tarek

EDITORIAL: Mr Singh’s disingenuous speak

Speaking at a meeting of the Confederation of Indian Industry, India’s Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, was reported as saying that he wanted “out-of-the-box” solutions to settle his country’s long running disputes with Pakistan and China. “We must move away from incrementalisation to seeking out-of-the-box solutions to the challenges we face,” said Singh, adding: “Whether it is the challenge of development and political and social stability within South Asia or the challenge of stabilising our relations with Pakistan and China. We must have the courage to question our assumptions and challenge preconceived notions. We must show a willingness to listen to others, even as we articulate our own concerns in a reasonable and convincing manner.”

These words are reasonable and reassuring. However, here’s the catch. Mr Singh also said that “We [India] cannot compromise on our core national security concerns, nor indeed can we compromise on the values that define our nationhood. In dealing with the outside world every nation draws a bottom line.”

How does Mr Singh intend to reconcile his insistence on “out-of-the-box” solutions with drawing the bottom line and not compromising “on our core national security concerns”? His explanation ran as follows: “However, once we have drawn this bottom line we must have the imagination and courage to engage the world, to strike deals, to win friends and influence people.”

This is obfuscation. In effect, this is what Mr Singh is saying: We want to have good relations with other countries but this won’t be at the cost of our national security. The other countries should understand this. Once they do, we are talking. Within the region, of course, we need our Monroe Doctrine before things become hunky-dory. But the problem in Mr Singh’s position is that it indicates an almost inevitable clash between India’s security concerns and its desire to normalise with other countries and have friendly relations with them. This is why talks can be held only after the “others” understand the lakshman rekha and accept it. In terms of realpolitik, this is understandable. But Mr Singh hasn’t framed the issue in terms of realpolitik. Indeed, he wants “outside-the-box” solutions. But realpolitik has a way of begetting more realpolitik, not “outside-the-box” solutions. So he can either have one or the other.

If Mr Singh really wants to move away from the classical concept of national security, the first step would be to challenge the very notion that India’s attempt to normalise with and understand the “others” necessarily — or indeed inevitably — threatens its national security concerns. Who defines national security? Are there any specific parameters of national security? In other words, is it an unchanging concept or does it require periodic review? Of course, this exercise has to be carried out by all the states, especially when they are locked in a conflict. Why does India want Pakistan to pare down its expectations even in areas where India has a weak moral and legal case? Kashmir is one; the Baglihar dam project is another — to name just two. On both issues, India has invoked, or at least practised, realpolitik. We don’t have much problem with that policy but then we would like Mr Singh to spell out things as they are rather than fudge the issue. Pakistan has taken many steps to move away from its stated position on Kashmir; it has even declared a unilateral cease-fire and has held its peace despite the fact that India has continued to build its fence along the Line of Control. Again, the intention is clear and we know that its fount is realpolitik.

The reality is that the bottom line Mr Singh has talked about is realpolitik. He wants realpolitik to become the basis for outside-the-box solutions. We are quite bemused by what this implies. Once India can determine its line and has the power to also project it to “others”, the onus of responsibility for thinking outside the box would presumably lie with the latter. This is disingenuous. The only problem is that “others” could also be working on the same logic. The result of that should be obvious to Mr Singh.

__________________
_____________________

when they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money, but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall upon their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief, and much frugality

Ray

True. That is the problem.

Each is sticking to their own perceived 'core' issues.

Solution to Kashmir is only feasible if there is the Canton type of a system as is in Switzerland for each side of Kashmir. That way the Kashmiris will be empowered to decide their own desitny and yet not out of the loop.

I have serious doubts if either India or Pakistan will give up their own position held so far.

Once the economy of both India and Pakistan soar and teh population has rid itself of the illiteracy and poverty that still exist, Kashmir will no longer be a emotive issue, since the population will be too busy in bettering their own future. Likewise, if things also look up for the Kashmiris, they too would not care less.

My people are from esrwhile East Bengal (East Pakistan). They yearned for their homeland, but as they grew economically empowered, the dream became distant. I am the second generation so to say. To me East Bengal is not an emotive issue at all.

Karthik

Sir,

I agree with what you've opined here, but I am less optimistic of Pakistan having a soaring economy. India is fine. But for Pakistan to focus on economic development - is it ever going to happen? I hope it does though - thats the best bet for peace.

__________________
"There is no excellence in all this world that can be separated from right living." - David Star Jordan My Blog

Asim Aquil

Dangerous speak indeed. He talks about not compromising, while Musharraf talks about compromises with India. He makes it difficult for Musharraf to bring better options for India.

