[Reader-list] AMAN KI AASHA

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Malik jee and all


My response:

a) With regard to your mail, I believe that people can have views. What I do
believe is that views should be based on objectivity and not subjectivity as
much as possible. There will be emotions attached to a thing, and those
emotions do make the support strong, but such attachment can be detrimental
too.

b) With regard to the questions I asked, I would say that it is quite ironic
that all those who wish to really talk about 'Aman ki Asha', either with the
view of trashing it or with the view of encouraging it, are not coming
forward to completely state their points. However, I feel that I should do
so, irrespective of the others doing it or not.

1) As an Indian citizen (a reality I have to accept) I believe that certain
realities must be taken into account when we say why we should talk or not
talk to Pakistan.

The reasons which make us talk to Pakistan are that it is a neighbor (and
one can't ignore a neighbor, specially where there is turmoil, even if the
authorities there are encouraging it). Secondly, the entire Pakistan can't
be considered as a single entity, for there are groups, institutions and
sections of the public there which want peace with India and don't support
the actions of the terrorists. And not talking jeopardizes their hopes.
Thirdly, Pakistan, being a small neighbor, can't come forward to talks to
seem like a beggar, and India can be magnanimous in coming forward. Fourth,
talks with Pakistan can ensure that they deliver on their results on
terrorism. Fifth, most importantly, all problems can be solved between the
two nations only on the basis of either war or peace, and since war is not
an option (both nations have nuclear weapons), compromise and arriving at a
solution through talks is the only way out.

The reasons which force us away from talks are that firstly, it could be a
classic case of talking to a neighbor who is simply not interested in
arriving at a solution. Pakistan, or Pakistani policy is dominated by the
discourse given by the army there, and since it is anti-Indian, irrespective
of the wishes of peace on either sides of the border, Pakistan army would
ensure that nothing will be done against terror groups, and also, no
solution would be arrived at on any of the outstanding eight issues between
India and Pakistan. On the contrary, the Pakistan army, which I believe, has
the policy of compulsive hostility towards India (which can be seen again
and again through many events in the past and present), would either be
encouraging the terrorist organizations to conduct further blasts in India,
or at the least, would be doing nothing about them. So there is no use of
talks even if they are held. And if there is a hope that moral pressure may
force Pakistan to change, it is like a dream to hide from reality. Moreover,
such attacks ensure that India is never able to over-power Pakistan to get
its way. (meaning the Indian state)

My view is a mixture of the two. I clearly believe that while ordinary
Pakistanis may want peace with India, the army and the ISI rule over
Pakistan, and unless their mentality changes, there is no hope of anything
changing. The talks at best may only be a show of magnanimity on the part of
India, but they are hardly going to yield anything. Even the peace process
which led to so many confidence-building measures actually introduced things
which were there even after the Partition, and the blood-shed accompanying
it. If these are the CBM's and have been given so much importance, one can
understand the level of mistrust between the two states and people on both
sides to an extent. In that case, a better ploy may to be increase
people-to-people contacts to let Pakistanis and Indians who hate each other
see reason and pressurize their respective governments to change their
policies, rather than holding talks with governments managing to carrying
out useless propaganda on either side of the border.

I believe that India talking with Pakistan (hereby meaning the composite
dialogue, meant to solve the 8 outstanding issues between the two nations)
has no practical purpose simply because the Pakistan army has no interest in
getting any issue solved, be it terror or Kashmir or water. If one issue is
solved, another will come up. And to assume that if not today, things can
improve tomorrow, without any institutional change in Pakistan, is like
expecting a miracle, which I am sorry, is not going to happen, at least not
in my lifetime. Hence, the only possible way out is for the public to take
over the thing and stop terrorism. It's only public pressure which can force
the Pakistan army to shut down terror camps, not talks by India or pressure
applied by anyone. Neither is any nation going to fight the battle for
India. If anyone can, it's the people of Pakistan themselves. And that is
not going to happen anytime soon. So what's the use of talking? For photo
sessions?

2) When I say we should not talk, this issue does not arise. We may as well
think about the talks later. But we can think about CBM's, and I have
already a list in line as to what we can do about it:

a) Pakistani students can be invited to study in Indian universities. They
can be given scholarship and stipend money.

b) Train services can be instituted between Munnabao and Khokhrapar.

c) Trade can be further encouraged through policy making to allow more
transfer of goods between Pakistan and India.

d) More bus services can be thought of between the two nations. Why not have
them between the Punjab on either side, and also between say Rajasthan and
other place across the border?

e) Have more journalists, have more academicians, and other intellectuals
going around both countries to know each other's reality. Also, grants can
be given for inter-country research, say Indians researching in Pakistan or
vice versa.

f) Have more cultural programmes, and also discussions between the two
nations. These can be in schools, colleges and so on. There need not be any
brotherly bonding shown for this, a customary welcome may be enough. And
yet, the idea is not to abuse people, and it shouldn't be in any case.

Other CBM's can be thought of, and they should concentrate on improving
people-to-people contacts. The idea should be that rather than the
Jamaat-ud-Dawa, it's those seeking peace who should be in people's contact,
and vice versa for the RSS and Shiv Sena here.

3) Finally, the question comes. Whom to talk? Infact, this is one of the
pertinent questions with respect to Pakistan. I would say that talking to
Gilani and others is of no use, irrespective of how one looks at it. If one
looks from Gilani's own statements, he clearly says that Pakistan is not
able to guarantee its' own citizens that terror attacks can't happen. If
that is the case, then the Pakistani govt. has no capability, and hence
talking to it that terror should be controlled is futile. It's better to
talk to those who can control terror, which in Pakistan's case is the army
and the ISI. The Indian army should actually think about this.

We may discuss with Gilani, but we should focus on talking to Kayani and the
ISI chief, assuming we do want to talk.

The question then comes: What to do? Simple. Launch covert operations across
the border to kill terrorists (not civilians). The terrorists have the
agenda to kill the citizens of this nation, and so there are only two ways
to eliminate it. The first is to eliminate injustice perpetrated on the
Muslims, which will take substantial amount of time and effort. This should
be pursued straight away. But in the meanwhile, the second, and a quicker
one is to impose a cost on those indulging in such activities, so that they
stop doing it, and one way is to kill them. In any case, either the
Pakistani govt. is unable or unwilling to control their activities, and
since they don't take our or anybody's help, it's better that we undertake
such operations and do things accordingly. Care should be taken that
civilians are not killed.

Rakesh