The Great Turn-On

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Romair # 22

After Sheikh Rashid`s unashemed & oppurtunist alignment with the present military government - he may already be a history in politics of Rawalpindi.

He lost the recent bye-election in Rawalpindi.

Mentally, he is fit for the job of a town councillor only.

correction #22: ``showed a copy of a BJP minister``

should read,

``showed a copy to a BJP minister``

Sheikh Rasheed is one of the most colorful politicians in Pakistan. He is quite a shrewd guy, and definitely no cukoo. I think he understood very well, what he was saying, in India. And handled the issues quite well. I think his remark about the Agra agreement being cancelled during a change of clothes is accurate. A Pakistani newscaster actually showed a copy of a BJP minister (Shushma something) when she was being interviewed in Pakistan. She refused to take a look at it. The comment about Musharraf changing his clothes, to get a better picture, and the declaration being rejected, is quite catchy.

Also, the Kargil and Siachen comparison is true. Both are similar. And both are unnecessary. One never sees Siachen citicized in the Indian media, for some reason. Siachen has probably been more costly than Kargil, and has been going on for 17 years. I have yet to hear any Indian give any good reason for why India occupied it. Kargil itself was an attempt to get India dislodged from Siachen. Pakistan has not, luckily, made an issue out of Siachen, at the same levels as India has made out of Kargil. In fact the architect of Siachen, Gen. Chibber gets inivited to Pakistan. He is apparently now a dove, and comes on peace missions.

Shiekh Rasheed gets elected from Rawalpindi. He is unbeatable. He won two seats, as an independent, from there this time. He has a very Awami image. He got his degrees while in jail. He was famously caritcatured on TV, as a Sheeda Tulli. A guy who rings bells in a school (tulli) and then, through coincidence becomes a minister. Perhaps he can be considered a three piece suited version Laloo of Pakistani politics, i.e. a very shrewd man, who mingles easily with the awam.

He is extremely funny, even when he is not trying to be. Another one of his famous quotes was as a minister in NS cabinet: ``Amrika to kiya, Amrika ka baap bhi hamara kuch nahin kar sakta.`` I think he may have been the foreign minister at the time.

He is still a bachelor, and his name regularly comes in scandolous affairs with various ladies.

Interestingly, he gave up one of his seats from Rawalpindi, to get his nephew elected, in the re-election. The people rejected his nephew, and I believe voted for the Jamaat-i-Islami guy.

farzana

A good angle - mixing politics with pleasure

There is certainly a humour to this cocophony of India-Pakistan tussle - mature sober people behaving like little kids with toys. Small jealousies, petty acts of one-up-manship.

Everyone - curious, egoistic, all pumped up.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#14
[Mushy will not lose his job if Pak economy goes to the dogs. He will lose his job if he goes soft on Kashmir.]

Correction: Mushy will not lose his job if Pak economy goes to the dogs. He will lose his LIFE if he goes soft on Kashmir.

I dont understand why is India so nervous about Pakistani offer of treating Kashmiris. We will send Kashmiri Pandits students, Ladakhi children to Pakistan for scholarship. They are all Kashmiris.We will give help to their Ahmadis, Shites, Sikhs, Christians and Off course some die hard MQM activists. They are all Pakistanis. It is a noble idea.

FV is by far one of the most entertaining writers on CHOWK.

Sheeda may have said some offensive things in India. But he is good at that.

And for a change I might just agree with #8.....


Ras

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20031117&fname=Column+Anita+Pratap+%28F%29&sid=1
impressions

Bad Faith, Bad Taste

Pakistan`s response to India`s peace offer shows how badly it`s stuck in the old mould

ANITA PRATAP
So often Pakistan behaves as if it is India`s opposition party—criticising for the sake of criticising, rejecting for the sake of rejecting, objecting for the sake of objecting, needling for the sake of needling. Exactly as silly, immature, compulsorily confrontationist opposition parties do.

Much more than India, it was Pakistan that had been vociferously clamouring for talks. And when India produces a dozen ideas to strengthen bilateral and people-to-people ties, Pakistan`s response is so childish that it is utterly unbecoming of a sovereign nation. What is bizarre is that qualified and experienced diplomats have crafted their official response. Unfortunately, it would appear that long experience has merely transformed their officials into fossils, incapable of moving beyond the tried, tested and failed rhetoric, the puerile games of petty one-upmanship and downright bad faith that has characterised Indo-Pak relations all through the `60s, `70s, `80s and `90s.

But now we are into the 21st century. Those who don`t respond to the winds of change will be blown away into the dustbins of irrelevance. Nobody has the time or the patience to put up with antiquated ideological fixations and crusty behaviour patterns. Pakistan`s establishment must come to grips with this—9/11 ushered in a new era of international priorities and codes. Nobody supports terrorism. Everybody wants peace. Platitudes bore. Actions impress.

India offered medical service to Pakistani children not because Pakistani medical services are inferior but because of the groundswell of goodwill in both countries triggered by little Noor`s experience. It`s only the weak, the inferior or the paranoid who habitually attribute malafide motives to every action. Still, Pakistan is entitled to feel weak and paranoid vis-a-vis India. Just our size on the map is sufficient to make our neighbours feel understandably small and overwhelmed. If we are truly confident of ourselves, why should we feel small or less to accept Pakistan`s offer to treat Indian children in the Karachi heart institute? The best in Pakistani heartcare may not compare with the best in India, but the best there is better than the mediocre and inadequately equipped heart hospitals that dot the Indian landscape. So why shouldn`t a few Indian children benefit from Pakistan`s offer, even if it stems from a silly sense of one-upmanship. By accepting this offer, India is not only being large-hearted as an elder statesman, but also shoring up Pakistan`s self-esteem. As with human beings, nations with high self-esteem behave in a more responsible and mature fashion. So it is in our interest to boost Pakistan`s self-esteem.