Ray

Karthik,

Soaring, it was , given the fact that it nearly was a failed state.

Tarek,

Musharraf is cleverer than our Manmohan. He spoke of compromise. Note: spoke. While our good man, has spoken what is the reality.

I don't take Musharraf to be some Colonel Blimp type of a character. He superceded 9 Generals to become the Chief. That is something of a feat. Only a super clever guy can do that and one whose mind cannot be read.

In India supercession for the Chiefs post is unheard of. It happened once and that too the No 2 was made the Chief. The country chastised the govt for a good 6 months!

No offence meant. The General also made the whole world look silly about his quittng as the Chief. He got the world and even the MMA mullahs (!) off guard by stating the he will quit his uniform. He got what he wanted from the Mullahs as also the world.

And then........

did a acrobatic volte face that has left all gasping and speechless. And imagine his gall. He said the public wants him to continue in uniform and the way he has done it is super. He has nearly made it a non issue; at least outside Pakistan.

Don't underestimate the General.

.

Asim Aquil

Ray, Musharraf did not get what he wanted from the Mullahs. He called for political reconcilliation, which never happened, and hence he never took off his uniform. The world and Pakistanis, never cared.

But its silly to just assume Musharraf's not ready for compromise. He can only speak of compromise and not start saying "We'll unilaterally free Kashmir, we'll pull back our forces from the LoC, and so on". He can only speak till the Indians don't start talking in the same tune as well.

Baghlihar alone can wipe out all the gains from this process. As Pakistan wouldn't mind freeing Kashmir as long as its water supply is secured. So far I see the Indian political side doing all the opposite things when it comes to compromises. If no compromise is reality, what are we even doing then?

I really hope Dr. Singh's words were just political rhetoric to keep a tough ante on Pakistan against his political opponents. If he really means it, it just spells doom, then.

Ray

Musharraf got life when the MMA quit the oppostion to even running of the Parliament. Remember, they prevented all transaction? So, I reckon, Musharraf extracted his pound of lesh from them.

It is obvious neither India nor Pakistan can abandon their line (because of their population) and say OK take Kashmir. If they say so, it will be their political demise.

Indian Army has pulled back from the LC and Kashmir.

I am not too sure of the Baghlihar dam issue. Therefore, I shall await the World Bank.

As far as the uniform is concerned, all lot of countries cared. Google and check.

I am also pragmatic. The day Musharraf takes his uniform off, he will be a goner!

Ray

Militarily or through terrorism, it is a no go.

tarek

Ray

"...our good man, has spoken what is the reality."

Thank you for acknowledging the analysis offered by the editorial - indeed, as the editorial makes plain:

"The reality is that the bottom line Mr Singh has talked about is realpolitik. He wants realpolitik to become the basis for outside-the-box solutions. We are quite bemused by what this implies. Once India can determine its line and has the power to also project it to “others”, the onus of responsibility for thinking outside the box would presumably lie with the latter. This is disingenuous. The only problem is that “others” could also be working on the same logic. The result of that should be obvious to Mr Singh."

What constitues national security is, ofcourse, among rational persons, congruent with reality and possibility - and that latter realm is the determinant of both reality and national security.

With this is realization in mind, we may all keep our powder dry - so to speak.

Asim Aquil

What I don't like is the lack of power that Singh enjoys as compared to Mushy. Vajpayee had an idiotic government, but he enjoyed more power in his time. His rising differneces (speculated) with the italian aren't comforting either. But he should try and convince his Indian public, that there can be a solution to Kashmir. Where India can compromise if Pakistan does too.

Musharraf is also just trying. So effort is something that'll be a welcome sign, here. Lets keep Baghlihar and Kashmir separate, but its hard for a Pakistani to do so, but just for the sake of keeping the whole process alive, we must, at least for now. We started off with just one issue, now we have three.

Ray

Asim,

Actually, the ministers of the last govt were more competent.

This govt has some prized chumps and they all speak at cross purposes. In fact, one of them could be the star attraction in Ringaling Brothers' Five Top Circus!

I don't think there is any difference between Manmohan and Sonia Gandhi.

Baglidhar and Kashmir should not be separated. It should be taken as one package and it is time to decide one way or the other.

57 years is too long a time that has already been wasted.

Get the bus from Muzzafarabad to Srinagar on the move. Let them meet their relatives.
Move the Indian proposal of Five demarcated areas where the kahmiris on either side can meet on specific days without all the hassles of passports or adhoc permits.

