Incidentally, I didn’t say that Amit Varma was wrong, only that his argument was fallacious. There may be a good case for dealing with Musharraf, but it cannot be “We must deal with him because in the slim chance that we succeed, the payoff will be really good.” Any decision to deal with him must look at what realistic chances of success are.
Amit says that there is no harm in trying. That’s silly. Of course there is. The potential harm is that we will be suckered into making concessions once again, without getting anything in return. He also says that this time its different because Pakistan has agreed to abandon the primacy of Kashmir. Huh? He has never said anything like that. It’s just wishful thinking on the part of the “Shower so much love on the Pakistanis that they get overwhelmed with emotion and agree to become our friends” crowd.
Seriously, why do we persist in thinking that all those people-to-people contacts, “confidence building measures”, cultural exchanges and such other junk will do a lot of good? Not that we shouldn’t do it, but my question is how much good such things they will do. In the first place, Pakistan is a dictatorship and the its government reflects the views of its military, not its people. (and, to be fair, even the Indian government reflects its citizens views only imperfectly). Is it our plan that once the Pakistani people see the light, they will rise up in revolt, overthrow their government and install a pro-India government? No? Then what exactly is our plan?
Secondly, isn’t it possible that we understand each other perfectly well and yet rationally consider each other antagonists? Confidence building measures do just that – they build confidence. They create an atmosphere where negotiations can be held. They do not substitute for hard-headed negotiations. Pakistan is not a child to be distracted by shiny objects so that it will forget Kashmir. Let’s treat it like an adult. The kind of spectacle our media and Government makes of us (very well described by Gaurav) is silly. They haven’t learnt yet. Yesterday I was watching a programme on NDTV where Rajdeep Sardesai was making a determined attempt to make it seem as if Pakistan was no longer sponsoring terrorism and the attack on the tourist centre was caused by renegade groups – so much so that when one of the experts referred to recent seizures of counterfeit currency from the Pakistani Embassy and sarcastically asked if the renegades were situated in the embassy too, Rajdeep simply cut him off.
A realistic analysis of the situation would recognise that Musharraf comes from Pakistan’s military tradition. He might be looking for a legacy for himself, but it is highly unlikely that securing peace with India is really the legacy he is looking for if the price he has to pay is losing Kashmir.
From his point of view, gaining Kashmir is a concrete legacy. “Peace” with India is a rather nebulous legacy. It’s not like he can brandish a peace treaty. I mean, he can, but unless the treaty decides Kashmir one way or the other, his people are going to ask him “How is this different from the Simla agreement?” – not much of a legacy to live on. If it does decide Kashmir and anything less than the whole of Kashmir goes to Pakistan, it will be considered a legacy of failure.
So honestly, I am pessimistic about this whole “peace through concessions and being cloyingly nice” thing. The only thing we can achieve is an imperfect peace achieved by being diplomatically and economically tough on Pakistan, keeping up the pressure on terrorists in Kashmir, and making Kashmiris happy via economic growth and regular elections.
You’re building a straw man, Ravi, I haven’t taken most of the positions you imply I took. Allowing Mush to watch a cricket match in Delhi does not imply “showering love” or “making concessions”. In fact, I agree with everything Gaurav said, and I think you guys are the ones making too much of a fuss over it. Let him come, and let’s not make such a big deal over it. But telling not to come achieves nothing, and is pointlessly macho posturing that will inevitably be reciprocated in kind.
Also, “being diplomatically and economically tough on Pakistan, keeping up the pressure on terrorists in Kashmir, and making Kashmiris happy via economic growth and regular elections,” as you recommend, are all perfectly compatible with engaging with him at every opportunity we get. (Although I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “economically tough”. Sanctions? Are you kidding?)
As for the “primacy of Kashmir” issue, that is precisely what the composite dialogues announced last year were all about. The starting of the bus route from S to M is one concrete indication of the intent of that; Musharraf would never have agreed to it in Agra, because he wanted Kashmir to be resolved first, and that piece of rhetoric has thankfully been toned down.
I’ve never said, as you seem to be implying, that Mush coming to Delhi is a panacae. All I’m saying is that it holds more possibility of progress than asking him not to come.
Also, you misrepresent my position by summarising my argument as “We must deal with him because in the slim chance that we succeed, the payoff will be really good.†My position actually is: “We should deal with him because there is more chance of progress there than in not dealing with him, however slim that may be, and there is nothing to lose.â€
The Issue of Musharraf watching a Cricket Match
===============================
As Amit says, letting him watch is better than saying no. Reasoning for this being, letting him watch lets us play to the gallery of international opinion. If we make a big deal and say no, it will get more press than America’s visa denial to Modi and questions will have to be answered for the cause of a totally trivial matter.
