By: Ismail Khan
Pakistan’s Prime Minister is in Egypt to attend a summit of Non-Aligned Movement. So is Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Addressing the summit, PM Gillani said that peace with India is ‘achievable.’ The truth is – peace with India has to be achieved. It has to be achieved for the stable future of the two countries.
This is a major step and every step must be taken to ensure that relations between the two countries are normalized. It was in the wake of Mumbai attacks in 2008 that the two countries undid whatever peaceful was achieved. The distress, then, could have been turned into an opportunity by vowing to fight militancy collectively. However, the response within society was shameful. The militants smiled when the media was engaged in verbal duel. Fortunately, states had to rescue and not let the situation go otherwise the ‘patriotism’ of a common man on the street was questioned if he or she didn’t verify that his or her blood is boiling.
Both countries must realize the importance of living peacefully. Its importance for Pakistan exceeds the distrust. Not only will Pakistan gain economically from positive relations with India, but it will able to concentrate internally. The long-term impact of peace with India includes democratic stability.
That the recent statement came from PM is all the more important. Earlier, it was the President who would speak of peace with India. His peace overtures were smacked down within the country as “committing too much.” Skeptics even poked that PM, and not President, should take on foreign policy decisions. Today, he has. It is for the collective leadership of the civilians that a journey of peace is being planned so that no hawks can derail it.
7 Comments
July 16, 2009 at 10:59 pm
“Both countries must realize the importance of living peacefully.”
The operative word is “both”. But the question is does India really want to recognize the reality of Pakistan and make peace with her neighbor without marginalizing her? Or does she want another satellite state circling around “Indian Orbit”. Indian regional designs go beyond Pakistan. Pakistan only happens to be an inconvenient hurdle in her way. Ismail Khan, the writer of this article is naive. Here is some thing worth a read:
“Christine Fair: I think it would be a mistake to completely disregard Pakistan’s regional perceptions due to doubts about Indian competence in executing covert operations. That misses the point entirely. And I think it is unfair to dismiss the notion that Pakistan’s apprehensions about Afghanistan stem in part from its security competition with India. Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity! Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar (through which it supported the Northern Alliance) and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan. Kabul has encouraged India to engage in provocative activities such as using the Border Roads Organization to build sensitive parts of the Ring Road and use the Indo-Tibetan police force for security. It is also building schools on a sensitive part of the border in Kunar–across from Bajaur. Kabul’s motivations for encouraging these activities are as obvious as India’s interest in engaging in them. Even if by some act of miraculous diplomacy the territorial issues were to be resolved, Pakistan would remain an insecure state. Given the realities of the subcontinent (e.g., India’s rise and its more effective foreign relations with all of Pakistan’s near and far neighbors), these fears are bound to grow, not lessen. This suggests that without some means of compelling Pakistan to abandon its reliance upon militancy, it will become ever more interested in using it — and the militants will likely continue to proliferate beyond Pakistan’s control.
Aqil Shah: Christine’s observations provide damning evidence of the games states play. The Indians seem to be saying, “The Pakistanis did it to us in Kashmir, so we will pay them back in Baluchistan and elsewhere.” So it should not be surprising that the Pakistani military continues to patronize groups it sees as useful in the regional race for influence, even if the costs to Pakistan’s political stability outweigh the benefits.”
July 17, 2009 at 12:22 am
No one needs to teach India, what peace means. India would not be ruled for 700 years by invaders, if it was not peace loving, so much so that the rulers became complacent and oblivious to the threats from across the borders.
Aqil Shah is right, it is India’s turn to pay Pakistan back in the same coin.
Pakistan’s talk of peace, when it is in a mess, lacks any sincerity, and is a ploy to buy time.
Punish the Mumbai killers, before you talk of peace.
July 17, 2009 at 7:15 am
neel,
Do your worst! I don’t agree with this article at all. Peace with India is not a must. It is beneficial for both countries.
If you don’t want it, let’s see you do something about it.
July 17, 2009 at 8:23 am
Calm down, guys.
Agreed that it is beneficial for both countries – something I have mentioned in the post which do not contradict with the title. Plus, yes, Christine Fair is perfectly right.
Problem is distrust, something which India has to remove on Balochistan (PM asked of it the other day), and Pakistan on terrorism. Again, it has to be removed.
Cheers.
July 17, 2009 at 8:52 am
The issue really is: are both countries looking to improve relations because of pressure from their own people or bowing to the US pressure? I am not sure how lasting the peace under the US auspices would be. This is basically a fake attempt for peace. A make believe peace being pursued under the US pressure. What US gains from this is just another subject.
There are no indicators whatsoever from both countries that people in both countries actually want to live in peace. The establishments –civilian or military–in both countries are deeply suspicious of each other’s motives. There is no ground work, no one has even tried to convince their respective populations and softened them up. In other words, both countries have never tried to sell the peace to their own populace. In fact even after the meeting statements from both countries were an exercise in one-upmanship.
There is no great step here. They fake each other and after 60 years people should be aware of this jugglery. Instead we have people who call every single non sense that goes on in the name of peace between the two countries as a great step. We hear this mantra at every year and in the second part of the year we hear some different stories and they are called setbacks. Let us just ask both countries to stop this charade.
I am not against peace. On the contrary I strongly support it but I am not convinced that there can be peace between Pakistan and India on a third country’s insistence.
July 17, 2009 at 3:31 pm
“but I am not convinced that there can be peace between Pakistan and India on a third country’s insistence.”
I take it one step further. I am convinced that there will no peace between India & Pakistan unless Indians admit that the Sub-continent is not one but many nations. The root cause of all political problems of the Sub-continent is this false notion held by the majority of Hindus of India. That is why India wants to hang on to Kashmir and other troubled spots under her control. The Sub-continent is a cursed land. Cursed by a thousands of years old myths.
July 17, 2009 at 5:31 pm
PMA sb,
It is true that until maybe a generation back the general opinion among Indian Hindoos was that the sub-continent was one nation. But this is rapidly changing and in another 10-15 years time when the 1947 generation is more or less extinct, and the new rulers wud all be post 1960s vintage (in terms of birth). The Indians will then admit that the subcontinent is not one but three countries.
As far as Kashmir is concerned, the only reason India is holding onto it is that there is fear that letting Kashmir go will create another round of bloodletting between Hindoos and Muslims and also encourage secessionists in NE. Once these fears are shown to be unfounded, Indians will have little hesitation in letting Kashmir go.
That is why India wants to hang on to Kashmir and other troubled spots under her control.
Kashmir is certainly a troubled spot and so is possibly Nagaland. But I am not aware of other trouble spots which India is hanging onto against the will of the locals.
Regards