Re: Secularism: Theory and Practice
Intentional or not, it is intereting to see how the issue is framed here: Because India fights Pakistan
Of course one must completely disregard history, even recent events, to come to this conclusion. The initiator of this thread put it more accurately: pakistan fight india because of religen or land or material things
Put into the correct frame of refrence, the topic is much more easily debated.
Does anyone remember grand schemes like Operation Gibraltar, or Operation Grand Slam? Maybe the Kargil conflict will bring back some memories.
The problem with conflict resolution is that there need to be two parties that want to resolve issues. To date, Pakistan and it’s military do not want resolution. Though history is littered with the skeletons of failed Pakistani military interventions and policy formulations, the leadership, again military, are unwilling to accept the staus of their policies. This is a major failure of the military mind.
Most people were of the opinion that in 1999 the Kashmir issue would have been resolved. India would have given Pakistan large portions of the Valley, the issue of Chinese occupied Kashmir (which was given by Pakistan) would not have been brought up, Gilgit and Baltistan would retain status quo (as part of Pakistan), and Pakistan would have been allowed a face saving victory as well as rights to say that the two nation theory had won out. The Indian public was ready to shed Kashmir. Sharif and Vajpayee would have gotten the Nobel prize and we would have been on our merry way. Obviously Musharraf had different plans.
There is of course one more thing to consider when one issues statements like:it’s India that clearly has no interest in peace
One wonders what all the jihadis will do when they don’t have Kashmir to fight over. Perhaps they will turn Pakistan into the utopia that was Afghanistan.