The Issue of dealing with Musharraf on Indo-Pak negotiations on Kashmir
===============================================
Ravi – I think very few people will disagree with your last para summary of how to deal with Musharraf on Kashmir. But this cricket match thingie is no place to do all that.
“Rajdeep is saying this.. Amit is saying that… Dont you all understand – we need to be tough” – is all fine. Not here, though.
And Amit, if you are saying that this cricket match watching will help us on Kashmir negotiations (you havent explicitly said this but you seem to be implying), that is probably not going to happen.
You say –
“All I’m saying is that it holds more possibility of progress than asking him not to come. ”
I say – that is being too optimistic, but then it is still better than asking him not to come.
When I read, the “Dictators not welcome” series of posts, I remember George Fernandes and his “China is number one threat” statement.
I am tempted to say, “George, you are right. But don’t say it!”
.. and there is nothing to lose.
Really? Even if all the Indian editors agree with Musharraf over a breakfast meeting that Kashmir has to be handed over to Pakistan?
And Ravi clearly sums it up.. ” The potential harm is that we will be suckered into making concessions once again, without getting anything in return.”
And Ravi clearly sums it up.. †The potential harm is that we will be suckered into making concessions once again, without getting anything in return.â€
Actually, it is not clear for me!
Ravi – Are you saying we should get something in return for letting him watch the match? (I hope not!)
Or are you saying this will leeeeeeeeead to us being fooled into giving more concessions without getting anything in return??? (If yes, HOW!?)
Or something else???
What do you want the Govet to do after BCCI went public with the invitation story? – Not to invite might have sounded rude. So yeah the invitation was extended. What else do you expect from Rajdeep Sardesai who wants to make people believe every other week that there is a “shift of the millenium” happening?
Would these instances have any impact whatsoever on the core positions of either nations- I think not. So making it an issue seems to be playing into the hands of TOI and NDTV.
Eswaran,
Even if all the Indian editors agree with Musharraf over a breakfast meeting that Kashmir has to be handed over to Pakistan?
Building straw man again. Where did I recommend that we should fall over ourselves like Agra? Don’t read your biases into what I am saying.
For all kinds of reasons that don’t seem to have been resolved, I’m being unable to post the comment below into Ravi’s previous post. It is an answer to comments made there, so please read those if you wish. As we’re on the same topic, I’m taking the liberty of posting it here.
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.
Swami,
And Amit, if you are saying that this cricket match watching will help us on Kashmir negotiations (you havent explicitly said this but you seem to be implying), that is probably not going to happen.
In fact, I have explicitly said otherwise, here. I expect zero progress on Kashmir, but the possibility of progress in other areas, and enough has happened over the last years – such as the S to M bus – to indicate that’s no pipe-dream. And however miniscule that possibility if he comes, it is zero if he doesn’t.
Incidentally, I take back the line about being “economically tough” I understand that economic sanctions aren’t feasible unless we can persuade both USA and China to impose it, which I realise is impossible. I don’t remember what I was thinking when I wrote that.
Cool down a bit guys. Going back and forth on all these comments and several posts(& comments there) on this topic, my brain cells are about to explode. Reminds me a quote frm Oscar Wilde – “Whenever people agree with me, I always think I must be wrong”
So everybody; irrespective of who is on which side, please say cheez :).
This is in no way to thrash or even discredit any of the passionate discussion going around. Just that, I don’t have much to contribute to it (not right now atleast) except saying offhand that :
Let’s get him here, gift him a khadi kurta or shawl, and watch over our shoulders on the mountains up there. In the end I believe his visit is just a symbolic thingie to please the man on the streets on both sides(Too bad he is not coming in time for the closing stages for the Daandi march). As far as “Ind-Pak talks”(has to be the most overrated political phrase of our times) are concerned, well let’s just say, I am becoming more of a cynic by the day. Why ? Read this excerpt from the bus service :
The bridge, freshly painted in striking white, was appropriately rechristened ‘Aman Setu’ by the Indians for the ceremony, but there was an interesting story going around why it was painted white — no, not because white symbolises peace.
