for acceptance and respectability.

And you shouldn't look for it; just wander on the streets of the newyork or london to see how the indians are abhorred.

India is trying to be the new virgin girl who wants the wealthy husband (US) to divorce the old lady (Pakistan). Sorry to say that cosying up to the US will make you feel sorry later on as Pakistan has been there; done that.

Needless to say; if Pakistan could destroy the Soviet Union with a handful of taliban; we could have done the same to India; as a matter of fact; we didn't; while we should have...

[PeacefulIndian]

Sheer arrogance

Not really. Just an article which echoes the thoughts of most of the Indians. If you browse Indian forums, you will see that most of us are viewing this Sharm-Al-Sheikh statement as a strategic suicide. GoI once again has emphatically proven that it is absolutely clueless when it comes to its policies on Pakistan. If it is a fallout of US pressure or not, is a different story. So after such repetitive policy failures, most of us believe that we should make our borders water tight, and just forget that Pakistan exists. India has so many other things to work on. If we can prevent the cross border infiltration, what Pakistan does or does not do hardly matters to India.

[TruthSeeker]

Needless to say; if Pakistan could destroy the Soviet Union with a handful of taliban; we could have done the same to India; as a matter of fact; we didn't; while we should have...

This is such an interesting statement on so many levels. It is at once delusional (that Pakistan destroyed the Soviet Union), confessional (that the taliban are "Pakistan's"), further delusional (that Pakistan's taliban "could have" destroyed India) and nakedly aggressive (that Pakistan should have destroyed India).

[Nemesis]

What is so arrogant about it? The author is making the point that GOI should stop its Pakistan obsession. Most of India would agree.

[TruthSeeker]

If we can prevent the cross border infiltration, what Pakistan does or does not do hardly matters to India.

Unfortunately, this is most probably not feasible. Note that the Mumbai attackers came by rubber dinghy! Israel's fence has worked but the length that was needed is tiny compared to what India would need. And then, they tunnel under. The easiest thing for India to do would be to settle Kashmir by allowing a series of binding referenda run by an honestly neutral body.

[jeypore]

Unfortunately, this is most probably not feasible. Note that the Mumbai attackers came by rubber dinghy! Israel's fence has worked but the length that was needed is tiny compared to what India would need. And then, they tunnel under. The easiest thing for India to do would be to settle Kashmir bu allowing a series of binding referenda run by an honestly neutral body.

Mr. Truth,

By settling Kashmir will bring peace, i do not think so!! The hatred that runs in Pakistan towards India is greater then the Kashmir issue. Just look at the example of Afganistan consulates. Just because India's presence is there, a new conspiracy theory is formulated.

Kindly read this article, you will have some perception of major pakistanie mind set:

Pakistan Looks at Swat and Sees India

Pakistan Looks at Swat and Sees India - WSJ.com

[Spitfighter]

And you shouldn't look for it; just wander on the streets of the newyork or london to see how the indians are abhorred.

India is trying to be the new virgin girl who wants the wealthy husband (US) to divorce the old lady (Pakistan). Sorry to say that cosying up to the US will make you feel sorry later on as Pakistan has been there; done that.

Needless to say; if Pakistan could destroy the Soviet Union with a handful of taliban; we could have done the same to India; as a matter of fact; we didn't; while we should have...

I walk the streets of New York everyday, I don't know about London, but here in the States, Indians are respected, we are the single most successful ethnic minority in the country, so much for being abhorred. Can't say the same for Pakistanis though. Pakistan gets an almost daily thrashing on the news. Try watching the news sometime. I think you might have confused our country for yours.

Pakistan did not destroy the soviet union, you'd have to be a fool, an ignorant fool, to believe it. You did not have the money and you did not have the technology. Pakistan was used by the US as a surrogate to give birth to the Mujhahideen composed of Arabs, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Africans. The Americans promptly left you to deal with all the blow back which of course included all of Zia's blunders. Pakistan's leaders did not have the necessary foresight, nor the option really, to not play ball. Does the extent of extremism in Pakistan, surprise you? it shouldn't, its what the rest of the world has sowed in Pakistan's soil facilitated of course by your own misguided policies.

The Indian leadership is mature enough to not be taken for a ride. We have plenty of examples to prove it. The simple fact is that the US is the sole super power, there is much we can gain from them, we need them more than they need us but yet time and again Indian diplomacy surprises me. (Nuclear deal, EUA agreement, ISRO's agreement...etc)

[Imran2006g]

This is such an interesting statement on so many levels. It is at once delusional (that Pakistan destroyed the Soviet Union), confessional (that the taliban are "Pakistan's"), further delusional (that Pakistan's taliban "could have" destroyed India) and nakedly aggressive (that Pakistan should have destroyed India).

Aww come on; you arent able to to venture out of 30 km of kabul; doesnt that speak volumes about your "Super Power" status? Dont give me statistics oh no boots on ground this and that.

Truth is the USA with all its might; couldnt win the cold war without Pakistan; while at the same time the Soviet Union with India on its side was threatening to flatten our cities with nukes; makes you a third-rate country if you ask me...

Whats there to confess? Who doesnt know the ISI and CIA didnt make and fund the taliban? The USA is like an illegitimate father who disowned its child...

Nakedly agressive statement? You're funny; and what have the americans and indians been exactly doing? distributing sweets?

[TruthSeeker]

By settling Kashmir will bring peace, i do not think so!!

Yes I know, this is always the argument. It is like the Isrealis who say that giving the Palestinians a State of their own won't solve the problem because what the Palestinians really want is the destruction of Israel. BUT, I think it would be worth a try to settle Kashmir by applying a democratic process to the problem. Just like I think it is worth a try to establish a Palestinian state. If it doesn't work, both sides can always go back to intractable fighting and spending $Billions on border defences and intelligence service games with terrorists.

[Spitfighter]

Imran,

The US might be the illegitimate father, but it takes two doesn't it? Does that make Pakistan a 'hoe'?

(come on, you can take a joke)

[PeacefulIndian]

---

---

Unfortunately, this is most probably not feasible. Note that the Mumbai attackers came by rubber dinghy! Israel's fence has worked but the length that was needed is tiny compared to what India would need. And then, they tunnel under.

The easiest thing for India to do would be to settle Kashmir by allowing a series of binding referenda run by an honestly neutral body.

Agreed to first part of your post. That is a big IF, if we can prevent cross border infiltration.

I would like to counter the second part though. If Kashmir were the root of all terrorist activities sponsored against India, we would not see attacks in Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, Ahmedabad & numerous religious places. It would be delusional to assume that they were just some kind of 'spill over' from Kashmir. They are a part of a well devised plan which is orchestrated by every Pakistani administration after Zia Ul Haq, Kashmir is just the cover. He was the one who invented the theory of bleeding India to death with a 1000 cuts.

And the Islamic Jihadis & Ghazis that are nurtured to 'free' Kashmir from India would not just keep quiet if and when Kashmir is solved.