Forget the poltical aspect of the Kashmir issue. Get the human aspect moving.

keshto patel

Above has holes a la swiss cheese.
Lets find out why the swiss cheese has holes.
When Swiss cheese ferments, a bacterial action generates gas. As the gas is liberated, it bubbles through the cheese leaving holes. Cheese-makers call them "eyes."

Having identified the cause of the holes in the swiss cheese lets proceeds to identify the cause of kashmir imbroglio.

The kashmir problems are deeply imbedded in islam, a gruesome nature, product of which are muslims, who think they are second to none, they hate to be equated to hindus, the biggest name calling for any pakistani is to call him hindu. the partition happened because muslims did not want to breath the same oxygen with kafars.

Immediately after partition when the imblical cord was to be cut, the child (pakistan) stabbed the mother (india) and snatched azad kashmir, now tell me anyone was it indian fault ?

And ever since we have seen various dangerous devlopments culminating in nuclear radiation (testing). While india had a technological demonstration in 74, there came a islamic mentality n statement of bhuto to match indians with **hum kisi se kam nahi** mentality by saying we will eat grass for 1000 years but we shall have our own (read nukes).

Now having nukes, pakistan has started to blackmail india saying any incursion of indian troops would be matched by pakistan who would not hesitate to use nukes on india (munir akram has uttered this at UNO).

Read our defense analysts and our brigadiers (retired) who write about pakistani war machinery - its islamic war against hindu state.

ISI has a goal to slow poison indians - a new strategy after 1000 cut bleeding policy has not bore any fruits.http://dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp...xt&counter_img

Aslam baig has said numerous times kashmir is not the only problem, once it is solved we shall ask for junagadh.

To say that kashmir problems would be solved after the well being (economic) of both the citizens of india n pakistan is to imply that oil and water can be mixed - a flawed unsceitific statment looking at the properties of both (oil n water).

India pakistan status quo (on rivalary) is perpetual.

Where there is bubble there is air.
Where there is a muslim, there is murder n mayhem.
90 percent of the global blood sheds revolve around one factor - muslims.

Ray

Let us say I am a retired Brigadier of the Indian Army and an Infantry man who is also in the business of writing articles of military nature in miliary professional magazines and has spent theree quarter of his service life in Jammu and Kashmir including being in the Kargil war apart from the other wars conducted. May I also be shameless to mention that I have been given a medal for conducting an operation in the combat zone in Kargil before the last Kargil War in which too I participated?

With due regards to your views, I don't equate the Kashmrir Moslem psyche with other Moslem psyche.

Do visit the Hindu Festival in Kashmir known as the Kheer Bhavani festival. Do count the number of Kashmniri Moslems out there praying side by side with the Kashmiri pandits in the same form as the Hindus.

Amarnath is protected by Kashmiri gujjars, who are Moslem.

Sufism is a blend of Hindu mysticism with Islam and this is what the Kashmiris practice. Listen to the lyrics of Habba Khatoon. If one udnerstood it, it would bring tears to the eyes of even the stone hearted.

Do read 'The Vale of Kashmir' by Lawrence and 'Travails' by Moorecroft.

If you are talking about Pakistanis or defence articles of Pakistani military, maybe I would not contest.

As far economic well being not being a panancea, please look at Nagaland or Mizoram. They were raging insurgencies when I was commissioned. Go there today. Even a cat out there mews most contended. The two insurgent leaders have come to India, met the PM and have gone to Nagaland during Christmas. What was the message they gave - guns will not work. Imagine that! They wasted all their life and realised it so late.

Friend, I have seen it all. War counter insurgencies, flood and earthquake relief, et al.

That is why I am all for the govt's attitude of more interaction between the peoples of India and Pakistan. It may still not solve the problem. At least it will ease the irrational hatred. Today is 2005 and not 1945 or 46 or 47.

Let bygones be bygones and let's look to the future with hope.

As Alexander Pope wrote:

Hope springs eternal in the human breast:
Man never is, but always to be blest.
The soul, uneasy and confined from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

Ray

Also, one from Wordsworth:

W. Wordsworth

"My heart leaps up when I behold"

MY heart leaps up when I behold
A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my life began,
So is it now I am a man,
So be it when I shall grow old
Or let me die!
The child is father of the man:
And I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety

Asim Aquil

Tum apni zabaan se chaatay jao dewaar
Dar(door) kabhi toh nazar aa hi jayega