[Reader-list] India Peace Group Required in Pakistan: Sethi

[Rahul Asthana]

Dear Yousuf,
The reason why you find my post simplistic is the same reason why Najam Sethi's article makes so much sense to you-you try to rationalize the acts of the Pakistani state and try to equate it with India.Anyway,please read and respond to the whole of my post instead of picking a few sentences from here and there.Maybe you will also understand why Najam Sethi deserves dictatorship.
Najam Sethi's version of events closely matches the desired narrative that the Pakistani state would want to propagate,both to Pakistani citizens and to the world.Lets go through them once again.
Pakistan had border disputes with both its neighbors.In both cases it chose to create and nurture violent so called non-state actors as part of its terrorism based foreign policy.Taliban and LET have not fallen from the sky.They are not grass root movements.They were result of a conscious and systematic act by the Pakistan govt.If you have read the articles posted by me you would know that LET doesn't have Kashmiris and it is active in other countries too besides India.The direct result of such a policy is that relationship sores and the Army is able to dominate the national narrative.
There was a ceasefire and talks were going on between Pakistan and India.Musharraf had given up power after intense pressure from inside and outside Pakistan.What do you think has been the result of the LET sponsored attacks? Pakistani army is not stupid.They know that India will not negotiate when faced by acts of terrorism.Even the country-less Palestinians refused to negotiate with the Isaraelis.There is no reason that India being the status quo power will negotiate in face of LET sponsored terrorism.
This suits the army just fine.That is the very reason they will never cooperate with India in the investigation of the attacks.Recently report has been leaked that they are claiming that India framed the evidence. They can again play the Pakistani nation for Kashmir and occupy the dominant position in the political discourse of Pakistan.
If the point Mr Sethi is making is that the non state actors in Pakistan are because of external factors,can he explain what the Taliban is doing in NWFP and FATA right now and why is the Pakistan army not taking it on?Why is the head of ISI making statements like the Taliban need their "freedom of expression"?
The point is  not that non-state actors have not been used by India,the point is that for Pak army its an existential issue.The creation of conflicts allows them to be at the top of the political food chain in Pakistan.If there had not been Kashmir,there would have been some other supposed raison d artre for LET.
He further writes
"A war between India
> and Pakistan would hurt India more than Pakistan simply
> because “ shining” India has more to lose than “
> failing” Pakistan,"
This is another disingenuous comment.Look at what Pakistan has come to.In the sixties it had a better growth rate than India, when India was still going through its socialistic experiment.The Pakistani army,however,has grown richer and richer.If Najam Sethi and the likes of him do not realize that the Pak Army and ISI are the root cause of the state Pakistan is in right now and continue to buy the bogey of India and Kashmir,then its fair to say that they deserves dictatorship.

Thank you
Rahul



--- On Sat, 1/31/09, Yousuf <ysaeed7 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Yousuf <ysaeed7 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] India Peace Group Required in Pakistan: Sethi
> To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>, "Kumkum Chadha" <kumkum at hindustantimes.com>, rahul_capri at yahoo.com
> Date: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 12:01 PM
> Dear Rahul
> To say that anybody "deserves dictatorship" is
> itself a problematic statement. You are again trying to
> understand very complex issues in simplistic manner. I think
> some of Najam Sethi's write-ups make a lot of sense. I
> am copying below another article from Mail Today which I
> read a month ago. I found it an extremely sharp-focused view
> on today's situation - reads like a good power-point
> presentation:
> 
>  
> A REGIONAL STRATEGY TO FIGHT TERROR 
> by Najam Sethi 
> 27 December 2008
> 
> THE bad news is that a private intelligence think tank in
> the US has forecast war between India and Pakistan. The good
> news is that this think tanks political risk assessments
> have proven wrong more 
> often than right in the past. Even better is the constant
> reassurance by the Indian prime minister, Dr. Manmohan
> Singh, that war is not an option for either nucleararmed
> country. Even so, Pakistans decision to remain on red alert
> is wise. 