It turns out that the Indian army(ofcourse some Pak press would report it otherwise), which did most of the work to get the decrepit bridge into shape, had painted it in the colours of the Indian flag. But the Pakistanis one night painted it all green. A compromise was then reached and the bridge was painted white.
Now should we all laugh or cry on this ? (Ans: We shd blog abt it)
With a will so strong on both sides, nothing is ever going to happen directly via the politicos. The only hope -by a long shot – I see is when we all die, maybe one fine day our (grand)grandkids will see a world wherein Ind/Pak will be somewhere close to US/Canada; more due to people’s initiatives than politicians. So let there be healthy exchange of baby Noor’s and Jagjit Singhs-Ghulam Alis. And one fine day, when enough people(including head of states) of both sides would have seen enough of each other’s homes, cricket stadiums and beauty products, when they would have realised that Karachi is as filthy and crowded as Bombay and Chandigarh is as fashionable as Lahore, when frustrated by years of hearing the term Ind-Pak talks some thousands of ordinary people will gather on both sides of border and just break that iron grill which stands at Wagah and exchange hugs, bollywood movies and Chicken-Multani recipes. Like people do all the time when it gets on their nerves. And I am really hopeful about it. And for that to happen I should leave with a thought for many others who believe on the same lines(sorry, no translation) :
ranjishen khatm kar, dushmani chorH de
khidkiyan apne dil ki khuli chorH de
usko rehna hai sooraj tau usse keh do
kuch diyon ke liye raushni chorH de
saare gham maula mujhe chorH de
mere bachoN ke lab pe haNsi chorH de
~~Malikzaada Javed.
Peace !
Amit,
Reading through your posts and arguments again, I’ve isolated what I think is the difference between our positions.
You contend that while inviting him to watch cricket is not essential to the peace process, it does not harm India in any way. You base this on your assertion that India cannot afford any sort of legitimacy to Musharraf.
Ashish Handwadikar points out it was his trip to Agra that first brought him out of the international doghouse. It was Vajpayee shaking hands with him in Islamabad that allowed the Bush administration to shower him with greater largesse. It was the support of the Bush administration that allowed him to thumb his nose at the MMA and break the deal he made with them over his uniform. That keeps him as president and army chief until 2007. For your assertion to stand, you need to prove this wrong and support your own contention with facts.
I maintain that given India’s ability to shape the way Musharraf is perceived both international and to his domestic crowd, it must be used wisely. In this case, as you agree, having him in the stands is unnecessary for the peace process to move forward. That means India does not benefit from this — the result is either neutral or harmful for India.
My opinion is that it is harmful to India, because while India has the ability to strengthen his legitimacy, it will be hard pressed to weaken it, should the need arise. Emboldening him will not make him more amenable to compromise, quite the opposite.
Musharraf’s policy — and Pakistan’s in general — has been to bleed India. He inflicted misery on us. Countless number of Indians lost — and continue to lose — lives as a result of this policy, innocent people and security forces alike.
If you want to let him get away with murder, literally, fine, no problem.
If you want to call him over to negotiate “peace”, well, that’s fine too.
But don’t fete him for chrissakes, and don’t treat him like he’s your long-lost brother from yadon ki baarat.
Which is what precisely our tear-jerking, syrupy-love-oozing mediots (short-form for media-idiots) seem to be doing.
Amit,
Building straw man again. Where did I recommend that we should fall over ourselves like Agra? Don’t read your biases into what I am saying.
Okay, that was sarcastic and was out of place there.
In addition to what Nitin has said, we should also consider that there does not exist a middle ground (as Gaurav recommends) in welcoming Musharraf. Perhaps if Indian media behaves sensibly and does not repeat the Agra spectacle, your point that inviting him is harmless might hold. But it’s not going to happen. We can see it in the euphoric way the Indian media is covering the bus journey and the realistic way in which the Pakistani and other international media is covering this event. This undercurrent of euphoria will exist in the coverage of Musharraf’s visit with numerous stories about how we are all the same and wondering what went wrong.
Suhail,
A fond hope for a grand reunion of India and Pakistan sometime in the future should not motivate our strategies. But alas, a lot of people support improving people-to-people contacts quoting this reason. Get real, guys. For starters, believe that Pakistan is another country and they hate us when we say this – like we hate it when Pakistanis sincerely believe that India is about to break up into tiny pieces.
