Are the ** Indians afraid to encounter the mighty Pakistanis?**
The Pakistani Government has announced it is postponing a regional summit due to be held in Islamabad next month, amid recriminations with neighbouring India.
A Pakistani Foreign Ministry statement said that the seven-nation South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (Saarc) had been put off indefinitely because India had refused to confirm whether or not it would attend.
With the heated rhetoric at its present state, the event was a non-starter anyway. Its just a formal announcement. Thats all.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
With the heated rhetoric at its present state, the event was a non-starter anyway. Its just a formal announcement. Thats all.
[/QUOTE]
Faisal ji, I absolutely agree with you, however, I also think, that it was an awesome oppertunity for the Indian government to break some ice with the new government.
Afterall, how long the Indians are not going to talk to the Pakistani government, and not play cricket with us?
While I consider non-cricket as merely a side-product of the present situation, on the main issue, if I may give a personal opinion, I believe the present government in India is in no position to negotiate over any thorny issue. The stakes are too high for them. It will take another government, which has broad-support and a solid majority in the parliament to tackle such issues.
It doesn't mean to say that Pakistan has any high and mighty upper hand on these matters. Its just to say that atleast in Pakistan, someone can negotiate with Musharraf and expect him to be the final word in Pakistani policies, whatever they may be... with India, due to a diverse political set-up with power structure spreadout, its hard to strike a deal with anyone. For example, in Agra summit, which one part of Vajpayee's administration agreed to Musharraf's proposal, the other (more hardline) aspects of the govrnment put a stop to a deal. With such political realities, negotiations, become more a time-wastage exercise.
Though with new political set-up in Pakistan, things might become the same in Pakistan too, but it would seem, that for major foreign policy initiatives, Musharraf and the army may retain their domineering presence, which allows for credibility in negitations and continuinty in policies. That this is, inherently, a flawed scheme of things, is perhaps lost to most people.
What is so wrong with Pakistan and India have absolutely as minimal relations as possible? The countries cannot get along with each other, and they have demonstrated that many a times. Kashmir is irresolvable. Trade between the two is limited to largely smuggling and stuff. Pakistan should make it a crime to view Indian movies or play indian songs.
They already only have absolutely minimal relationship, so thats a given.
In an ideal world, they will sit together, and talk on how to resolve the decades old disputes, to get some kinda acceptable resolution. The reason why they will do it, is to get some semblance of normalcy in their relationship which will allow them to divert atleast some part of their woefully sacred resources from military (tit-for-tat) spending and use it for the betterment of their respective people.
As I was thought!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pakistani Tiger: *
As I was thought!
[/QUOTE]
pt how long will "moral support ' wil be given and at what cost?
what is the end point? how moral support without pakistan army
crossing loc and physically taking hold of the territory?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by rvikz: *
pt how long will "moral support ' wil be given and at what cost?
what is the end point? how moral support without pakistan army
crossing loc and physically taking hold of the territory?
[/QUOTE]
Although I know this question is not pointed at me, however, since I have a habbit of butting in, I have decided to take a shot at it...
Rvikz ji, IMHO, if the Indians want to really solve the Kashmir issue, the first thing they have to do is atleast ackowlege that Kashmir is a disputed territory, and not live in a dream world and pretend that everything is A-OK. It's also very important for the Indian's to come to an understanding, that the Kashmir issue cannot be resolved without the Kashmiris and Pakistanis. All the concerned three parties have to be involved. Once these basic hurdles are resolved, and some confidence building steps are taken from both sides, then we can move to a third base and talk about Kashmir. This also includes, that the Indian leaders have to stop calling for a fourth war.
As far as Pakistanis are concerned, we have already taken the iniative, by, (i)calling for a third neutral party to intervene and bring both parties to a settlement, (ii)our president visiting Agra, and agreed for a joint declaration (iii)our president forwarding his ahand of friendship at SAARC summit. The ball is really in India's court now. As far as the cross border infiltration is concerned, frankly speaking, the Americans with high tech technology cannot stop Mexicans from crossing over the border, than how can the Indian leaders expect the government of a developing country to halt people from crossing border. It's almost next to impossible.
…and what does Moral Support’ has to do with SAARC?
ZulfiOKC
Though, I don’t agree with your example of Mexicans crossing US Border in relation to Mujhs crossing LoC.
Rest of it, well said :k:
frankly, it is a matter of time before some one from one side or another uses the big bumb they have created. That will take care of any disputes that might exist. The Jhandha some groups on one side want to fly over Lal Qila, and the Akhand Bharat some want on the other side will get satisfied when the long winter descends on the Sohni Darthi. Till that time they can keep pretending that the other side doesn't exist.
Unsolved disputes should be treated as seperate issues from trade and other matters. In business there's no point in cutting off your nose to spite your face. Britain has a dispute with Spain over Gibraltar but they still continue to maintain relations in matters which are of mutual benefit.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ZulfiOKC: *
Although I know this question is not pointed at me, however, since I have a habbit of butting in, I have decided to take a shot at it...
Rvikz ji, IMHO, if the Indians want to really solve the Kashmir issue, the first thing they have to do is atleast ackowlege that Kashmir is a disputed territory, and not live in a dream world and pretend that everything is A-OK. It's also very important for the Indian's to come to an understanding, that the Kashmir issue cannot be resolved without the Kashmiris and Pakistanis. All the concerned three parties have to be involved. Once these basic hurdles are resolved, and some confidence building steps are taken from both sides, then we can move to a third base and talk about Kashmir. This also includes, that the Indian leaders have to stop calling for a fourth war.
As far as Pakistanis are concerned, we have already taken the iniative, by, (i)calling for a third neutral party to intervene and bring both parties to a settlement, (ii)our president visiting Agra, and agreed for a joint declaration (iii)our president forwarding his ahand of friendship at SAARC summit. The ball is really in India's court now. As far as the cross border infiltration is concerned, frankly speaking, the Americans with high tech technology cannot stop Mexicans from crossing over the border, than how can the Indian leaders expect the government of a developing country to halt people from crossing border. It's almost next to impossible.
[/QUOTE]
one that will not happen is india transferring territory to pakistan.
how pakistan will solve it militarily? since the terrotory is at the hands
of india how pakistan can use its military and nuclear forces to
get the problem resolved? i am not talking about who is right or wrong.
inflitration even if it continues another 100 years how it will end?
Praful Bidwai, writes from New Delh
PM should visit Pakistan: Break the ice now!
Mr L.K. Advani has lowered the BJP’s gutter-level Gujarat campaign even further by challenging Pakistan to a “fourth war”. On November 30, he said: **“We have fought thrice, let there be a fourth war. Of course, that would be the final war”. **
Mr Advani linked this to Gujarat’s asmita (pride), and lavished praise on Mr Narendra Modi for his “exemplary” handling of the anti-Muslim violence – India’s worst state-sponsored pogrom.
Who gave Mr Advani the authority to sacrifice millions of lives in a nuclear holocaust? The “final war”'s main casualties will be non-combatant civilians. He was speaking much like the Delhi BJP rabble-rouser Madanlal Khurana, who in May 1998 challenged Islamabad to war “at a place and time of its choosing”.
However, Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee has refused to temper down his deputy’s remarks. He has also linked his visiting to Islamabad for the proposed SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) summit to Pakistan “completely” ending its support to “cross-border” terrorism.
New Delhi had earlier made its participation conditional upon Pakistan granting India “Most Favoured Nation” (MFN) status under a World Trade Organisation agreement – i.e. putting India on a par with its other trading partners. Mr Vajpayee’s latest statement might altogether destroy the summit planned for January 11 to 13.
Mr Vajpayee is ill-advised to stipulate such conditions. The summit – and resumption of an India-Pakistan dialogue – is in India’s own interest. A lesson from cancelled past summits, including that in 1999, is that the annulment ill-serves regional cooperation. The progress, peace and prosperity of South Asia’s 1.3 billion people hinge upon cooperation.
India’s official position on the summit is inconsistent. It recently denied the summit dates were even communicated to it. In truth, the Foreign Ministers of all seven SAARC states met in New York three months ago and agreed to confirm the dates by September 23.
Six did so. India stalled and linked its participation to “progress on economic cooperation”, to be determined at the Committee on Economic Cooperation, meeting in Kathmandu in October. This reviewed how far SAARC has moved towards a South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) by the year-end. India believes Pakistan is dragging its feet on this.
Other SAARC members contest this view. The Kathmandu “consensus” was that “considerable work” needs to be done before the SAFTA framework is signed.
**Pakistan insists the MFN issue must be delinked from SAARC. The WTO agreement contains certain provisions, based on which a state can delay granting MFN status to another. Bangladesh, a “least developed country”, also wants more time.
By forcing the pace of trade liberalisation, India risks losing SAARC itself. For its part, Pakistan is reluctant to give India MFN because its trade and industry fear Indian goods will flood their market. **
Other SAARC states too have similar fears. India should slow down SAARC trade liberalisation, while negotiating fast-track deals with individual countries, e.g. Sri Lanka.
All this can be discussed. But for that, a summit must take place. No one should make SAARC a hostage to unilateral concerns or bilateral disputes.
India shouldn’t cancel the summit citing “terrorism”. **If this argument was valid post-December 13, why did Mr Vajpayee attend the Kathmandu summit this past January? Why did he go to Lahore in 1999 without a let-up in militant violence in Kashmir? **
India did not break off relations with Pakistan when militancy erupted in Kashmir in 1989. The two negotiated confidence-building measures over two years. Throughout the 1990s, there were talks. The Agra summit happened – without a change in the border situation. It’s only after 9/11 that India adopted a macho, US-style “tough” stance.
New Delhi now seems inclined to scupper the summit. Mr Vajpayee has further confirmed this by asking: “What’s the use of going to SAARC when [Pakistan] is not prepared to talk on any issue except Kashmir”. :rotfl: The summit is not about Kashmir. The Association’s charter forbids discussion of bilateral issues.
There is every reason why India should reopen dialogue with Pakistan, following the welcome dismantlement of the 10-month-long military build-up. Pakistan now has a new civilian government. Although all power doesn’t vest in it, it is not a hardline regime and excludes the fanatical Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA). Manipulative and undemocratic as he was, **Gen Musharraf did succeed in keeping them out. ** :biggthumb:
The new Prime Minister, Mir Zafrullah Khan Jamali, is supposedly a liberal. Pakistan’s recent history shows that even those who enter office as the army’s stooges (e.g. Junejo and Nawaz Sharif) can end up fighting it.
Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri has an even better image – on account of his distinguished lawyer-father, his education, and membership of the principled Tehriq-i-Istiqlal. He is associated with Track-II diplomacy and wants better relations with India.
His first statement in office emphasised improved relations as his “topmost priority”. Mani Shankar Aiyar, a former diplomat who has known Mr Kasuri from his college days in England, believes he will treat “our negotiators in an honest, straightforward way, without resorting to wile or guile”.
It is possible that Mr Jamali and Mr Kasuri won’t be allowed to succeed. But India must give them a chance, not prejudge them. Freezing diplomatic contacts has not helped India’s counter-terrorism, economic or political concerns. Indeed, it has caused suffering to ordinary people, strengthened communal forces in both countries, and intensified the entire region’s stagnation.
We must negotiate on all issues, including terrorism and Kashmir, after restoring people-to-people and diplomatic links. At the end of the day, Pakistan must be persuaded that it’s futile to try to bring India to the negotiating table through terrorism. This can only happen if the ground-situation in Kashmir improves.
India has nothing to gain by pursuing hegemonic plans, as distinct from a principled policy vis-à-vis its neighbours. Its security and prosperity lie in improving relations with them. Despite problems, that category includes Pakistan
I even don't know what SAARC is? Its agenda, procedures and the final outcome etc?
But I think a meeting should go on even some are absent. :)
SAARC: South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
It includes (in alphabetical order):
Bangladesh
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
It was conceived by former Bangladeshi President, Hussain M. Irshaad. It was meant as regional cooperation forum. With serious regional conflicts all over the place, this forum kinda loses on its effectiveness.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
It was meant as regional cooperation forum. With serious regional conflicts all over the place, this forum kinda loses on its effectiveness.
[/QUOTE]
According to Praful Bidwai,(on behalf of India says) Pakistan gonna talks about Kashmir at SAARC summit, which is untrue, as he stated one point charter of SAARC, *The Association's charter forbids discussion of bilateral issues. *
Bingo!
OK PT, Pakistan won and India is not coming! So does absence of one member in one of the meetings makes SAARC redundant and calls for postponment of meeting indefinitely. I feel Pak should rethink its decision.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by dhir: *
So does absence of one member in one of the meetings makes SAARC redundant and calls for postponment of meeting indefinitely. I feel Pak should rethink its decision.
[/QUOTE]
As I have said many times, the Indians are nothing but hypocrites. How many times was the Saarc summit cancelled before their meeting in Khatmandu. All because the Muslim burning Hindus did not want to sit around the same table as Pakistan :)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 2bornot2b: *
As I have said many times, the Indians are nothing but hypocrites. How many times was the Saarc summit cancelled before their meeting in Khatmandu. All because the Muslim burning Hindus did not want to sit around the same table as Pakistan :)
[/QUOTE]
what happend after vajpayee's bus trip we got kargil.
as long as pakistan army in control of foreign policy it is useless to talk.
you can convey you change of mind through secret diplomacy if there is
a desire for peace.