> But there is no point in drumming up international voices
> like those of Interpol in support of Pakistans claim that
> India has not provided sufficient evidence linking Mumbai to
> Faridkot. The harsh fact is that the whole world — not
> without some reason — believes that Pakistan is the “
> epicenter of terrorism”. Therefore it would be better for
> the Pakistani government and military to do their best to
> track down and halt the terrorist networks responsible for
> regional mayhem. The alternative is international isolation
> and sanctions. That said, everyone must recognize the three
> main issues in the region, at the heart of which is the
> Pakistani states relentless quest for "national
> security". The first is Pakistan's refusal to
> accept the LoC as the border with India because of the
> simmering dispute over Kashmir. The second, which derives
> from the first, is Afghanistan's refusal to accept the
> Durand Line as the border with Pakistan. And the third,
> which
>  derives from the second, is the conflict between the
> US-led international community and Al-Qaeda- led Islamic
> radical resistance based in Afghanistan and Pakistan's
> tribal areas.
> 
> All three are inter- related and have spawned non- state
> actors to tilt the balance of power in the great game in the
> region. 
> PAKISTAN'S unresolved dispute with India over Kashmir
> has had nine disastrous consequences. 
> One, it has provoked war between the two states (as in 1965
> and 1971). Two, it has spawned non-state warring actors as
> state proxies in time of peace ( by Pakistan in Indian
> Punjab in the 1980s and Kashmir in the 1990s and by India in
> Balochistan in the 1970s and 2000s). Three, the bitterness
> over Kashmir has led to a proliferation of other disputes 
> over Siachin, Sir Creek, and now Baglair. Four, by virtue
> of being a Soviet ally through much of the cold war, India
> was encouraged to outflank Pakistan in Afghanistan, stop
> Kabul from settling the Durand Line with Islamabad and
> provoke Pashtun nationalism and separatism in the NWFP.
> Five, when an opportunity arose to expel the Soviets from 
> Afghanistan in the 1980s, Pakistan readily joined hands
> with the US to create non- state actors for the purpose of
> staking its own claim in the 1980s. Six, after the Soviets
> and Americans departed from Kabul, Pakistan and India
> continued to slug it out in Afghanistan via proxies —
> Pakistan through sections of the Pashtun Mujahidin and later
> the 
> Pashtun Taliban, and India via the Uzbek- Tajik Northern
> Alliance (NA). Seven, the scales in Afghanistan tilted in
> favour of Pakistan when the Taliban seized control of Kabul
> in 1997 and sent the NA packing to the north, and against
> Pakistan after the Taliban cobbled an alliance with Al-Qaeda
> and provoked America to react in 2001, emboldening India to
> consolidate its stake with the NA- dominated and US- backed
> Karzai regime. Eight, Pakistan was now compelled to turn a
> blind eye to Taliban safe havens in its tribal areas in the
> expectation that its old “assets” could be retained to
> capture Kabul and thwart India after the exit of the
> Americans from the region. Nine, this “ protection” to
> the 
> Taliban has outraged America which has openly breached
> Pakistans territorial sovereignty in order to put the
> Al-Qaeda-Taliban down and precipitated a wave of anti-
> American and anti- Indian religious nationalism in Pakistan.
> 
> 
> The most significant consequence of Pakistan's
> unresolved disputes with India is the rise of the Pakistani
> military, at the expense of the civilians, as the
> pre-eminent force in Pakistan's body politic based on
> the notion of a national security state. The military has
> created and sustained non- state religious actors both as a
> means of undermining the 
> mainstream political parties to ensure its predominant role
> in politics and as a tactical tool to keep India under
> pressure to resolve Kashmir. 
>  
> This implies that without a resolution of the various
> conflicts that bedevil India- Pakistan relations in Kashmir,
> Quetta and Kabul, the non- state actors that have assumed
> critical mass because of the intelligence agencies proxy
> wars in the region, cannot be tracked and shut down, either
> in Pakistan or India or Afghanistan. Conflict resolution
> would also be the starting point for redressing the civil-
> military imbalance within Pakistan that stops the militarist
> national security state from transiting to a democratic
> social security state. 