Nitin,
Ashish Handwadikar points out it was his trip to Agra that first brought him out of the international doghouse. It was Vajpayee shaking hands with him in Islamabad that allowed the Bush administration to shower him with greater largesse. It was the support of the Bush administration that allowed him to thumb his nose at the MMA and break the deal he made with them over his uniform. That keeps him as president and army chief until 2007. For your assertion to stand, you need to prove this wrong and support your own contention with facts.
Um, no. My assertion is not about the past but about the present. We may have been in a position to afford him legitimacy once upon a time, but we aren’t now. The US is the sole external arbiter of his legitimacy, and US involvement is precisely the reason that things are different now than from the Agra days. It’s a changed paradigm now, and I deny what you call “India’s ability to shape the way Musharraf is perceived both international[ly] and to his domestic crowd”. Taking US presence, their influence on Pakistan and their interest in South Asian peace into account, we need to act pragmitacally towards whatever will serve our interests best.
In this case, as you agree, having him in the stands is unnecessary for the peace process to move forward. That means India does not benefit from this — the result is either neutral or harmful for India.
Non-sequiteur. Your two statements make as much sense together as these two: “Going to a gym is unneccessary for us to be healthy. That means we do not benefit from it — going to the gym is either neutral or harmful for us.”
Having him in the stands might be unneccessary, but it may help. As I said before, it holds more possibility of progress than not having him there.
And for those still reading their biases into my position, I repeat that I’m still against fawning over him or singing hosannas to him. But a dignified, stately welcome should be accorded to him, as it would to any head of state. No more, no less.
Suhail,
Cool down a bit guys.
We are cool. I’m glad at what a civil discussion this has been, and most of us arguing here are good friends with, and admirers of, each other. Ravi one of the best minds I’ve encountered in the blogosphere and Nitin’s writing on foreign policy is a lesson to me. On this one issue, I disagree with them, and any discussion can only be constructive.
I’m still against fawning over him or singing hosannas to him. But a dignified, stately welcome should be accorded to him, as it would to any head of state. No more, no less.
Aah! 🙂 I certainly agree with you and I don’t imply that you mean otherwise. Yet, would you agree that there is a chance that this can happen, No? And wouldn’t that harm India’s interests? If it did, that would mean there is a possible downside to Musharraf’s visit, contrary to your earlier statement right?
Now it can be argued that the potential downside is small (I don’t think so) or can be minimized (maybe), but we still need to note that this visit is not neutral or positive for India, but can be harmful too.
Amit,
Sorry, if I gave the impression that I am imagining you guys having verbal fists out there. I just meant that some of the points-counterpoints looked more like splitting hairs taking this discussion nowhere. I know you guys love Ethiopian Cowwah a lot ;o
Eswaran, buddy, you got me totally wrong. I guess I am more practical than you would think(let my shayaris not mislead you). For starters, I never hoped for a reunion(read my comment again). I hoped we get closer to US/Canada like scenario. Both are independent sovereign states, yet for all practicial purposes (visa, trade, DL and other international policies) they are pretty much like brothers in arms.
Secondly, to take your point further; even if one were to hope(against hope) about a reunion, you cannot totally fault them for it; because didn’t East/West Germany loved to hate each other as much as we do? Things and people change with times, which changes histories in a way none of us can fathom. Then all that years of diplomacy and logic and legacy of international stands, takes a backseat, so there is nothing wrong in a little bit of wishful thinking. Hence I say that depending on degree of merger one hopes for, it is certainly essential that our policies and public opinions in some measure reflect that. So please don’t add the word “alas” when you speak about p2p contacts.
Thirdly (just incase if you haven’t met any Pakistanis) I must tell you from personal experience that many Pakistanis never really believe any of the India-breaking-into-pieces theory. Infact on being asked about their thoughts to it, I have got reactions varying from plain disbelief to shock. The crap theory is nothing but views peddled by some incompetent lazy journalists on the greener-flag side, who don’t have any better to write. Pakistanis are as thinking and intelligent than we(or our media) would like to portray them. And I am including the pajama-wearing-Pathan in Gulf, the well-heeled techies in US and restaurateurs-cabbies everywhere.(Ok, never been to Pak yet). Believe me. I know it, because I’ve once been in your shoes, but a bit of travelling has opened up my mind a lot. I would like to ask one question to all those who are vehemently against this stance. Why should we – those born after 1947- live with the past (mis)adventures of our leaders? Isn’t it time-up to atleast start thinking on charting out a new course. That is all the more reason I believe the p2p exchanges(wow that’s another phrase of the year – I hope not overrated) should be more frequent. What the political pen couldn’t write for years, the bus might just roll it in. Give it a chance.
