I would agree that India should not sign long term agreement with Pakistan on any vulnerable matters so long as Pakistan is under President Rule...
I am of the hope that, even the J&K problems could be amicably resolved once democrazy is reinstalled in Pakistan and the Government of elected people would have a totally different view of the entire situation.
Just like how the Dalit (reservation) is the vote bank for Indian political parties, Kashmir is the trump card for any Pakistan President to survive..
In India caste system to go and in Pakistan President system to go...
I wonder whether Pakistan will ever have democracy. Pakistan from very begining were anti India, if you watch their different TV channels they always want to compare with India,in any field.
One day the same president was telling they speak better english than Indian..what a standard...pity of them.
Pakistan could have a better place if they had kept good relationship with India.
I see no hope for them unless they come out of rigid anti india...anti hindu mind set.
RE:Pakistan
by Pen on Jun 19, 2007 02:03 PM Permalink
I fully agree with you.i know many pakis since i am in the arabian gulf. They will always compare everything theirs with India.Not realising that India is far more ahead in all walks of Life.I would surely like them to compare themselves regarding Indias Plural society, Democratic setup and equality for all religions.Atleast after comparing they will know how much low their country has stooped in evry walks of mankind.
RE:Pakistan
by prestonboy on Jun 19, 2007 02:35 PM Permalink
Friends,check out the below link to see what else pakis can compare themselves or think about us Indians
Mush is last hope for pakistan, if he steps then it would not be long before few parts of pakistan go into fundamentalists hand and it breaks into pieces... already it has lost control over NWFP, a democratic government would be very weak and these forces will declare independence.
There are many Pakistans in the Islamic state. Hamid Mir and the elite if ever there was a misnomer to describe Pakistan's pampered upper classes may be more comfortable with life in the West. Islam for the masses however is what constitutes the real Pakistan after that is why they chose to separate from Bharat to establish the Islamic state. Clearly, this comes with all the paraphernalia of intolerance, suicide bombings and the likes. There is not a single Islamic state that detracts from this pattern. Sceptism about democracy for the Muslim world has only lately dawned on Bush who cannot what Islam does not want. Pakistan has done well under Musharraf. Might it have done equally well under the so called democratic leaders? They would have had to have taken draconian measures against Pakistani extremists, and they would have been tarnished. The prestige of military regimes has managed to see Musharaff so far escape unblemished. Out of uniform he would not be so fortunate.
RE:Can Muslims Ever Subscribe to Democracy?
by Mohan Raj on Jun 19, 2007 02:37 PM Permalink
Very true . All countries with Muslims as a majority have shown us how pathetic they can be when it comes to democracy. They try to find solutions for everything in a 1500 year old book which allows no room for flexibility and they will never succeed solely due to this .
Panchkula Afternoon ,1.45pm.,Tuesday, 19th June ,2007 Hamid Mir's column lists the fate of the current Army's Strong Man Gen. Musharraf riding rough on the tender corns of Media and Civil-society those who make the agony of most Pakistani commoners oppressed by the power-drunk Authoritarians , who have melded their inborn feudal ethos with Col. Blimp's "Koi Hai" hauteur.This dream of Islamic Democracy as hoped by Qaid-e-Azam in the decolonisation process in last century has grown into the sturdy weed of Army -dictatorship and Feudal Oligarchy by the time the founder passed away early in 1951. Let us hope middle -classes rise and create a Islamic Society on principle of equity and democracy despite the resistance of Jehadis and feudal tin -despots -the military brass. D.Goel
"India can only resolve its disputes with Pakistan when there is a democratic gov..... mR. mIR, NO ONE EXCEPT THE "ALMIGHTY" can be trusted in Pakistan as this is the blood of Pakistan to see India bleed in one way or the other, as simple as it can be.
You are behaving as if you in person are a very peace loving person but I know for sure when it comes to Kashmir, you do spit venom because you are a Pakistani and that too without any reasoning. Please change your line of action first and then try to advise others, Mir Sahib. You support terrorism in Kashmir and name it JEHAD and when it hurts you, you call it the other way round.
