Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (46395)	6/6/2004 3:47:52 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

The way forward —Ishtiaq Ahmed Historically, it has suited the power-wielders to perpetuate the myth that differences among religious groups are primordial and perennial and therefore peace can be kept only by keeping peoples apart The new Congress-led government in India has strongly emphasised its commitment to peace with Pakistan. It is heartening to learn that President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh have spoken to each other on the telephone. As long as the leaders of these two nuclear-weapon states are talking to each other South Asians can sleep in peace. After the recent invasion of Iraq by the US-UK led alliance it should finally dawn upon all right-thinking people in South Asia that they should never create conditions for outside powers to intervene militarily in the region under any pretext. On the other hand, there should be no reason not to welcome all positive help and cooperation from good people and friendly nations from all over the world. Those who settle and become citizens of South Asian states and contribute to their well-being should enjoy all the rights given them under the law. Recently the Indian electorate roundly rejected the vile propaganda against Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origins. The poor, and especially the minorities, put their trust in her because they believed she would work for their best interests. She, however, decided not to assume the office of the prime minister of India. That puts to shame all those who were accusing her of usurping power from ‘authentic Indians’. The point is: we should say no to imperialism and no also to xenophobia and racism. Returning to the question of peace, it would only be proper to express sincere admiration for the hard work, dedication and perseverance of the outgoing Indian prime minister, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee. If, one day, India and Pakistan become trustworthy neighbours and partners in prosperity, historians will have to give proper recognition to his pioneering contribution. Dr Manmohan Singh is a thorough gentleman, a distinguished economist and a rational intellectual. For Pakistanis, there can be some pride that his ancestral village, Gah, is located rather close to Islamabad. He should be invited to his village and given the reception due an estranged son. No particular effort would be needed to convince the people of his village to welcome him because they have already expressed great pride at him attaining such high office. The time is now ripe for taking a leap to remove all misunderstandings between the two countries. There are many reasons why we can believe that this time the peace initiative will succeed. The constituency has widened considerably and now people at all levels are meeting and talking to each other. Although visa is still granted on a restrictive basis the regime has been relaxed somewhat. The result is an increasing number of visitors in both directions. Once again the credit goes to the Musharraf and Vajpayee governments that took the risk of testing the will of the people. It has been a resounding success. Indeed, without a positive response from the people there would be no sound basis for building bridges in the region. The cricket series brought out the best in the two peoples. The Pakistanis proved to be excellent, large-hearted hosts and the visitors from India spared no words to express their heartfelt gratitude to the Pakistanis. Almost 50 years earlier the feelings of the people were also put to test and the result was the same. The Pakistani High Commissioner to India, Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan, allowed East Punjabis to attend a four-day cricket Test match played between India and Pakistan from January 29 to February 1,1955 at the old Gymkhana Ground in Lahore. Indians, mainly those from East Punjab, flocked to Lahore in the thousands and were received with open arms by Lahoris. The Pakistani government did not mind when some visitors did not attend the match and instead went to the villages around Lahore where they were feted by their old neighbours and friends. But then relations began to cool off. Both sides revived the conflicting claims to territory, aligned themselves with different power blocs (India joining the non-aligned movement and Pakistan US-sponsored CENTO and SEATO), and began to build military muscle. The 1965 and 1971 India-Pakistan wars, the armed struggle in Kashmir during the 1980s and 1990s, the nuclear explosions of May 1998, the Kargil showdown of May 1999, and finally the 2001-2002 military standoff constituted a cumulative process that could have resulted in a military conflagration hitherto unseen by the world. In between some attempts were made to change course and establish peace but clearly the path to confrontation seemed unavoidable. But then, better sense prevailed and hence the cricket series of 2004. The lesson of the last 56 years is simple. The problem is the power holders and vested interests, not the common people. Historically, it has suited the power-wielders to perpetuate the myth that differences among religious groups are primordial and perennial and therefore peace can be kept only by keeping peoples apart. The recent evidence shows, however, that even after such a long period of political estrangement and insulation the people of India and Pakistan have much in common and can build a new, healthy relationship. It is important to put our recent past in perspective. Apart from the economic argument, the main complaint that elderly Pakistanis sometimes make of pre-Partition society is about the discrimination they experienced in day-to-day life at the hands of caste Hindus. The sound of ‘Hindu pani, Muslim pani’ (Hindu water, Muslim water) could be heard at all railway stations and in other public places since Hindus and Muslims were served water separately and ate separately. For their part, Hindus have bad memories of being called ‘kafirs’. But what is often ignored in the usual stereotyping of both sides is that in their daily lives people were able to circumvent such collective descriptions and develop trust and even deep bonds of affection and sympathy. It is therefore important that we do not romanticise the past, but it is equally important that the present and future do not remain prisoners to the past. The way forward is to start anew on a vision based on the human rights standards established by the United Nations. The author is an associate professor of Political Science at Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email address is Ishtiaq.Ahmed@statsvet.su.se

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (46395)	6/7/2004 11:11:46 AM
From: malibuca	Respond to of 50167

When Zinni was made aware that the civilian administration there was not willing to meet with his delegation, the decision was reversed and you said This means that the army chief had overridden the decision of the prime minister Therein lies the problem! Pakistan has, through almost its entire history had an army that interferes with the authority of the civilian government. How many other democratic governments face a situation where decisions that they make are reversed by the generals in the army? Washington did not like the Musharraf coup and told the Pentagon to scale down contact with Rawalpindi. It was Musharraf who called Zinni and told him what had led to the coup and why “he and other military leaders had no choice other than the one they took”. He told Zinni that in Pakistan democracy was a sham as everything the government controlled was “up for sale”. He said he wanted a democracy, not of form but substance Musharraf overthrew the democratically elected government of Pakistan after the Prime Minister dismissed him from his position in the army. You can sugar-coat this all that you wish but that is the reality. The nature of democracy is that sometimes the electorate makes unwise decisions in terms of the leaders it selects. But they have the right to vote the government out of power when the next election comes around. The leader of just about every coup claims that the action was taken in the interests of the country.