Suhail you are either too naive or too malicious when you say “I must tell you from personal experience that many Pakistanis never really believe any of the India-breaking-into-pieces theory. ”
“Bleeding India into pieces” has been the favourite strategy of all Pakistani regimes since the Ayub Khan regime that lost the ’71 war. It has been stated so openly by Pakistani generals and media men. You got reations like”varying from plain disbelief to shock”, what did you expect, Pakis to gleefully scream it on your face?
If you are sincerely looking for some proof that this is not a “crap theory” or “views peddled by some incompetent lazy journalists … who don’t have any better to write. ” then you can read the views of somebody like Ayaz Amir, who a more objective journalist that most Indians.
In continuation of earlier comment, it is possible that some Pakistanis do not know about this but it is unlikely atleast for somebody who reads Pakistani English newspapers (though I have heard that the Urdu newspapers are even more blatantly in favour of Jehad against India.
If Pakistanis are singing the Aman tune today it is more because Pakistan in deep deep shit, with another partition almost in offing in Baluchistan and also because India as a nation is much stronger… but watch out it is only a tactical retreat
Eswaran,
Good point. Yes, sadly, fawning might happen, but I don’t see how it can harm the Indian state, it might just embarrass a few Indian people, like you and me. But unlike Agra, I don’t think it can harm us from a foreign policy perspective. And I don’t think Mush will try for such a PR exercise, he needs to please the Americans most of all now, and they want him to talk the peace talk.
Corrector of Maladies,
naive..? I can’t possibly say “I am not”, without coming across as narcissist. So I’ll leave that for you to decide &
malicious..? My God ! You do realise how strong that word is, don’t you ?
Anyways to clarify; these reactions(except for cabbies’) weren’t some light banter at the airport. These are people who are more than just an acquaintance and who agree to disagree with me on many issues ways – still being good friends. I agree, there might be some truth in your line:
“..it is possible that some Pakistanis do not know about this…”
Maybe the people I know are just the ones belonging to this category. Yes, I don’t claim that I have met people across the spectrum, and I am no expert in foreign policy matters(Indian or Pak)
But what makes you believe that policies followed by regimes (and seconded by major lang dailies) -do we all love TOI here or worship Sonia?- automatically also represents the choices of millions of citizens of that nation. For that matter, even in Indian democracy, one’s opinions might belong to the majority group, yet be ignored because of some strange bedfellows forming a coalition up there. I’d certainly think Pakistanis(& citizens of any nation for that matter) are as divided and opinionated on issues. Ofcourse let’s state our stand; but all I am asking for is some room for disagreements.
“Shades of grey wherever I go, The more I find out the less that I know ” ~Billy Joel
Will watch out for Baluchistan and tactical retreat. Nice point that. But I agree with Amit that even if it’s in their interests to sing the Aman tune, we should milk it to the hilt, coz in some ways I do see it as in our interests as well. Win-win anyone ?
—
On second (mischievous)thoughts, if foreign offices on either side, ever happen to read these threads, by God, they’ll be confused as Hell !!! 😉
malicious..? My God ! You do realise how strong that word is, don’t you ?
I realise therefore I gave you a benefit of doubt, coming to your arguments about people, press and government, it hardly matters to me what the people of Pakistan think about. Maybe that cute child who got her heart transplant from India will love India. What matters is that the Pakistani ideology and establishment was and still is keen to see India disintegrate and if the silent majority does not like the idea but still remains silent, then they are as dangerous (ok i will make concession for that cute child and all the kids of Pakistan).
The dosti crap is ok as long as we do not make any concessions. Time is running out for Pakistan and Aman dhun can remove the straws it can still hang on to. But then Musharaff is too smart to not know this and Nutwar Nehruvian Singh like all Nehruvians is too dumb, which is why we should remain alert against Mushy’s antics
Ok, I think I will wind down.
..if the silent majority does not like the idea but still remains silent, then they are as dangerous..
Agreed. But silence won’t go away overnight and that’s what p2p will hopefully do; encourage the silent majority to speak more often. Did I mention saying ‘(great)grandkids somewhere’? 🙂 Even if it achieves zilch, it’s still better than foreign ministers vigorously shaking their hands for the cameras.
The dosti crap is ok as long as we do not make any concessions…
Almost my earlier point of “….and watch over our shoulders on the mountains up there..”
That’s all. Now let’s go back and live with that last and starting disagreement of actually getting Mush here or not.