Miyan, yeh fazihat kisi aur ko do to achcha. India knows whom to talk to and how to talk and I only wish some good sense prevails on you people. As they say - 'ALLAH REHAM KAR IN BANDOON PER KYONKI INKO KHUD PATA NAHEIN KI VOH KYA KAR RAHEY HAIN"
It is quite fashionable to write about Pakistan, in an anti-military vein. All that talk and hope for democracy ... That's what the Western World wants to read. That's what we Indians want to read. The truth is Pakistan was created by blackmailers who knew that Gandhi and Nehru wanted to avoid the so-called 'civil war' that Jinnah and company were threatening about, if Pakistan was not created. Any nation created by use of force in such a fashion, rather than a consensual social ethos, is bound to have its fundamental structure propped up by the military and the defense. That is the inherent insecurity of the nation, imbibed right since its inception. It is not that India does not have its own set of problems due to being a multi-religious, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic ethos. It is not that we don't face inter-state rivalries and fights for resources. But the difference between us and our neighbours lies in our tolerance for our differences, and our willingness to come to the negotiating table to sort out our internal differences. That is the true democratic ethos, which I think is missing there. That is the reason I don't think this is the last military dictator that we will see in our neighbouring country.
RE:Fashionable synthetic stuff
by ravi prakash on Jun 19, 2007 03:12 PM Permalink
Mr Hamid Mir and his ilk are maginalised.The visceral hatred of all things non-Islamic is the fuel for the continuation of the Military Rule. It is by the power of the gun that the Military is able to perform its balancing act. They seems to be better than the fractious politicians. At least for the US the Pakistan military is its only safeguard against Jehadi attacks on the West. They are not going for a regime change in Pakistan till they have a more 'friendly' general
RE:Fashionable synthetic stuff
by Vikas Khandekar on Jun 19, 2007 03:56 PM Permalink
Right. I wrote about the compelling internal reasons why Pakistan will continue to have military interference in their polity, while you have mentioned about the compelling external reasons for the same. The external factors may change over a period of time (remember the Cold War days, how things changed after the disintegration of the former USSR?), but how do you change the internal factors (which I referred to above)? How do you change the internal historical reasons for creation of Pakistan? It just can't happen ....
RE:Fashionable synthetic stuff
by ravi prakash on Jun 20, 2007 09:50 AM Permalink
There is no dispute about the internal fault lines that existed when the state of Pakistan was formed. M.A. Jinnah, as you know was a secularist to the core. He believed, in all fairness, that the Muslim majority homeland that he had envisioned, would be as open and liberal as India; its neighbour. He had certainly misread the psyche of the common Muslim. Although, the Indian Muslim is quite tolerant in India. The same is untrue in Muslim Pakistan. I believe also, that the Military in Pakistan will not abdicate willingly because of the monopoly over the coercive state power. The same could change if the civil society were to boycott all contact with its own Military. Such a state of mind is unthinkable for it would mean the total collapse of Pakistan itself. One of the factors for the Military rule is India. India has taken a benign attitude all the time. To the common people of Pakistan there is no difference between the two countries, for proof, is the very cordial people to people contact. India's Interstate trade with Pakistan is rising and as the Infrastucture improves in the subcontinent, it will cease to matter who rules in Pakistan. Yes, there seems to be no reason why Military Rule will end with the state's role being totally focussed on acquiring modern weapons and putting down internal insurgencies. This suits the US admirably.
India can't afford to take the backseat and watch the growing instability of its neighbor silently. An unstable pakistan, ruled by Taliban and Al Queda can be very dangerous for India. They may even possess nuclear weapons, which they will not hesitate to plant in one of India's most populated cities.
The problem with India is a weak coalition government, that can't take any decisive step. Both India and Pakistan are dancing to America's tunes! America still follows a dual policy in the subcontinent, stabilisation of the SAARC region is in their least interest.
The need of the hour is a leader, who can take decisive steps and tell the Yanks on their face to stop playing games. We have been playing to their tune for last 60 years now. It's high time as World's largest democracy India comes out of America's shadow and puts the Yanks on the right place!
RE:India's role in the SAARC region
by Vijay A on Jun 19, 2007 02:11 PM Permalink
Who do you think are Taliban and Al-Qaeda ? or for that matter LeT,JeM, Hizbul Mujahideen, SIMI.. etc? they are nothing but Pakistan Army. Pakistan Army is the biggest terrorist organization in the world and yes they have Nuclear weapons. So to think that after Pakistan Army is gone these terrorists will come to power is wrong.. in Pakistan they already are in power.
