Nitin,

General Musharraf draws much of his domestic legitimacy from the
United States, and directly and indirectly from India.

I dispute the second part of that statement. And I never said anything
contrary to the first. It is simply not germane to this issue of his
coming here to watch a cricket match.

Who are we to offer him legitimacy? I don’t know, I don’t care. But
if we have that power, let’s use it to our advantage.

We don’t have that power.

I’m surprised at what you consider pipe-dreams: belief that good
boy Musharraf will bring peace is pragmatism, but belief that Pakistan
will become an institutional democracy is a pipe-dream.

You’re trying to caricature my position. I don’t believe either that
Mush is a “good boy”, or that he will neccessarily bring us peace. But
that we can move towards it by engaging with him at whatever level,
including at a cricket match. Asking him not to come, on the other
hand, doesn’t take Pakistan towards being an institutional democracy,
and doesn’t increase chances of him being removed from power. Calling
him here holds the possibility, however slight, of some good, and
can’t make things worse; asking him not to come can, at best, result
in a status quo.

Navin put it quite well, actually.

Interests of two countries do not converge in all areas and at all times.

Whoever said it does? You’re caricaturing my position again, or
talking to someone else. All I’m saying is that at this time, on this
issue, the interests do converge.

Opposition to his visit to watch cricket is not opposition to peace
or peace talks with Pakistan. [snip] Or are you arguing that inviting
Musharraf for the cricket match is absolutely essential for the ‘peace
process’ to move forward?

Caricature, caricature. I’m not saying it’s essential. I’m just saying
it doesn’t harm us. Let him come to watch cricket or let him come to
buy mangoes or to watch fashion shows, there is no harm in any of
those. The more we engage with him in a convivial atmosphere, the
better it is from a diplomatic standpoint.

Seven_times_six,

Can you imagine the US, after the 9-11 bombing, inviting Taliban’s
head over to visit a baseball match to negotiate things over?

Nice. So if you really believe that’s an apt analogy, and if you
believe, as I do, that the US were right to go into Afghanistan and go
after the Taliban, then you surely must believe that we should march
to Lahore and remove Musharraf from power. If not, then you don’t
believe in the analogy you yourself put forward, and are engaging in
sophistry. And if so, well, good luck to you.

What you end up doing is project a soft image, that is detrimental
when you are dealing with the elements that one is dealing with
now.

Why is allowing him to watch a cricket match projecting a soft image?
I don’t recommend for a moment that we reduce troops in Kashmir, or go
soft on terrorism, or compromise on that issue. We just get him to his
VIP box in Kotla and whisper repeatedly over wine: “free trade or Bush
will bite ya, free trade or Bush will bite ya, arf arf.” You get what
I mean? Not for a second do I recommend compassion, or giving him
Srinagar, or even a postcard of Srinagar. No, let’s get what we want
out of this, and calling him to Kotla makes far more sense than by
telling him not to come.

And Niket, you wanna live in the past, we’ll never move forward. Mush
has legitimacy, and India can’t do zilch about that now. So either we
talk to him and get what we want, or we moan for years to come while
acting macho, and wait for some other fellow to unseat him. I know
what I’m supporting, but freedom of expression to all of us, and more
power to you guys for your campaign.

the disagreement is whether it is in our interest at all or not.
Can you imagine the US, after the 9-11 bombing, inviting Taliban’s head
over to visit a baseball match to negotiate things over?

No!

You might be tempted to think that being gushy and lovey-dovey is pragmatic, and putting judgement over emotion — it is not. What you end up doing is project a soft image, that is detrimental when you are dealing with the elements that one is dealing with now.

Note that I’m not asking that one should not deal with Pakistan at all. In a sense, I’m generalizing Nitin’s concerns — he feels one shouldn’t deal with dictators who are removed from the peoples and have no hold over future policy. I’m saying that one shouldn’t deal with an image so soft that they treat any agreements with impunity (Or as was the case with Kargil, actually start a war even while the leaders were actually signing agreements)

What I think Amit meant was that while peace may not be completely possible considering Musharraf’s ways, even small courtesies like inviting him over to watch a cricket match might contribute that inch towards the process. Considering Pakistan has had only 2(?) democratically elected heads in its history,your thoughts on an institutional democracy in Pakistan, peace might be a more realistic goal – whether it happens with or without Musharraf,only time can tell.

Negotiating with the de facto regime in Pakistan to reduce tensions is a practical necessity. But that can well be done without having to invite him to watch cricket.