> 
> INDIA has had an aversion to multilateral diplomacy to
> resolve its bilateral disputes in the region. But
> bilateralism hasnt worked and disputes have become bleeding
> wounds. Yet, when there has been conflict, both countries
> have clutched at multilateralism to stop the downslide into
> nuclear war, as during Kargil in 1999, LoC in 2002 and now
> via the UNSCs directives to Pakistan to ban some non-state
> actors. Therefore, a regional conflict- resolution approach
> is the need of the hour to diffuse the Kashmir-Kabul-Quetta
> time bomb. This should include America, Afghanistan, India
> and Pakistan, along with their proxies like the Taliban and
> the Northern Alliance. A high- profile American regional
> envoy would facilitate the process, since both India and
> Pakistan are on the right side of Washington for the first
> time in history. India should start talking seriously to the
> Kashmiris in Srinagar and resolve Siachin and Sir Creek
> expeditiously. 
> 
> Pakistan must disband its non-state actors. America must
> fashion a medium-term exit strategy from Kabul that
> facilitates all ethnic stakeholders so that the Afghan
> Pashtuns look towards Kabul and the Pakistani Pashtuns
> towards Islamabad for their respective political salvation.
> A holistic regional approach to conflict resolution is the
> only route to ending the scourge of terrorism by non- state
> actors and ensuring the survival and growth of
> representative democracy in the region. A war between India
> and Pakistan would hurt India more than Pakistan simply
> because “ shining” India has more to lose than “
> failing” Pakistan, just as America has lost more than the
> Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan by its reckless recourse
> to war. 
> 
> The writer is the editor of The Friday Times 
> 
> 
> 
> --- On Sat, 1/31/09, Rahul Asthana
> <rahul_capri at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > From: Rahul Asthana <rahul_capri at yahoo.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Reader-list] India Peace Group Required
> in Pakistan: Sethi
> > To: "sarai list"
> <reader-list at sarai.net>, "Kumkum Chadha"
> <kumkum at hindustantimes.com>, ysaeed7 at yahoo.com
> > Date: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 10:34 AM
> > Najam Sethi writes...
> > 
> > "Indeed, the truth is that
> > > the whole
> > > business of armed non- state actors in Pakistan,
> and
> > the
> > > rise of
> > > Military Inc in Pakistan, who are together the
> bane of
> > > democratic
> > > Pakistan and India, is directly linked to the
> > unresolved
> > > Kashmir conflict."
> > This line of reasoning is increasingly becoming
> popular
> > with Indian liberals like Arundhati Roy who have an
> > obsession with blaming India even if it means
> sacrificing
> > logic and intellectual honesty.
> > In Pakistani context it is more interesting.The
> Pakistani
> > establishment (read Pakistani army and ISI)has been
> pedaling
> > layers upon layers of bullshit to whip up a frenzy
> against
> > India, and Pakistani liberals like Najam Sethi are
> eating it
> > up.
> > Please consider the following two points-
> > 1-This is from the article I posted earlier-
> >  "The fact remains that the LeT, created by the
> > Pakistani ISI in the 1980s, is not a Kashmiri group;
> it is
> > active not only in India, but in Chechnya, Sudan, and
> in
> > Britain, where Cruikshank resides. Moreover, there is
> hardly
> > a single Kashmiri in the LeT organization. Most of the
> LeT
> > members are Pakistanis from Punjab and the tribal
> areas, in
> > addition to a smattering of British Muslims. It is
> unlikely
> > that Cruikshank does not know these facts, yet he
> chose to
> > distort them, to make the point that Kashmir is what
> keeps
> > India and Pakistan at each other’s throats."
> > 
> > 2-If LET,or the so called bastions of Kashmiri
> independence
> > are because of the Kashmir issue being
> > unresolved,notwithstanding point #1, then what are the
> > Taliban? Why did Pakistan nurture and train the
> Talibans for
> > so many years? 
> > 
> > This is why I have to say that Pakistanis like Najam
> Sethi
> > deserve dictatorship.
> > 
> > Thank you
> > Rahul
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- On Sat, 1/31/09, Yousuf <ysaeed7 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > From: Yousuf <ysaeed7 at yahoo.com>
> > > Subject: [Reader-list] India Peace Group Required
> in
> > Pakistan: Sethi
> > > To: "sarai list"
> > <reader-list at sarai.net>, "Kumkum
> Chadha"
> > <kumkum at hindustantimes.com>
> > > Date: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 9:40 AM
> > > PAKISTAN - INDIA:
> > > 
> > > Mail Today, January 30, 2009
> > > 
> > > INDIA MUST SEND ACROSS A PEACE GROUP
> > > by Najam Sethi
> > > 
> > > A PEACE delegation comprising human and
> women's
> > rights
> > > activists, media peaceniks and party political
> > > representatives from Pakistan recently visited
> New
> > Delhi.