Low self-esteem induces obsessive one-upmanship, which explains to some extent Pakistan`s immature response to India`s peace offer. To India`s suggestion about reviving sporting ties, the response, in a nutshell, is: ``Fine, but hey may we remind you, it is our prime minister`s idea!`` But more than anything else, Pakistan`s response shows how badly their establishment is stuck in the old mould, their perspectives warped by several chips on their shoulder. Scuttling India`s proposal for a direct bus service between Muzaffarabad and Srinagar on the grounds that it must go through UN checkposts reflects Pakistan`s insincerity to the Kashmiri cause—it`s not to better the lives of ordinary Kashmiris but to keep kicking Kashmir as a political football to score points with India. What Pakistan does not realise is that everybody—especially ordinary people—see through these shenanigans. Such misguided responses reflect Pakistani insincerity and not Indian intransigence as they hope.

It`s not a farce but a tragedy that the establishment fails to realise how much like dinosaurs they look in today`s changed world.But there is hope, only if they have the humility to take a cue from India. A few years ago, India`s external affairs ministry also resembled a Jurassic Park. But in what has been a swift but understated turnaround, Indian diplomats are moving with the times. Even Prime Minister Vajpayee is moving on by boldly turning his back on his own hawkish, war-mongering, anti-Pak Hindutva constituency. As he admitted candidly, ``By our recent measures, we have silenced the whispering campaign that the requirements of the forthcoming elections dictate a harsh Pakistan policy. The political leadership of this country is well aware that the constituency for peace is much larger than that which favours hostility.`` If such turnarounds can happen to the seemingly ``impervious-to-change`` Indian establishment, so can it across the border.

But the Pakistani officialdom`s street fighter mindset must change first. To offer free medical treatment to disabled Kashmiris, widows and women raped by Indian soldiers is not provocative. It`s downright cheap. If this is the response to a peace offer, then how can anyone take Pakistan seriously? This response is so utterly lacking in taste, so grossly misplaced in serious bilateral negotiations that if Musharraf had any sense he would fire those responsible for coming up with such ridiculous ideas that not merely are malafide, but more importantly, lower Pakistan`s dignity. Being obstructionist and deliberately stoking the embers of hostility is one thing. But being cheap and damaging your nation`s dignity is another matter. Pakistan`s foreign secretary Riaz Khokar says, ``We want to improve our relations with India, but this is going to be on the basis of dignity and honour.`` But honour and dignity are earned, not granted. If Pakistan wants to be treated with honour and dignity, it must behave with the honour and dignity expected of a sovereign nation and stop acting like a wannabe, foolish, reflexive opposition party.

---

(The author can be reached at post@anitapratap.com.)

re:#6 by khotasikka
I am not surprised that the military dictator of Paksitan prefers ``Kashmir talk`` over ``trade talk``. Dictators are not answerable to the public. So, Mushy is not bothered that poverty in Pakistan is actually increasing. By some deft manipulations, he may come up with statistics showing that this is acutally not true. Was it not Sadna who said in one of her posts that Mushy has never bothered to find out the statistics about the poverty level since he took over as the ruler? ``What you do not know will not hurt!`` seems to be the philosophy.

So, Pak will try to compete unsuccessfully economically in its own small sphere. Worse still for Pak is its efforts to compete militarily. Somebody needs to explain to me why Pak needs to compete militarily with India if it believes that nuclear deterrant is sufficient. By a ``theory of compellance`` (meaning: one side is literally compelled to compete with its adversary militarily even though it knows such a competitiion is not in its best interest), Pak has to compete. It is following the path that Soviet Union took many years ago. Only saving grace is: Uncle Sam still casts a benevolent eye on Pak. Pak must fear the day when USA discards it like a used condom.
Is there a solution to all this? You bet there is. Pak can make a policy change (just like it did for Taliban) and say that it is willing to shelve the Kashmir problem until relations between the 2 are on a firmer footing and basic trust is developed. Pak can start trading with India the way Taiwan trades with China and make use of the immense opportunities that a huge market in India offers. All this would have happened if Pak were ruled by politicians and not military dictator. Military dictators do not care about public opinion. Mushy will not lose his job if Pak economy goes to the dogs. He will lose his job if he goes soft on Kashmir.
Sridhar

It was humorous at times. What attracted my attention is:

[External Affairs minister, Yashwant Sinha, who has been finding flaws in every Pakistani statement, was at it again. He found Islamabad’s offer of a scholarship for 100 Kashmiri students offensive. “India has never said, for instance, only 20 children from Baluchistan or Sindh or NWFP will be given free medical treatment. All our measures are applicable to all Pakistanis.” This is sweet, but no one stopped India from putting those conditions. ]

This argument throws some light into the modernist jihadi mindset. Yes we discrimnate and care about Muslims and that too Kashmiris only but no one stops you from doing the same. That is pathetic Farzana.

re: this article
First Angana Chatterjee, now Farzana bibi. As they say in Hindi ``soney pe suhaga``.
There is nothing much that stands out in this article. The same old whine. Nothing that impresses you as unique or fresh.
India and Pak discord is as old as the age of these 2 nations. Ms Versey does not offer any solutions. She has only a lot of complaints. She has balanced her criticisms well to please both Paki and Indian interctors. For this, she needs to be complimented.
Sridhar

re:#1 by gujjubania
Hey kid.
Good post. Temper your hatred. Give lots of facts and statistics to prove your point. That is the way to go. We are here to interact not to hate or spill blood.
Sridhar

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts