AMAN KI ASHA OR SHARM EL-SHEIKH? WHO'S PROMPTING TOI? *** Jai Maharaj posts
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Aman ki asha or Sharm el-sheikh? Who's prompting TOI?
TOI-Jang bhai, bhai
B.Raman
Jan. 1, 2010
There is a Tamil saying: "chozhiyan kudumi summa aadathu."
Roughly paraphrased, it means: "If one finds a Brahmin's tuft moving
up and down, one should not presume it must be due to the breeze.
There could be a hidden reason for it. One should look deeper."
I was reminded of this saying on New Year's Day as I noticed that the
Times of India has started an Indians-Pakistanis bhai bhai ( Indians
and Pakistanis Are Brothers) campaign under the theme "Aman Ki Asha"
(The Desire For Peace) in association with the Jang group of
Pakistan.
The desire for peace one can understand.
The desire for closer people-to-people contacts one can equally
understand, but the sudden love of the Times of India for the Jang
group one cannot.
If the TOI had joined hands with the Dawn group of Karachi, that
would have made some sense. No other media group of Pakistan enjoys
as much respect among the people of Pakistan and in the international
community as the Dawn group does.
But, no other media group of Pakistan has been as much controversial
and as money-minded as the Jang group has been over the years.
And no other media group of Pakistan has been more opportunistic in
its editorial policies than the Jang group.
It is alleged in Pakistan: Look where the money is. One will find
Jang there.
The sudden love of the TOI for Pakistan and the Jang group is as
mysterious as the sudden love of L.K.Advani for Mohammad Ali Jinnah
some years ago and as the sudden admiration of Jaswant Singh for
Jinnah last year.
Nobody can question the ardent wish of the TOI leadership for peace
with Pakistan.
We all want peace with Pakistan.
We all like the people of Pakistan -- whether they are Punjabis,
Sindhis, Balochs, Seraikis or Pashtuns.
As I had pointed out in an article on India's relations with Pakistan
and China sometime ago, the civil societies of India and Pakistan
have greater positive vibrations for each other than the civil
societies of India and China.
And yet there has never been genuine peace between India and
Pakistan.
What is the reason?
Not Kashmir.
Not Balochistan.
Not the Lashksar-e-Toiba and the myriad terrorist organizations to
which the State and civil society of Pakistan have given birth.
Barring China, no other country in the world thinks and talks well of
Pakistan and its people.
No other country in the world triggers more negative vibrations in
the hearts and minds of people than Pakistan.
There are various reasons for it.
Because of the distorted interpretations of Islam in Pakistan ever
since it was born in 1947. One does not come across such distorted
interpretations anywhere else in the Ummah.
Because of the cruelty and barbarity which have come to be associated
with Islam in Pakistan. One does not come across such cruelty and
barbarity anywhere else in the Ummah.
Because of the perfidious nature of the Pakistani statecraft.
Because of so many other reasons.
Why all the jihadi terrorists of the world flock to Pakistan?
Not merely because of its sanctuaries.
Not merely because of the sponsorship of the ISI.
It is also because irrational individuals with a distorted mindset
find themselves more comfortable in Pakistan than anywhere else in
the Ummah.
One must call a spade a spade.
One must face the truth.
To point out all this does not mean one wishes ill of Pakistan and
wants it to perish.
Quite the contrary.
The real well-wishers of Pakistan and its people are those who have
the honesty and courage to draw attention to the negative features of
Pakistan and call on the Pakistani society to rid themselves of these
features.
We all want good relations with Pakistan and its people.
The TOI-Jang Bhai Bhai is not the way of doing it.
It has to be done through honest debate promoted and moderated by
people, who will not be suspected of having any ulterior interest in
their sudden-found leave for Aman between the two countries. (1-1-10)
(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat,
Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For
Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seven...@gmail.com )
http://ramanstrategicanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/01/toi-jang-bhaibhai.html
Not at the nation's cost
Rajiv Dogra
The Pioneer
Monday, January 11, 2010
It is nobody's case that there should be friction in India-Pakistan
relations. But let us not be taken for fools. Let us not walk into an
even bigger disaster than Sharm el-Sheikh. Our history is littered
with bilateral agreements which were honoured by Pakistan only to the
extent it suited them
The year gone by has proved conclusively that as a nation we catch a
cold if anyone so much as sneezes elsewhere. We are hardly an export-
dependent economy like China. Yet we spent most of last year
agonising over the economic disasters that lay ahead because the US
was in a financial meltdown. All this while China was reinforcing its
newly dominant position as US's equal on the world stage. And
throughout the year it resisted with resolute firmness the US demand
that it revalues its currency. We, on the other hand, found ourselves
fully in agreement with the American proposals at the G-20 meetings,
including those that involve an international oversight over the
domestic financial institutions.
It is not just the US that instills a sense of foreboding in our
governing psyche. Pakistan does so routinely, and in multiple forms.
Look at the way Ajmal Amir Kasab, the lone terrorist caught alive in
the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, mocked a nation of 1.2 billion from the
court room, hogging unnecessarily the front pages of newspapers and
the 24X7 television screens at will. Then, as if in celebration of
the turn of the year, three convicted Pakistani terrorists walked
away whimsically to their freedom after sharing a leisurely lunch at
a restaurant with a police officer.
Yet we spent most of last year shaking our collective fists at
Pakistan and threatening that never again would we tolerate another
attack.
It is, of course, another matter that Pakistan has long since got
tired of such resolves. Of late, it has begun to ignore these
fulminations as mere threats; just empty words in air. As a matter of
fact its crowning achievement last year was to diplomatically deflect
India's accusing finger away from it. Sharm el-Sheikh would long be
remembered as a self-goal by India, when it turned that accusing
finger towards itself. With that reference in the joint text to
Balochistan we agreed to become a co-accused with Pakistan in that
deadly game of terror.
Meanwhile, 26/11 continues to bewilder us. David Coleman Headley may
spill unpalatable beans and it might emerge that serving Pakistani
officers were involved in the planning and execution of the 26/11
massacre. But even then, and regardless of all our resolves of not
initiating the dialogue with Pakistan till the perpetrators of 26/11
have been brought to justice, we will find some way of making an
adjustment. Just as we have done so many times in the past.
That is why Pakistan does not take our threats seriously. Nor does it
buckle under rhetorical posturing of the type during Operation
Parakram.
It knows that we lack the spine and the national resolve. It also
knows that we are amenable to pressure from other, greater sources.
Pakistan is expectantly hoping that this time, under the garb of its
engagement in Afghanistan, pressure will mount to such an extent that
India may be pushed into making a concession on Kashmir.
Such things are possible only in India. Otherwise, is there any other
example in the world where a country ignores repeated acts of terror
against it and hope that forgiveness will prevent the perpetrators
from striking again?
As a matter of fact most other countries will pursue and destroy the
terrorists regardless of the costs, just as the large Nato coalition
is doing in Afghanistan, or as Russia and China have done in their
respective trouble spots. Recently, China was successful in getting
the Uighur terrorists repatriated to it from Pakistan, providing a
stark contrast to the stone walling our requests receive.
It is possible that we are being goaded into taking this path on the
advice of the big brother. If that is so, it would only be natural
because the manoeuvering for the next presidential term would start
in a year. A disaster in the AfPak region would not be good news for
Mr Barack Obama's new campaign. On the other hand, if India appeases
and pleases Pakistan the chances are that Pakistan may deliver just
enough for Mr Obama to withdraw with some honour from Afghanistan.
It may or may not play out that way in Afghanistan eventually, but in
the meanwhile India might have been cajoled into offering the
sacrifice. That this may be so is also aided by the fact that the US
may be misreading Pakistan, just as its intelligence agents are
misreading the local people. In a recent report the deputy chief of
US intelligence in Afghanistan maintained that US intelligence
officials were "ignorant of local economics and landowners, hazy
about who the power workers are and how they might be influenced ... and
disengaged from people in the best position to find answers."
But such misguidance is not all. An even greater surprise awaited us
on the morning of the New Year. Many would have rubbed their bleary
eyes in disbelief that a thing such as the one staring them in the
face was actually happening.
Who doesn't want peace? All right-thinking people do. But can peace
be achieved under a sword of terror? It is only the na�ve who think
that the gentility of appeasement can overwhelm the roar of 26/11-
type attacks. But even the na�ve had wept for the dead of Mumbai.
They are the ones who had come out to affirm that never again would
we let ourselves be lulled by false promises of Pakistan.
Yet on January 1, The Times of India teamed up with the Jang of
Pakistan to usher in what they jointly call, �Aman ki Asha'. If
�Aman' was truly the intent then the paper had missed the irony in
the name and the record of its Pakistani partner.
It is said that in so far as India is concerned the daily effort of
the Jang is to live up to its name.
Moreover, is it the right time? After all, the threat of terror has
not receded. The Interior Minister of Pakistan continues unhindered
with his bellicose statements. Moreover, would any commitment made by
the Zardari Government be honoured by its successor?
The history of India-Pakistan relations is littered with bilateral
agreements which were honoured by Pakistan only to the extent it
suited them. What has since changed for us to trust an establishment
which has refused so far to return the massive Rupee loan it had
taken immediately after the partition?
Indeed the fundamental premise of the �Aman ki Asha' exercise is
suspect. It maintains that a poll was conducted in six Indian cities
and with respondents in eight Pakistani cities and 36 villages. In
this exercise 66 per cent of those polled in India and 72 per cent in
Pakistan said they desire peaceful relations. If this is so then this
desire must be a closely held secret.
Look at the evidence coming in from elsewhere. A paranoid America has
selected Pakistan for racial profiling, even though the terrorist in
the recent airline incident was a Nigerian. British Prime Minister
Gordon Brown misses no opportunity to assert that 2/3 of all
terrorist attacks in the UK originate in Pakistan. Closer home in
Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai blames Pakistan bluntly for his
country's misfortunes.
A recent poll conducted in Afghanistan by International Republican
Institute revealed that as many as 72 per cent of Afghans view
Pakistan unfavourably. Amazingly, even the Taliban don't fare as
badly. As against 72 per cent in case of Pakistan, 67 per cent
Afghans viewed the Taliban negatively. And far more revealingly only
5 per cent of the Afghans polled wanted good relations with Pakistan!
Contrast this with the figure of 66 per cent allegedly concerning
Indians!
It is no one's case that there should be friction and bickering in
bilateral relations. But let us not be taken for fools. Let us not
walk into an even bigger disaster than Sharm el-Sheikh.
Even a Nobel Peace Prize would not be worth it.
- The writer is a former Ambassador.
http://www.dailypioneer.com/228336/Not-at-the-nation's-cost.html
End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.