I think we all can agree that in politics(if not, other realms of life) , hypocrisy and smiling diplomacy are quintessential In the better interests of short term goals. If the idea is to not have Musharraf here, then why invite their cricket team at all? In fact, let’s go to the highest level and severe all bereaucratic contact with them? And what are you left with, a long wait for someone to come into power in Pakistan, who can assist peace? Now, that’s a pipe dream if any.

Inviting Musharraf is definitely not essential for the match or for peace, but their team is here,believe it or not. The series is being publicised as being played for peace(like everyother Indo-Pak series). Political mileage is there to be taken, so why not take it?

I suppose I tend towards Amit’s point of – as long as it does not harm our interests, why not?

Contrary to what you suppose, General Musharraf draws much of his domestic legitimacy from the United States, and directly and indirectly from India. Both in official and public diplomacy, India does have significant influence over how Musharraf is perceived. That is not a delusion, but the way ‘politics’ works in Pakistan. Who are we to offer him legitimacy? I don’t know, I don’t care. But if we have that power, let’s use it to our advantage.

I’m surprised at what you consider pipe-dreams: belief that good boy Musharraf will bring peace is pragmatism, but belief that Pakistan will become an institutional democracy is a pipe-dream.

Interests of two countries do not converge in all areas and at all times. Depending on Washington on a matter of vital national security is not pragmatic. Things can change very quickly, not least because Indian governments do not bend over backwards to make Washington happy.

Opposition to his visit to watch cricket is not opposition to peace or peace talks with Pakistan. Negotiating with the de facto regime in Pakistan to reduce tensions is a practical necessity. But that can well be done without having to invite him to watch cricket.

Or are you arguing that inviting Musharraf for the cricket match is absolutely essential for the ‘peace process’ to move forward?

If the US and India do not indulge the man, Musharraf is unlikely to last 10 years as president.

Well, the US indulging him has nothing whatsoever to do with him coming to see a cricket match in Delhi. And India indulging him has nothing to do with his remaining in power. That is completely out of our control.

Negotiating with Musharraf may be a necessity; affording him any more legitimacy is certainly not.

Well, who are we to afford him legitimacy or to deny it to him? Our position on that issue has no credibility if we negotiate with him anyway. His coming to the cricket match makes no difference to that. If we negotiate with him, we accept his legitimacy; if we do not, we don’t. And as of now, we’re talking to him and his regime. So what difference would his coming to the game make?

Besides, striking some kind of a grand bargain with one (mortal) man without the backing of any institutions is not pragmatism.

So are you recommending doing nothing at all? That line of reasoning would hold whether it was Musharraf or a democratically elected leader know to be true to his/her word. That’s just an excuse for doing nothing.

The US will act according to its own national interests, not India’s.

Right now, those interests converge: peace in South Asia. We wouldn’t be playing cricket with them if not for the US pushing us, and nor would there be that Srinagar-Muzzafarabad bus. It is clear what they want, and it is what we should want as well.

Pakistan’s internal reconciliation and the establishment of an institutional democracy are precursors to lasting peace with Pakistan.

Pipe dream, that. So are you recommending we refuse to talk to Pakistan until they have all that in place? And would you also say that we don’t talk to Gentle Il of North Korea till he wins an election? Oh, come on!

Talking to Musharraf’s regime to reduce tensions is a practical necessity. Entrenching his position is not only unnecessary but counterproductive.

His watching the game in Delhi does not entrench his position. It is not within our power to entrench or weaken his position within Pakistan. Let us not have delusions of grandeur about that.

If the US and India do not indulge the man, Musharraf is unlikely to last 10 years as president. And the US has little reason not to indulge Musharraf when even India is hugging and kissing the man.

Negotiating with Musharraf may be a necessity; affording him any more legitimacy is certainly not.

Besides, striking some kind of a grand bargain with one (mortal) man without the backing of any institutions is not pragmatism. As I commented on JK’s blog this morning, every generation of Indians, since independence has entertained notions of peace because of some deals. But Tashkent, Simla, Rajiv-Benazir and Lahore were all repudiated in some form by Pakistan. Nothing like a successor regime repudiating the deals struck by its predecessors…back to square one.

Elsewhere you mentioned that the US will provide some kind of a guarantee that will ensure Pakistan keeps its promise. Genuine as it may be, depending on this is not pragmatism. The US will act according to its own national interests, not India’s.

Pakistan’s internal reconciliation and the establishment of an institutional democracy are precursors to lasting peace with Pakistan. As long as Musharraf and his military regime are in power this is not going to happen. Talking to Musharraf’s regime to reduce tensions is a practical necessity. Entrenching his position is not only unnecessary but counterproductive.