> > > They went with a threefold objective: to
> > "condole"
> > > the Mumbai attacks and express solidarity with
> Indians
> > in
> > > their hour of grief, to explain how and why
> Pakistan
> > too is
> > > a victim of the same sort of terrorism that is
> > threatening
> > > to afflict India, and to try and put the peace
> process
> > and
> > > people- to- people channel back on track.
> > > 
> > > In view of the adverse travel advisories put out
> by
> > both
> > > countries and
> > > the war paint put on by both media, the
> delegation
> > risked
> > > being
> > > branded "unpatriotic" in Pakistan. But
> the
> > two
> > > leaders of the delegation, Asma Jehangir,
> chairperson
> > of the
> > > Human Rights Commission
> > > of Pakistan, and Imtiaz Alam, Secretary- General
> of
> > the
> > > South Asia
> > > Free Media Association, are known as fearless
> > crusaders in
> > > the region
> > > for doggedly promoting the cause of peace between
> > India and
> > > Pakistan.
> > > Given the goodwill they personally enjoy in
> India,
> > they
> > > threw caution
> > > to the wind at home and embarked on their journey
> > across
> > > the border
> > > with great expectations.
> > > 
> > > In the event, however, even they were surprised
> by the
> > > consistently
> > > frosty, sometimes hostile, reception that they
> > received at
> > > private,
> > > official and media forums in Delhi. It seemed as
> if
> > all of
> > > India,
> > > public and private, had consciously united to
> send out
> > one
> > > harsh
> > > message to Pakistan: that India is deeply wounded
> and
> > will
> > > not take
> > > another such attack lying down. This is perfectly
> > > understandable.
> > > 
> > > THE terrorist attack was on the Taj Mahal Hotel,
> the
> > pride
> > > and symbol
> > > of resurgent modern India; it humiliated
> India's
> > "
> > > powerful" security
> > > establishment by exposing its gaping weaknesses;
> and
> > the
> > > terrorists
> > > targeted innocent civilians rather than any
> specific
> > > military or
> > > intelligence organ of the state or government,
> thereby
> > > signaling their
> > > intent to wage war on India, Indians, and indeed
> the
> > very
> > > idea of
> > > secular India.
> > > 
> > > Therefore credit must be given to the Indian
> > establishment
> > > for showing
> > > great restraint and maturity, unlike the reckless
> way
> > in
> > > which America
> > > reacted after 9/ 11.
> > > 
> > > The post- Mumbai composite view in India has
> three
> > salient
> > > elements.
> > > First, they say that elements of the Pakistani
> state
> > were
> > > allegedly
> > > complicit in the planning, organisation and
> > implementation
> > > of the
> > > attack, evidence of which is proffered in the
> recorded
> > > chatter of the
> > > terrorists with their Pakistani handlers which
> suggest
> > that
> > > this
> > > message was deliberately meant to be given. The
> > implication
> > > of this,
> > > as India's foreign minister has expressly
> stated,
> > is
> > > that non- state
> > > actors and state actors in Pakistan were jointly
> > > responsible. Second,
> > > they believe that the government of President
> Asif
> > Zardari
> > > is innocent
> > > but weak and Pakistan's military
> establishment is
> > > guilty and strong.
> > > The implication of this is that there is no point
> in
> > India
> > > talking to
> > > a weak civilian government or strong military
> > establishment
> > > — because
> > > both are part of the problem — about redressing
> > terrorism
> > > and
> > > advancing the peace agenda. Third, they insist
> that
> > > Pakistan should
> > > not mistake India's overt outrage and anger
> as
> > merely
> > > election-
> > > related histrionics and that it will be business
> as
> > usual
> > > after the
> > > elections are over in April. On the contrary,
> they
> > claim
> > > there is a
> > > consensus in India's state and society that
> India
> > must
> > > align with the
> > > international community and fashion a united
> strategic
> > > resolve to
> > > compel Pakistan's state and society to
> dismantle
> > its
> > > terrorist
> > > infrastructure on pain of international
> encirclement,
> > > blockade and
> > > sanctions.
