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

[Yousuf]

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/>