> > > 
> > > Unfortunately, however, India and Indians seemed
> blind
> > to
> > > an equally
> > > harsh reality about their own state and
> themselves —
> > that
> > > terrorism is
> > > not just Pakistan's problem but increasingly
> > > India's too. This is not
> > > because the origins of such terrorism lie
> exclusively
> > in
> > > political
> > > distortions within Pakistan but also because
> India has
> > had
> > > a role in
> > > creating conditions conducive to its growth by
> > refusing to
> > > resolve the
> > > regional conflicts that spawn it. Indeed, the
> truth is
> > that
> > > the whole
> > > business of armed non- state actors in Pakistan,
> and
> > the
> > > rise of
> > > Military Inc in Pakistan, who are together the
> bane of
> > > democratic
> > > Pakistan and India, is directly linked to the
> > unresolved
> > > Kashmir conflict.
> > > 
> > > Equally, it is profoundly unrealistic for
> India's
> > > government to claim
> > > that because the Zardari government in Pakistan
> is
> > weak,
> > > there is no
> > > one to talk to in Pakistan about how to get the
> peace
> > > process back on
> > > track. New Delhi had five years of unfruitful
> dialogue
> > with
> > > a strong
> > > military- led government from 2003- 08 that was
> ready
> > to
> > > think
> > > outside- the- box and make unbelievable
> concessions,
> > > especially on
> > > Kashmir, but was constantly thwarted by the
> statusquo
> > and
> > > lumbering
> > > Indian bureaucracy.
> > > 
> > > INDIANS worry and warn about a second terrorist
> attack
> > on
> > > their soil.
> > > 
> > > But just as it is inevitable in one way or
> another in
> > the
> > > future, so
> > > too is India's likely response. "
> Surgical
> > > strikes" and " limited war"
> > > may be " honourable" self- satisfying
> > responses,
> > > but they are not
> > > realistic options between nuclear armed states.
> Nor
> > should
> > > India think
> > > of responding by manufacturing its own version of
> > state-
> > > non- state
> > > actors to foment trouble in Pakistan. It will
> only
> > hurtle
> > > the two
> > > peoples and states into confrontation, make
> > India's
> > > problem more
> > > intractable and hurt it disproportionately
> because it
> > has
> > > more
> > > economic and political sheen to lose than
> Pakistan.
> > > Equally, if all
> > > other options are on the table for India in
> alliance
> > with
> > > the
> > > international community, including punitive
> sanctions,
> > > blockades and
> > > Pakistan's total isolation, it should be
> clear
> > that
> > > such an occurrence
> > > will have disastrous consequences for
> Pakistan's
> > > tanking economy and
> > > its equally fragile national unity. Fortunately,
> the
> > view
> > > in
> > > responsible quarters in India is that even this
> > response,
> > > all options
> > > short of war, is undesirable because it will
> plunge
> > > Pakistan into
> > > headlong failure. The hawks, on the other hand,
> argue
> > that
> > > at least
> > > India will have ensured that Military Inc. will
> have
> > only
> > > the ruins of
> > > Pakistan to preside over if they continue to
> muddy the
> > > waters. Thus
> > > the debate continues.
> > > 
> > > A peace delegation from India needs to visit
> Pakistan
> > now,
> > > not to
> > > explain why India is angry — that message lies
> in
> > the
> > > domain of the
> > > Pakistani delegation that has just returned from
> Delhi
> > —
> > > but to
> > > understand why the cause of its established
> democratic
> > > state and civil
> > > society is the same as that of Pakistan's
> > fledgling
> > > counterparts.
> > > 
> > > The writer is the editor of The Friday Times
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >       
> > > _________________________________________
> > > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and
> the
> > city.
> > > Critiques & Collaborations
> > > To subscribe: send an email to
> > > reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in
> the
> > subject
> > > header.
> > > To unsubscribe:
> > >
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
> > > List archive:
> > >
> >
> &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>